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

Re: LR Com Observations?



Doug, Tom and all,

It looks like it wasn't a bug in the query, just that the observations 
in the database don't meet the criteria to be included in the statistics.
I find 11 pairs of images from Tom's #2 camera with could have included 
this position. Of these, 9 of the pairs have problems with either the V 
or I images (or both).
And in the remaining 2 pairs, there is a large discrepancy between the 
number of stars detected in V vs. I.

For image JD 2452763.62887 - 2852 stars in V, 645 in I
For image JD 2452780.59346 - 2453 stars in V, 497 in I

As Tom said, perhaps a combination of clouds and bad luck.

Mike


Thomas Droege wrote:
> *We get down as far as 16 for some measurements.  The biggest problem is 
> for red stars where i is within limits but is dropped because v is not 
> seen.  Possibly this is just in an area that we have not covered yet.  
> There is a pretty large area that has been covered only a few times.  
> Data is coming.  This is in the tom2 camera which has only been operting 
> since about March.  If RA 191 degreess has not been crossing the zenith 
> during darkness since March then that is the reason.  If it has, then I 
> am mystified.  Perhaps just bad luck cloud timing. *
> ** 
> *Tom *
>  
>  
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* <mailto:DWest61506@aol.com>
>     *To: *tdroege2@earthlink.net
>     <mailto:tdroege2@earthlink.net>;tass@listserv.wwa.com
>     <mailto:tass@listserv.wwa.com>
>     *Sent:* 12/8/2003 5:22:38 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: LR Com Observations?
> 
>     In a message dated 12/8/2003 12:15:12 PM Central Standard Time,
>     tdroege2@earthlink.net writes:
> 
> 
>>     Doug,
>>
>>     Looks like they are not there. 
>>
>>     I looked in my big list and found just one measurement.
>>
>>     RA 191.2786
>>     Dec 21.6598
>>     Time 2452780.59346
>>     V 11.77
>>     I 11.25
>>
>>     The measurement was flagged with a 99 so it is suspect.  I had to
>>     convert
>>     to decimal degrees, so you get to convert back, but it is close. 
>>     There is
>>     nothing else within 0.1 degree.  I would not trust this
>>     measurement because
>>     of the flag. 
>>
>>     Tom
> 
> 
> 
>     Tom:
>     Thanks for the response.  I won't use the one observation.  I am a
>     little confused, this star isn't in a crowded field and I thought
>     TASS went down to about 13th mag in V.  Why do you think this one
>     didn't make into the database?
>     Regards,
>     Doug West
> 
>     P.S. Finder and phase plot at
>     http://hometown.aol.com/dwest61506/page39.html