Re: Number of low eccentricity distant planets

Wasn't it Gene Hatch who wrote:

>Sadly, my math seems to be rusting away, and I don't know If it was 
>ever good enough to figure this. My intuition, though, makes me think 
>that a planet with a highly eccentric orbit would be easier to detect 
>(using stellar doppler ****ft) than one with a circular orbit of similar 
>period. Am I full of crap?

My intuition suggests that the two opposing factors probably come close 
to cancelling out. Perhaps the orientation of the ellipse with respect 
to the line of sight from the Earth may be significant.

A planet with a very highly eccentric orbit reaches points that are 
nearly twice as far from the primary as a planet of the same period in a 
circular orbit, this causing nearly twice the displacement in the star's 
position. However, it's not the position of the star that is observed by 
monitoring the Doppler ****ft, but the rate of change of position. The 
large ****ft in the stars position occurs when the planet is far from the 
star and therefore moving more slowly.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure