Re: Some Real Work

["Thomas Droege" <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

Let me try to state the problem I see:

1) The data is as good as it can be, is useful, and the survey should be
continued.
2) The data is not useful at it's present quality level.  The survey should
be stopped until it can be improved.
3) The data will never be useful based on the first year's data.  I should
buy a junk Rolls and work on it for the rest of my life instead of wasting
time on tass.

I like 1) at the moment.  I have fussed with the data for a year and a
half. There is some "factor x" that provides a noise floor below about mag
10 (in V).  There is something else, probably the photon statistics or the
sky brightness or both, that limits the measurements above mag 10.  I think
the use for this survey below mag 10 is marginal.  There is other
information for these stars.  I think the real use will be above mag 10
where the data is relatively new.  I think the data is useful as it stands.
One would always like data to be better.  I am a realist.  I don't see
anything to do that will make it better other than just perfecting the day
to day operating technique.  I think the most important thing to do at the
moment for a possible improvement, is to test whether the mean value for
the measurements improves with SQR(n) as it should, or whether there is
something else that limits the data other than statistics. This would
extend the data to other uses as the statistics accumulate.   In support of
my "as good as it is going to get" opinion, there is the Pojmanski data. 
His results are similar to mine.  He as at a different location (much
better), using different software and different hardware. 

For 2) I am out of ideas. OK, the possible exception is trying local
ensemble photometry.  I will have a go at this.  

For 3) If I take this route, I need to know soon so that I can get a good
buy and get started while I can still move enough to do the work.

Tom Droege