deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 997db65..f0d9046 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\section{Generating a new dataset}  At the present stage some inconsistencies were discovered in the reported timing uncertainties as listed in Table 1 in Potter et al. (2011). For example the timing uncertainty reported by \cite{Warren_1995} is 0.000023 days, while Potter et al. (2011) reports 0.00003 and 0.00004 days. Furthermore, after scrutinizing the literature we found that several timing measurements were omitted in Potter et al. (2011). We tested for the possibility that Potter et al. (2011) adopts timing uncertainties from the spread of data around a best-fit linear regression. However, that seems not the case: As a test, we used the five timing measurements from \cite{Beuermann1988} as listed in Table 1 in Potter et al. (2011). We fitted a linear straight line using CURVEFIT as implemented in IDL and found a scatter of 0.00004 to 0.00005 days depending on the metric used to measure scatter around the best-fit. The quoted uncertainties in Potter et al. (2011) are smaller by at least a factor of two. We conclude that Potter et al. (2011) must be in error when quoting timing uncertainties in their Table 1. Similar mistakes when quoting timing uncertainties apply to data listed in \cite{Ramsay1994}. Furthermore, after scrutinizing the literature for timing measurements of UZ For we found several timing measurements that were omitted in Potter et al. (2011). For example six eclipse timings were reported by \cite{BaileyCropper_1991} with a uniform uncertainty of 0.00006 days. However, Potter et al. (2011) only reports three of the six timings. A Furthermore, a  total of five new timings were reported by \cite{Ramsay1994} but only one were listed in Potter et al. (2011). In this research we make use of all timing measurements that have been obtained with reasonable accuracy. We have therefore recompiled all available timing measurements from the literature. We list them in Table \ref{NewTimingData}. The original HJD(UTC) time stamps from the literature were converted to the BJD(TDB) system using the on-line time utilities\footnote{http://astroutils.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/time/} \citep{Eastman_2010}. All new measurements obtained by \cite{Potter_2011} were taken directly from their Table 1. Some remarks are at place. By finding additional timing measurements (otherwise omitted in Potter et al. 2011) we decided to follow a different approach to estimate timing uncertainties. For measurements that were taken over a short time period one can determine a best-fit line and estimate the error given by the scatter. The underlying assumption is that no significant astrophysical signal is contained in the timing measurements over a few consecutive observing nights. The advantage is that for a given data set the same telescope/instrument were used as well as weather conditions were likely not to have changed much. Furthermore, the same technique to infer the time stamp were used.  In Table \ref{NewTimingData} we list the original uncertainty quoted uncertainties  as $\sigma_{lit}$. We also list the uncertainty obtained from the scatter of the data around a best-fit linear regression line. The corresponding reduced $chi^2$ for each fit is tabulated in Table \ref{NewTimingData}.  We have calculated three data  scatter metrics: metrics around the best-fit line:  a) the root-mean-square, b) the standard deviation and c) the standard deviation as given by \cite{Bevington2003Book} and defined as \begin{equation}  \sigma^2 = \frac{1}{N-2} \sum_{i=1}^{N}(y_{i} - a - bx_{i})^2  \label{BevEq6p15}  \end{equation}  \noindent  where $N$ is the number of data points, $a,b$ the two parameters for a linear line and $(x_{i}, y_{i})$ is a given timing measurement.  However, not measurement at a given epoch.  We have tested the dependence of scatter on the weight used and found no difference in the scatter metrics when applying a weight of one for  all measurements.  %Some text has been lost!  %Here add ideas: