polar component.[]{data-label="fig7"}](Figure7.eps){width="\columnwidth"}

![The same as Figs. \[fig6\] and Fig. \[fig7\] but for the azimuthal component.[]{data-label="fig8"}](Figure8.eps){width="\columnwidth"}

By computing the extra acceleration in Eq. (\[deltaa\]) to match the two trajectories (the one in our orbital model and the one delivered by the Juno’s mission team to JPL fitted to the telemetry data) we find the discrepancies shown in Figs. \[fig6\]-\[fig8\] for the radial, polar and azimuthal components. In these figures we show the results for the first and third flyby of the Juno spacecraft which, essentially, followed the same trajectory in the two approximations to Jupiter. Notice that the results are similar for both flybys. In the case of the radial component, we find two sharp peaks of different amplitude as a manifestation of an oscillatory behaviour as a function of time. On the other hand, the analysis yields different behaviour for the polar and azimuthal components as shown in Fig. \[fig7\] and Fig. \[fig8\] but these are two or three orders of magnitude smaller than the radial component and we can think that this is not statistically significant as other sources of error may also be distorting these components.

Sources of error and interpretation of the results
--------------------------------------------------

In this section 