 the only deviation from regularity (see below).

For [NLTT 11748]{}, I recognize that $K_2$ is the radial velocity that was measured since the heavier object is the fainter one. So, $q\approx
0.15/0.71=0.21$, $K_2=271\,{\ensuremath{{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, and $P=5.64\,$hr, which give ${\ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}}=4.6\,$s. @sks+10 measured individual eclipse times to $\sim 10$s, making it hard to detect an effect like this. However, this was using 45 s exposures on a 2 m telescope, while the ingress/egress duration was only $\approx 20\,$s. Increasing to 4m or 8m will improve the S/N of individual exposures by a factor of 4–16, and using a cadence better matched to the orbit will help as well, driving eclipse time uncertainties to $\lesssim 1\,$s (as above). This is sufficient to detect [$\Delta t_{\rm LT}$]{}; below I discuss how well one can measure it and what constraints one can get from it.

Comparison With Eccentricity
----------------------------

The above discussion considered circular orbits. For eccentricity $e>0$ the situation changes. I note that the objects in Table \[tab:wd\] have orbits that are consistent with circular orbits, although quantitative limits for $e$ are not always given. This follows from their expected evolutionary histories, where common-envelope evolution [@nvypz00] should have circularized orbits. Nonetheless, in case our understanding of these systems is incorrect or some further evolution (such as interaction with another body) may have caused non-zero eccentricity, I consider the effect of a non-zero eccentricity on our detection of [$\Delta t_{\rm LT}$]{}.

First, there are changes to the expression for [$\Delta t_{\rm LT}$]{} [@fabrycky10]: $${\ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}}=({\ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}})_{e=0}\times\left( \frac{1-e^2}{1-e^2
  \sin^2 \omega}\right)\approx
({\ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}})_{e=0}\times\left(1-e^2\cos^2\omega+{\cal O}(e^4)\right)$$ where
the only deviation from regularity (see below). 

 For [ NLTT   11748 ] { }, I accredit that $ K_2 $ is the radial speed that was measured since the heavier aim is the fainter one. So, $ q\approx 
 0.15/0.71=0.21 $, $ K_2=271\,{\ensuremath{{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, and $ P=5.64\,$hr, which grant $ { \ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}}=4.6\,$s. @sks+10 measured individual eclipse times to $ \sim 10$s, have it hard to detect an effect like this. However, this was use 45 s exposures on a 2 m telescope, while the ingres / egress duration was only $ \approx 20\,$s. increase to 4 m or 8 megabyte will improve the S / N of individual exposure by a factor of 4–16, and using a meter better matched to the orbit will serve as well, driving eclipse clock time uncertainties to $ \lesssim 1\,$s (equally above). This is sufficient to detect [ $ \Delta t_{\rm LT}$ ] { }; below I discuss how well one can quantify it and what constraints one can get from it. 

 Comparison With Eccentricity 
 ---------------------------- 

 The above discussion considered circular orbits. For eccentricity $ e>0 $ the position changes. I note that the objects in Table   \[tab: wd\ ] have orbits that are reproducible with circular orbits, although quantitative limits for $ e$ are not always given. This follows from their expected evolutionary histories, where common - envelope evolution [ @nvypz00 ] should have circularize orbits. Nonetheless, in casing our reason of these systems is incorrect or some further evolution (such as interaction with another soundbox) may have caused non - zero eccentricity, I consider the effect of a non - zero eccentricity on our detection of [ $ \Delta t_{\rm LT}$ ] { }. 

 foremost, there are changes to the expression for [ $ \Delta t_{\rm LT}$ ] { }   [ @fabrycky10 ]: $ $ { \ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}}=({\ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}})_{e=0}\times\left (\frac{1 - e^2}{1 - e^2 
   \sin^2 \omega}\right)\approx 
 ({ \ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}})_{e=0}\times\left(1 - e^2\cos^2\omega+{\cal O}(e^4)\right)$$ where
 thf only deviation from renularity (see below).

For [NNTT 11748]{}, I decognizd that $K_2$ is the radial velocmty rhat qas measured since the heavier lbject iw tht fainter one. So, $q\approx
0.15/0.71=0.21$, $K_2=271\,{\ensurslath{{\xm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, and $P=5.64\,$hr, wmich give ${\etsuremath{\Delta t_{\fm LT}}}=4.6\,$s. @sks+10 measured individual eclipsq times tl $\sim 10$s, making it nwrd fo detect an effect like this. Howeber, thiv was using 45 x exposures on a 2 m telesclpe, ahile the ingress/ehress duratuon rqs only $\apprux 20\,$s. Increasing to 4m ot 8m will improve the S/N of indivkdual exposures bt a xactor of 4–16, end uspng a cadence better katched to the orbit eiln hwlp as well, driving erlipse time uncertaigties to $\neassim 1\,$s (as above). Rhus is sufxicidbt go sevecf [$\Deltw t_{\cm LT}$]{}; below I discuss yow well one can messtgr it and whaf conserwints one can get from it.

Comparison Witv Edcentricity
----------------------------

The above diwcussion considered clrcular owbits. For eccentricity $e>0$ the situation changes. I tote vhxt uhc uvjfcts in Table \[tab:wd\] have orbits that are consiffemt with circular orbits, altnokgn quantitative limits fkr $e$ are not alwayd given. This follows srom their expected evolutionart histories, cheee common-envelope zvolution [@nvvpz00] shpuld nave circularized orbitr. Nohetheless, ij case oud understanding ow tmesa systems is incorrect or fome furtier erolution (sucn as igteraction with another body) may hwve ccused non-zero efcentricity, I consider the efferv of a non-zerp accvntricity on omr detection of [$\Delta t_{\rm LT}$]{}.

Fnrst, thexe are changes tk the eepression fow [$\Delta t_{\rm LD}$]{} [@vabrycky10]: $${\ensnremath{\Dejta r_{\rm OT}}}=({\ensurdoath{\Delta t_{\rm KT}}})_{e=0}\times\lvfu( \frac{1-e^2}{1-e^2
  \win^2 \omega}\right)\apprpx
({\evauremath{\Delta t_{\xo LT}}})_{e=0}\times\left(1-e^2\cps^2\ooegw+{\cwl O}(q^4)\sight)$$ where
the only deviation from regularity (see below). 11748]{}, recognize that is the radial the object is the one. So, $q\approx $K_2=271\,{\ensuremath{{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, and $P=5.64\,$hr, which give t_{\rm LT}}}=4.6\,$s. @sks+10 measured individual eclipse times to $\sim 10$s, making it hard detect an effect like this. However, this was using 45 s exposures on 2 telescope, the duration was only $\approx 20\,$s. Increasing to 4m or 8m will improve the S/N of individual by a factor of 4–16, and using a better matched to the will help as well, driving time to $\lesssim (as This sufficient to detect t_{\rm LT}$]{}; below I discuss how well one can measure it and what constraints one can get it. Comparison ---------------------------- The discussion circular For eccentricity $e>0$ changes. I note that the objects have orbits that are consistent with circular orbits, quantitative limits $e$ are not always given. This from their expected evolutionary histories, where common-envelope evolution should have circularized orbits. Nonetheless, in case our understanding of these systems is incorrect or evolution (such as interaction another body) may caused eccentricity, consider effect of non-zero eccentricity on our detection of [$\Delta t_{\rm LT}$]{}. First, there changes to the expression for [$\Delta t_{\rm LT}$]{} [@fabrycky10]: $${\ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm \frac{1-e^2}{1-e^2 \sin^2 \omega}\right)\approx t_{\rm LT}}})_{e=0}\times\left(1-e^2\cos^2\omega+{\cal O}(e^4)\right)$$ where
 the only deviation from regulArity (see beLow).

FoR [NLtT 11748]{}, I ReCognIze tHat $K_2$ is the radiaL VeloCity that was measured sinCe the HeAVier OBjEct is The fainTEr ONE. So, $Q\aPpRox
0.15/0.71=0.21$, $k_2=271\,{\eNSuRematH{{\rm Km\,s}^{-1}}}$, and $P=5.64\,$Hr, which givE ${\enSuRemath{\Delta t_{\RM Lt}}}=4.6\,$s. @sks+10 measuRed Individual ecLipSe timeS tO $\siM 10$S, makiNg iT hard To deteCT an effEct like thIs. hOwever, THis was uSINg 45 S expOsures on a 2 m telescoPE, wHIle the ingress/eGress dUrATiON Was OnlY $\approx 20\,$s. InCrEasinG To 4m or 8m wILl IMPRovE The S/N of indiviDual exposurES by A factoR oF 4–16, anD Using a CadenCe BEttEr matched to The oRbit will hElp as wELl, driviNG eclipsE time uNceRtaIntiES tO $\lEssSiM 1\,$S (as ABoVe). THIs iS sufficiEnT tO deteCt [$\DeLTA T_{\Rm LT}$]{}; BelOw I dIscusS how well one caN meAsurE It aNd whaT consTraiNtS one cAn get fRom it.

coMparison With EccEntrIcity
----------------------------

The aBovE dIscUsSion cONsiderEd cIrcUlar orbIts. For eCCenTrICITy $E>0$ the situation changEs. i NOtE that the ObjectS In taBLe \[tab:wd\] hAvE orBits THAt are ConsIStEnt with cIrculaR OrBiTs, althoUgH quantItAtiVe lImits FOr $e$ aRe not aLways givEn. ThiS Follows from theIR expected evolUTiONArY HistOriEs, where commOn-enVElopE evoLUtIon [@NVypz00] sHould HaVE cIRcularized orbits. NonEtHeless, In casE our understanDing of thesE SYStems is iNcorREcT Or some further eVolutIon (such as iNTeractioN with Another bOdy) may havE CAused non-ZerO ecCenTriCITy, i consider the eFFEct oF a Non-zero EccEntriciTy oN ouR deTecTiOn of [$\Delta T_{\rm LT}$]{}.

FirSt, ThErE aRe cHangeS To the expReSsiOn For [$\delta T_{\Rm LT}$]{} [@faBryckY10]: $${\ensUrEmATh{\DElta t_{\rm lt}}}=({\eNSUremAtH{\DElta T_{\rm lT}}})_{E=0}\timeS\lefT( \FraC{1-e^2}{1-e^2
  \sin^2 \oMega}\right)\AppROx
({\enSuReMath{\DelTa t_{\rm LT}}})_{e=0}\times\LeFt(1-e^2\cos^2\omegA+{\cAl O}(E^4)\right)$$ WHEre
 the only deviation from r egularity(seebel ow) .
For  [NL TT 11748]{}, I reco gnize that $K_2$ is th e rad ia l  vel o ci ty th at wasm ea s u red  s in ceth e  h eavie r o bject i s the fain ter  o ne. So, $q\a p pr ox
0.15/0. 71= 0.21$, $K_2= 271 \,{\en su rem a th{{\ rmkm\,s }^{-1} } }$, an d $P=5.64 \, $ hr, wh i ch give $ {\ ensu remath{\Delta t_{ \ rm LT}}}=4.6\,$s.  @sks+ 10 me a s ure d i ndividualec lipse times t o  $ \ s i m 1 0 $s, making it  hard to de t ect  an ef fe ctl ike th is. H ow e ver , this wasusin g 45 s ex posure s  on a 2 m teles cope,whi lethei ng re ss/ eg r ess du rat i onwas only  $ \a pprox  20\ , $ s .  Inc rea sing  to 4 m or 8m willimp rove the  S/Nof in divi du al ex posure s byafactor of 4–16,  and  using acad en cebe tterm atched  to  th e orbit  will h e lpas w e ll , driving eclipseti m e  u ncertain ties t o  $ \l e sssim 1\ ,$ s ( as a b o ve).This is  suffici ent to de te ct [$\D el ta t_{ \r m L T}$ ]{};b elow  I dis cuss how  well one can measur e  it and whatc on s t ra i ntsone  can get fr om i t .

C ompa r is onW ith E ccent ri c it y 
------------------ -- ------ --

T he above disc ussion con s i d ered cir cula r  o r bits. For ecce ntric ity $e>0$t he situa tionchanges.  I note t h a t the ob jec tsinTab l e  \ [tab:wd\] hav e orbi ts  that a reconsist ent  wi thcir cu lar orbit s, altho ug hqu an tit ative limits f or  $e $are  nota lwaysgiven . Th is  f o llo ws from th e i r ex pe ct ed e vol ut ionar y hi s tor ies, wh ere commo n-e n velo pe  e volutio n [@nvypz00]sh ould haveci rcu larize d orbits.Nonetheless, in case ou r  unders tan dingof t hese syst ems  is in cor r ect or  somefurth er  ev o l ution ( su chas  interacti o n  wi th an ot herbody) m ay have caused non - zer o eccentricit y,I co n s id ert he eff ec t  of a  non-zero eccen tricity on  o u rdetectiono f [ $\ Delta t _{\rm L T}$]{ } .

Firs t, thereare chang es  tot h e e xpressionfor [$\D elta t_{\ r m LT} $ ]{ } [@f abr ycky10 ]:  $$ {\ens uremat h {\D eltat_{\rm  L T}}}=( {\ens ur emath{\D elta t_{\rm LT}}})_{e=0 }\time s\lef t(\frac{1-e ^2} { 1-e ^2
  \sin ^2 \ omega}\rig ht) \ap prox({\ e nsure math { \D elt a  t_{\ rm L T }}})_{e=0 } \t ime s \ le ft(1-e^2\co s ^ 2 \om ega+{ \ca l  O}(e^ 4)\r ight)$$ where
 the_only deviation_from regularity (see below).

For_[NLTT 11748]{}, I_recognize_that $K_2$_is_the radial velocity_that was measured_since the heavier object_is the fainter_one._So, $q\approx
0.15/0.71=0.21$, $K_2=271\,{\ensuremath{{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, and $P=5.64\,$hr, which give ${\ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}}=4.6\,$s. @sks+10 measured individual_eclipse_times to_$\sim_10$s,_making it hard to detect_an effect like this. However,_this was_using 45 s exposures on a 2 m_telescope,_while the ingress/egress_duration was only $\approx 20\,$s. Increasing to 4m or_8m will improve the S/N of_individual exposures by_a_factor_of 4–16, and using_a cadence better matched to the_orbit will help as well, driving_eclipse time uncertainties to $\lesssim 1\,$s (as_above). This is sufficient to detect_[$\Delta t_{\rm LT}$]{}; below I_discuss how_well one can measure it_and what constraints_one can_get from it.

Comparison_With Eccentricity
----------------------------

The above discussion considered circular_orbits. For eccentricity_$e>0$ the situation changes. I note_that_the objects in_Table \[tab:wd\]_have_orbits that_are consistent with_circular_orbits, although_quantitative_limits for $e$ are not always_given._This follows from their expected evolutionary histories,_where common-envelope evolution [@nvypz00]_should_have circularized orbits. Nonetheless,_in case our understanding of_these systems is incorrect or some_further evolution_(such as_interaction with another body) may have caused non-zero eccentricity, I consider_the effect of a non-zero eccentricity_on our detection of_[$\Delta t_{\rm_LT}$]{}.

First,_there are changes_to_the expression_for [$\Delta t_{\rm LT}$]{} [@fabrycky10]: $${\ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}}=({\ensuremath{\Delta_t_{\rm LT}}})_{e=0}\times\left(_\frac{1-e^2}{1-e^2
  \sin^2 \omega}\right)\approx
({\ensuremath{\Delta t_{\rm LT}}})_{e=0}\times\left(1-e^2\cos^2\omega+{\cal_O}(e^4)\right)$$ where