Re: brief note on astrometry of Mark IV comatic images

[hjohnson@pluto.njcc.com (Herbert R Johnson)]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:27:36 -0700, Chris Albertson <calbertson@logicon.com> wrote:
*>
*>Herb,
*>
*>I think the problem with your suggestion of sorting a star list
*>has one problem.  Tom's detection software likely throws away
*>the stuff you are looking for.  The software likely only reports
*>"nice clean uncontaminated stars".  If the stars are to close

My suggestion explicitly noted this. Of course if the condition he
are looking for is rejected by his software, he will not find it.
I'll ask him again privately to check for this.

*>Still, the spreadsheet trick is so easy to do, why not do it?
*>Sort by X then compute distance to star above and then then
*>count number of distances < n.  

My own opinion is that it's better to work witht the REAL data - and
to know what your software is doing - than to speculate. That said,
I'll read Richmond's TN and see if his results are consistent with
statistical expectations.

Herb

Herbert R. Johnson              http://pluto.njcc.com/~hjohnson
hjohnson@pluto.njcc.com         voice 609-771-1503, New Jersey USA
             amateur astronomer and astro-tour guide
           S-100 computer parts, manuals as "Dr. S-100"
    reseller of 68K Macs & accessories for your computing pleasure