Re: re longer period variables

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

Patrick and all,

Keeping in mind the limitations of the Mark IV, it would be nice to devise 
an optimum strategy.  What I did was first look for a year at +7 running 48 
frame scans to look for short period variables.  Now I am taking a frame 
and then going back to the stop and taking the next through the night.

The question is:  What is an optimum scheme?  We want to spend the minimum 
time possible to get all periods.

The rules for the Mark IV are:  Don't move the Dec.  Best to "C" clamp it 
in place.  ;^)  The Mark V will correct this, but I don't expect to have it 
for a year.  It will also move faster in Dec,. but I don't plan to improve 
the RA.

We we can move the RA any way we like.  It goes fast 32 times sidereal.  So 
one does not want big moves in RA or you spend all the time moving.

One might have a list of fields that you want to get, for example when they 
are close to coming over when you are at home.  If one is close, then wait 
for it and follow it for the 48 frames.  But it is probably not very useful 
to do this more than once.  So when there are no frames to follow close, 
then take a fram of what is over head.  Keep doing this until an 
interesting one is in place.

OK I am open to suggestions.  But anything complicated needs to come with 
the software to do it.  QB is OK.  I can query the sub and get where the 
telescope is pointing.  Then a QBasic program has to do the rest.  But you 
don't have to write QB code.  Just write a logic flow diagram and any of us 
can write their own code from it.

Just came down from the dome where TOM3 seems to be working.  I will try to 
look at stars tonight.

One scheme is to park one telescope on Dec 0, a second on +5, and leave 
TOM1 on +7.  The three will then overlap and we can use simultaneous 
coverage to transfer Landolt standards up to the other telescopes from the 
one at the equator.  Some switching between which telescope looks were 
should cross calibrate.  Any comments?  Arne?  At least for the time being, 
I think running where one dips down to the equator to get a Landolt 
standard seems not so good.  OK, TOM2 can probably point to 1 degree with 
some fussing to take out backlash, but I don't like it.

Tom Droege

Tom Droege



At 03:39 PM 9/12/02 -0700, you wrote:

>--- Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I am finding about
> > 0.3% variables without looking very hard.  Most are relatively low
> > amplitude, 0.1 to 0.05.  But they are pretty obvious none the less.
> > A few
> > weeks more and I will start picking up longer periods.  But these are
> > not much fun to go out and look at with a telescope.
>
>Tom, this makes the survey you are doing so interesting, because
>instead of following only one or just a few variables, you can get data
>for 200 of them each night !
>
>Patrick
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
>http://news.yahoo.com