All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,clip]{0372fig1.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 1: Fractional fill D of the 280 BiSON window functions. Each was made from the random combination of shorter pieces taken from four $\approx$ 10-yr series; these were in turn constructed from coherent combinations of data collected from different numbers of BiSON sites (ranging from three to six).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,clip]{0372fig2.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 2: Average 10.7-cm solar radio flux (in units of $10^{-22}~\rm W~m^{-2}~Hz^{-1}$ ) over the period of observations, for 5 series of 280 simulated timeseries as a function of the corresponding fractional fill D. The solid line represents the mean value over all windows.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig3.eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig4.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 3: Fitted first fractional sideband height (left-hand panel) and background level (right-hand panel) from the analysis of the 280 sets at $\ell =0$ , at n=18. Both are plotted as a function of the fractional duty cycle, D, of each set.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.9cm,clip]{0372fig5.eps}\hspace*{1.5mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig6.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 4: Fitted $\ell =0$ frequencies from the analysis of the 280 sets at n=18 and 25, plotted as a function of the fractional duty cycle, D, of each set. The representative error bar in each panel corresponds to the mean formal uncertainty returned by the mode-fitting procedure. Also shown is a best straight-line fit to each cohort of fitted frequencies.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig7.eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig8.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 5: Change in fitted frequency, $a_{n\ell }$ (in nHz), for a 10 per cent change in fill: left-hand panel - for $\ell =0$ ( $\circ$ ) and 2 ( $\blacksquare$ ); right-hand panel - for $\ell =1$ ( $\ast$ ) and 3 ( $\lozenge$ ). (The two modes used in Fig. 4 are indicated by the arrows in the left-hand panel.)
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig9.eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig10.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 6: Left-hand panel - fitted background-to-signal ratio, $\beta _{n\ell }$ at $\ell =0$ , n=18 (scattered points), as a function of fill D; and the best fit to these data of the Chaplin et al. (2002) model described by Eq. (11) (solid line). Right-hand panel - fitted linewidths for the same mode (scattered data) and the best linear fit of these to the fractional fill, D (solid line).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,clip]{0372fig11.eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.85cm,clip]{0372fig12.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 7: Frequency uncertainties, $\sigma _{\nu _{n\ell }}$ (points), returned by the mode-fitting procedure as a function of fractional fill D for the same radial ( $\ell =0$ ) modes shown in Fig. 4. The different linestyles correspond to three predictions based upon the formula of Libbrecht (1992): dashed line - prediction using fitted linewidth from principal 74-per-cent-fill BiSON timeseries; solid line - prediction using linear function to describe fitted linewidth as a function of fill, D (see right-hand panel, Fig. 6); dot-dashed line in upper left-hand panel - modified model prediction of Gelly et al. (1997) and Fierry-Fraillon et al. (1998).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,clip]{0372fig13.eps}\hspace*{2mm... ...m}\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,clip]{0372fig15.eps}\hspace*{4.7cm}} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Frequency uncertainties $\sigma _{\nu _{n\ell }}$ (scattered points) and absolute frequency bias, $\vert(1-D) \cdot a_{n\ell }\vert$ (dashed line), as a function of fractional fill D for two different radial ( $\ell =0$ ) modes (upper two panels) and one quadrupole ( $\ell =2$ ) mode (bottom panel). Also shown are the uncertainties predicted from Eq. (9) (Eq. (A.1) for $\ell =2$ ) at the fitted 3660-d length and also extrapolated to lengths of 100 and 800 d and 25 yr.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig16.eps}\hspace*{2mm... ....eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig19.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure A.1: Mean formal frequency uncertainties (as returned by the mode-fitting procedure) for $\ell =0$ , 1, 2 and 3 modes. The dashed lines are error bars predicted with the single-peak formula (Eq. (9)) using the average fitted linewidth and background-to-signal ratio for each mode.

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig20.eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig21.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure A.2: Left-hand panel - mean formal frequency uncertainties at $\ell =0$ , 1, 2 and 3, plotted as a function of the splitting-linewidth ratio (reduced splitting) $2\ell \nu _{s_{n\ell }} / \Gamma _{n\ell }$ . Right-hand panel - square root of the modelled uncertainty correction factor, $(g_{n\ell })^{1/2}$ , also as a function of the reduced splitting.

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,clip]{0372fig1.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 1: Fractional fill D of the 280 BiSON window functions. Each was made from the random combination of shorter pieces taken from four $\approx$ 10-yr series; these were in turn constructed from coherent combinations of data collected from different numbers of BiSON sites (ranging from three to six).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,clip]{0372fig2.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 2: Average 10.7-cm solar radio flux (in units of $10^{-22}~\rm W~m^{-2}~Hz^{-1}$ ) over the period of observations, for 5 series of 280 simulated timeseries as a function of the corresponding fractional fill D. The solid line represents the mean value over all windows.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig3.eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig4.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 3: Fitted first fractional sideband height (left-hand panel) and background level (right-hand panel) from the analysis of the 280 sets at $\ell =0$ , at n=18. Both are plotted as a function of the fractional duty cycle, D, of each set.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.9cm,clip]{0372fig5.eps}\hspace*{1.5mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig6.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 4: Fitted $\ell =0$ frequencies from the analysis of the 280 sets at n=18 and 25, plotted as a function of the fractional duty cycle, D, of each set. The representative error bar in each panel corresponds to the mean formal uncertainty returned by the mode-fitting procedure. Also shown is a best straight-line fit to each cohort of fitted frequencies.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig7.eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig8.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 5: Change in fitted frequency, $a_{n\ell }$ (in nHz), for a 10 per cent change in fill: left-hand panel - for $\ell =0$ ( $\circ$ ) and 2 ( $\blacksquare$ ); right-hand panel - for $\ell =1$ ( $\ast$ ) and 3 ( $\lozenge$ ). (The two modes used in Fig. 4 are indicated by the arrows in the left-hand panel.)
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig9.eps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0372fig10.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 6: Left-hand panel - fitted background-to-signal ratio, $\beta _{n\ell }$ at $\ell =0$ , n=18 (scattered points), as a function of fill D; and the best fit to these data of the Chaplin et al. (2002) model described by Eq. (11) (solid line). Right-hand panel - fitted linewidths for the same mode (scattered data) and the best linear fit of these to the fractional fill, D (solid line).
Open with DEXTER