parameters of the binary system and the winds which can be adjusted to accommodate almost any orientation. For that, the X-ray light curve by itself cannot be used to deduce the periastron longitude, or even the inclination angle. This was nicely shown by A06, who could fit the X-ray light curve by using both an inclination of $i=0^\circ$ (observer above the orbital plane) and $i=42^\circ$ with $\omega=180^\circ$, by slightly varying two parameters of the model that are related to the two winds (no fine tuning was required).

There is a very deep X-ray minimum lasting for $\sim 10$ week following periastron passage (Corcoran 2005). In all models of the kind discussed here it is required to fit the X-ray emission during the $\sim 10$ week minimum by simply *assuming* this minimum. Therefore, the behavior of the X-ray emission during the X-ray minimum, and a few days before and after, cannot be used to discriminate between different orientations. P09 reject the $\omega =90^\circ$ semi-major orientation ($\theta=180^\circ$ in their notation) based only on the behavior during the X-ray minimum. They presented only the case $\omega = 90^\circ$ with $i = 90^\circ$, rather than taking $i=42^\circ$.

They also examined our preferred case with 