Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS
The radial velocity solution for V335 Pegasi given in the published article contains errors, the largest of which is in the initial epoch T0 amounting to about 0.13 days. The original data for V335 Peg have been analyzed again. Most of the parameters of the published solution—except T0—require very small changes and Figure 3 remains applicable.
In the published article two orbital periods were considered for V335 Peg, the photometric period from the Hipparcos satellite, 0.810746 days, and a new suggested period, 0.810720 days, which was claimed to reduce a small discrepancy in the center-of-mass radial velocities over about 400 days of observations, in two seasons of 2001 and 2002. The matter of the best period remains open. There are no additional eclipse timing or spectral data to verify the suggestion that the Hipparcos photometric period is incorrect and needs revision, but the shorter period does result in slightly smaller fit errors; see, e.g., the errors per single observation 
i for both assumed periods in Table 3. This new table contains data which are intended to replace the relevant entries for the star V335 Peg in Table 2. We note that the orbital parameters of V335 Peg have already been corrected in the 9th Catalogue of Spectroscopic Binaries (Pourbaix et al. 2004).6
Table 3. Corrected Orbital Solution for V335 Pegasi
| Parameter | P = 0.810746 day | P = 0.810720 days | Units |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hipparcos | |||
| V0 | −15.85 ± 0.46 | −16.03 ± 0.45 | km s−1 |
| K1 | 45.52 ± 0.32 | 45.36 ± 0.33 | km s−1 |
| K2 | 169.58 ± 1.75 | 169.62 ± 1.69 | km s−1 |
| q | 0.268 ± 0.004 | 0.267 ± 0.004 | |
| t0 | 0.2870 ± 0.0015 | 0.2924 ± 0.0015 | |
| 1 |
2.01 | 1.92 | km s−1 |
| 2 |
12.84 | 12.71 | km s−1 |
Notes. The initial epoch t0 = T0 − 2, 452, 330 is expressed as the heliocentric Julian Date of the conjunction with the more massive star behind.
Download table as: ASCIITypeset image
We are grateful to Dr. Dimitri Pourbaix for pointing out to us that the orbital parameters given in Table 2 of the published article do not reproduce the listed radial velocities.