Re: Suspected Variables in TASS data

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

Yep, I agree with this too.  One has a triage.  Some are clean and clearly 
variable.  Some are questionable.  Some are not.  For the questionable 
ones, we try to recruit a cops of follow up observers.  The more the 
better.  That is why I was musing about a Mark V.

Tom Droege

At 04:37 PM 6/2/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Tom wrote:
> >Most of the ones we are looking at are quite clearly variable.  One can
> >decide this once one learns something of the errors in the tass data and
> >then looks at a plot using say Rich Knowles' "selectun" , which allows a
> >rapid scan through suspects.  The problem is only determining the
> >period.  This is fraught with problems for such short samples.
>   I fully agree with you, for the top dozen or two candidates.  It is
>when you start pushing your variability limits closer to the threshold
>or when you start working in crowded regions that you will pick up
>the oddballs, and that you need to keep such errors in mind.
>They will happen!  It is amazing how you can get seemingly consistent
>variability from photometric extraction problems.
>Arne