[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GSC 00279 00321 paper

Thank you sir.

My struggle with trying to classify the type of variable is rooted in the 
fact that I don't have a real methodology for it. I have "The Data Book of 
Astronomy" and "Light Curves of Variable Stars" as my main references on 
the subject. "Light Curves" is a bit frustrating because it doesn't really 
summarize. You have to page through page by page to find out the periods, 
amplitudes and spectral types of each type of star. The "Data Book" has a 
nice table but for some reason I can't figure, doesn't list all of the 
above criteria for each star type. It is also not entirely in synch with 
"Light Curves". The IBVS papers are in many cases way over my head, but 
just looking through light curves and periods is of great assistance.

Period analysis or binary modeling is something I have no experience with.
  I was assuming with short period stuff you could just take a few nights 
of data and have it. The devil is in the daylight hours where you can get 
no data! I suppose I could post to VSNet and see if some kind Japanese 
folks could take some data. It sure doesn't help that the star I'm working 
on is past the meridian after twilight. My next star will be one where I 
can take 4 or 5 hours of data at a time.

In regards to the paper, it will be published one way or the other. If 
this turns out to be some run-of-the-mill star, I still believe it is 
important for the astronomical community to be aware of the star, 
regardless of how that occurs. If nothing else I'll email the GCVS guys. 
Many of the books I've read talk about the number of various stars known. 
We must get a complete understanding of these populations. Every once in a 
while we're gonna pull up something cool. Some day every damn star within 
reach of the amateur will be known. These are "golden" times by comparison.

It feels odd (but I'm used to it!) to post so much to lists where I know I 
am far from an expert. I've bothered the AAVSO list a lot, too, in my 
travels. At the same time I know for every question I ask, there are 
dozens of lurkers interested in the answers, too. We are truly lucky to 
have guys like Arne and Dirk (and many others I'm less familiar with) 
working on these amateur projects with us. What a gold mine of information!

I'm going on and on here but I want to conclude with my pet peeve. 
Astronomy is a science. Most amateur astronomers are really sight seers 
and not scientists. This is a pity. Most AAVSO stars are very undersampled.
  This stuff is fun, and it matters, but most of all, you can learn so very,
  very much. Every day I learn tons of cool stuff. I want to understand 
this universe and these baby steps may, in the end, be the most rewarding 
of them all.

Thank you for the link to the astro programs. That looks like some very 
useful stuff.

Michael Koppelman

On Friday, June 7, 2002, at 07:47  PM, Gamble family wrote:

> Hi Michael
> The last few weeks has been some of the most interesting in the years 
> that I
> have been following TASS - particularly your contributions.
>  As a total rank amateur, I would be very interested if your paper had a 
> lot
> more on how you arrive at your final classification. For instance you
> mentioned that you looked at a number of RR Lyrae papers - which ones? 
> what
> did their light curves look like? Arne and Dirk seem to think that it may 
> be
> an eclipser, if so it maybe possible to model. A quick check with Google
> revealed plenty of programs out there (ie
> www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/binstar/moreprograms.html ) - no doubt others 
> on
> the list can comment on the usefulness or otherwise.  Also more on the V-I
> difference with suitable references would be interesting.
>  This may turn it into more of a discussion paper, however as a learning
> experience for us all it will be great!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Koppelman <lolife@bitstream.net>
> To: <aah@nofs.navy.mil>
> Cc: <tass@listserv.wwa.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:30 PM
> Subject: Re: GSC 00279 00321 paper
>> Ok, here is my new draft:
>> http://www.lolife.com/gsc279-321/paper.pdf
>> I read a bunch of IBVS articles. Many are doing science beyond my means,
>> but it was very helpful. I also found many similar RR Lyrae papers which
>> seems consistent with this star.
>> I have used the feedback from the TASS list to help formulate my theory
>> but I haven't found anyone willing to sign their name to this thing, so 
>> in
>> terms of the type of variable, I am doing the best I can.
>> I added references to TASS. I could not find anything published on the
>> Mark IV so I referenced a Mark III paper. Please let me know if there is 
>> a
>> more appropriate reference.
>> I rewrote my title and abstract. I am putting more emphasis on TASS, 
>> since
>> that is where the discovery came from. Let me know if this makes anyone
>> uncomfortable.
>> Once I incorporate any additional feedback from y'all, I'm going to
>> convert it to TeX and submit to the IBVS and see what happens. I
>> appreciate all your help and patience.
>> Cheers,
>> Michael Koppelman
>> On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 10:23  AM, aah@nofs.navy.mil wrote:
>>> Michael K. wrote:
>>>> 0. Read and re-read the Editorial Notes and authors instructions at
>>>   Also look at about a hundred of the existing, recent IBVS articles.
>>> These
>>>   will give you a flavor of the kind of information generally presented.
>>>> 1. Figure out what kind of variable it is.
>>>   Most important step.  You really should not submit an article to IBVS
>>>   or elsewhere on an individual star without a thorough study.  This
> means
>>>   light curve, classification and some analysis such as period
>>> determination,
>>>   period changes (for known stars) and perhaps some modelling if it is
>>>   a run-of-the-mill eclipsing variable.  Less information won't mean a
>>>   rejected paper, but more information is the right way to go for
>>>   maximal scientific value.  Sometimes this means collaborating with
>>> others
>>>   who might have skills that you are missing, or delaying publication
>>> until
>>>   more data is acquired.
>>>> 2. Do a better job of references.
>>>   See #0
>>>> 3. Get consistent on nomenclature.
>>>   For TASS, a better way of identifying the filters is
>>>      Johnson V and Cousins Ic filters
>>>    We don't have a journal reference for the Mark IV survey yet, but you
>>>    can always reference Michael R.'s PASP paper or my JAAVSO paper to
>>>    indicate prior instrumentation and current direction.
>>>> 4. Get a better title and abstract.
>>>   Not absolutely necessary, but helpful for the reader.  Usually the
>>>   paper contains the star identification in the title, such as
>>>     "The Variability of GSC 00279-00321" or
>>>     "GSC 00279-00231: a new W UMa eclipsing binary"
>>>> 5. Get it in TeX format (which I was planning on doing once I had it
>>>> finished).
>>>   Note: IBVS will accept other formats, usually plain ascii and html.
>>> Most journals will now accept Microsoft Word as well.  Figures
>>> can be in postscript or gif/jpeg.  However, TeX is
>>> the default format for all astronomical publications, so it pays
>>> to learn at least enough TeX to take an existing paper and modify
>>> it to your needs (a highly recommended technique for IBVS since
>>> you can get the TeX source to all papers at their web site).
>>> There are several on-line TeX tutorials.
>>> Not mentioned, but #6:  keep submitting rough drafts to the list!
>>> There are several people here who have published hundreds of scientific
>>> papers and can guide you through the process (but keep a *very* thick
>>> skin!).  It is far better for TASS to be careful on the first few
>>> publications so that the quality and information content are high,
>>> indicating good research; and that all descriptions are technically
>>> correct
>>> (such as the filter descriptions or method of astrometric/photometric
>>> calibration).  To some extent, reputations of people associated with
>>> TASS (and TASS itself) are on the line, so everyone should be
>>> considerate of the group as a whole, even if it is an individual's
>>> paper.  I usually recommend that someone's first scientific publication
>>> be a joint publication with other team members so that they don't have
>>> to learn all of the publication steps by themselves.  This is
>>> certainly not a hard-and-fast rule, though!
>>> Arne
>> Michael Koppelman <michael@clockwork.net>
>> CTO
>> Clockwork Active Media Systems
>> Expertise in the Internet Marketplace
>> http://www.clockwork.net/
>> (763)443-2048