additional uncertainty we add 0.05 in quadrature to the standard error estimates for both coefficients. This estimate of the systematic error in the coefficients dominates the error budget for the limb darkening so we did not consider it necessary to re-calculate these coefficients for the slightly different values of $T_{\rm eff}$ derived in Section \[TeffSection\] cf. our preliminary solution. Rather than sampling the limb darkening coefficients $u_1$ and $u_2$ directly, we use the parameters $q_1 = (u_1 + u_2)^2$ and $q_2 =  0.5u_1/(u_1 + u_2)$ since this makes it easier to uniformly sample the allowed parameter space [@2013MNRAS.435.2152K]. Unless otherwise noted, we used spheres to model the shape of these well-detached stars so gravity darkening was ignored. There is little or no information about the geometry of the binary system in the observations between the eclipses. For the light curve modeling of most stars we used only observations over a range 1.5 times the full eclipse width centered on each eclipse. This had the advantage of speeding up the calculation. We used numerical integration of the eclipse model to account for the exposure time of 1765s for data obtained near or during an eclipse.

It is notoriously difficult to include 