Re: [TASS] publication of variable stars

[Herbert R Johnson <hjohnson@PLUTO.NJCC.COM>]

On         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 23:36:04 -0400, Michael Gutzwiller <deepsky@FUSE.NET> wrote:
*>In general I agree with Chris, we need some way to categorize how "good" a
*>variable candidate is.  Chris' comments and Tom's canonization method left
*>out an important detail.  Who's the pope?  Who gets to decide when a
*>candidate moves up the ladder?
*>
*>Mike G.

They say only the wearer knows where the shoe rubs. I would suggest no
"pope", but a "house of cardinals" namely the TASS members already finding
and determining variables. If they can agree on some methods - among the
methods they are ALREADY using - that sets a standard for others to follow.

If the process of standard methods is like the process for the "software
pipeline" for Mark III image processing; then what will happen is that
one method will prevail from discussion; each site will take that method
and modify it to suit their equipment and experiences; and then the results
will be used locally as well as pooled centrally. How that "pool" or database
is formatted will be a product of the methods, not the other way around,
again just like the current Mark III efforts.

As I often say, a review of old TASS email and TASS website documents will
be VERY informative.

Herb Johnson
Herbert R. Johnson              http://pluto.njcc.com/~hjohnson
hjohnson@pluto.njcc.com         voice 609-771-1503, New Jersey USA
             amateur astronomer and astro-tour guide
     S-100 computer restoration, parts, manuals as "Dr. S-100"
   rebuilder/reseller of compact Macs for your computing pleasure