...1,

On leave from Physics Dept., University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405 USA.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... geometry

The star's magnetic latitude $\alpha$ and sightline impact angle $\vert\beta\vert$ were found to be some 8.5-9.0 and 4.5-4.9$^\circ$, respectively, using the fact that $R=\sin\alpha/\sin\beta$.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... November 26

The resolution of this and other WSRT observations is 0.114$^\circ$, here following from use of 256 channels across a 10-MHz bandwidth.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... Fig. 4)

The foregoing paper further implies that there is a population of unobservable nulls lasting for less than one period which can of course not readily be detected and removed.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... values

A major overall problem with these early searches was that R then was thought to be near -2.75 as indeed can be inferred from Ramachandran et al.'s (2002) Fig. 1; only after the recent WSRT polarimetry recalibration (Edward & Stappers 2004) could it be understood that most of Stokes V was uncorrected Q or U, with the ultimate result that R is nearly a crucial full unit less steep as we have computed in Paper I Sect. 3.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...correct

Another difficulty with this early work was an incorrect tendancy to believe that the star had a poleward (or inside) sightline geometry, based on the "rule'' just below Eq. (4) in DR01. This line of argument is only relevant when the subbeam number N, and thus the magnetic azimuth angle between subbeams $\eta$ ( ${=}360^{\circ}/N$), is known independently.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.