Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia redesigned

Dublicated systems:
-Kepler-25=KOI-244
-Kepler-27=KOI-841
-Kepler-48=KOI-148
-KOI-775=Kepler-52

There is some planets I consider as unconfirmed:
KOI-1843 b (in my opinion, it's a candidates, nor a validated one nor a confirmed planet)
KOI-1442 c
KOI-69 c
KOI-1474 b (3.1% false positive probability, is it enough?)

Some planets I missed
-KOI-1054 b
-KOI-1537 b
-KOI-174 b
-KOI-1883 b
-KOI-341 b & c
-KOI-555 b & c
-KOI-638 b & c
-KOI-700 b, c d & e
-Kepler-32 d, e & f
If I understand this is a paper I have to read:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6548.pdf

Some news:
-KOI-1054 b -- http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2624.pdf

Quote :

KOI-1054 is a peculiar star in the sample with a very low metallicity ([Fe/H] = −0.9 dex). Despite the lack of a reliable ∆ν measurement our study confirms that this star is an evolved giant with logg = 2.47±0.01 dex, indicating that the potential companion with an orbital period of only 3.3 days is likely a false-positive.

But I cant find any reference for this ones:
-KOI-1973 b
-KOI-1979 b
-Kepler-26 d


Now I have 997 planets without the 8 from our solar system. But I have to put in the "unconfirmed ones" some Super-Wasp still unpublished planets and maybe some planets around cataclysmic variables...

Stalker wrote:

Dublicated systems:

Awesome! Thanks for that. I've removed the duplicate entries.

Stalker wrote:

There is some planets I consider as unconfirmed:

For KOI-1843 b, the minimum density of the candidate places it in the planetary range for its radius, based on survival arguments.
For KOI-1474, I reasoned that the TTVs and photoeccentric effect mentioned in the discovery paper require that the object be an orbiting companion. But they point out

Quote :

Although this FPP
is low, we do not consider it sufficiently low to validate the planet. In the analysis following in the remainder of the paper, we assume that KOI-1474.01 is a planet and refer to it as “planet,” but in fact it remains a candidate planet. We are conducting a radial-velocity follow-up campaign of this target to confirm this candidate by measuring its mass.

I have therefore changed it to unconfirmed.
I've removed Kepler-27d. Until I have reason to believe otherwise, I assume for now I just copied it from this paper and forgot to add a question-mark to the name (which would trigger the programme I use to not include the planet in any lists).

I'll get back to you on KOI-69c, KOI-1442c, KOI-1973b, and KOI-1979b as I get more references looked up.

Ho I edit my last message at the same time you where writing your message^^

For KOI-1843 b I have still problems. This planet isnt detected by radial velocity or TTV. IF this is a planet, the thing about minimum density is relevant, if it's a false positive (not ruled out) all the thing colapse.

I looked at the paper about all the KOI i "missed" and I dont know what to think...

As I said I have some doubts on the reality of some systems arround Cataclysmic variables. There is a paper talking about stability of some multiplanet systems. It say that HW Vir, HU Aqr and NSVS 1425682 are incredibly instable... The tree are binaries MV+sdB or MV+WD with two planet, one in a circular orbit and the second on a very excentric orbit with the double of the period of the first one.

But NY Vir and NN Ser are exactly int the same configuration! even other double circumbinary systems are in similar configuration. I dont know what to think about all this planets.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5247.pdf

Now I have 1011 exoplanets on my database.

Personally I removed alpha Centauri B b from confirmed exoplanets.

Stalker wrote:

Personally I removed alpha Centauri B b from confirmed exoplanets.

Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to judge… call it an inkling, hmm?

Strictly following EPE criteria the exoplanet count of mine is 990. Kappa Andromedae b has to be removed since it's a brown dwarf now and PH-1 b has to be merged with KIC 4862625 (or Kepler-64).
 
Though there are three, four or more 20-25 Mj objects in wide orbits which should really be regarded as planets following these criteria.

Quote :

Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to judge… call it an inkling, hmm?

As for me I expect it to transit.

Shellface wrote:

Stalker wrote:

Personally I removed alpha Centauri B b from confirmed exoplanets.

Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to judge… call it an inkling, hmm?

This:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4960

For me it's controversial since the begining

Stalker wrote:

But I can't find any reference for these ones: KOI-1973 b, KOI-1979 b, Kepler-26 d

Sirius_Alpha wrote:

I'll get back to you on KOI-1973b, KOI-1979b and Kepler-26 d as I get more references looked up.

Well, it has taken me a while but I have finished this. I was not able to find references for KOI-1973 and KOI-1979 and have removed them. Thank-you very much for pointing this out!
For the additional planets at Kepler-26, the NASA Exoplanet Archive lists two new planets (d, e) reported by Rowe et al. 2014.

That all said, I still have quite a few more planets than anyone I know, and I don't think I'm the only one who monitors this as obsessively as I do. I have 2,167 planets in 1,287 systems.

Another new design for Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia (which explains the lack of new entries from September 28 to date). Enjoy!

https://exoplanet.eu/home/