Re: Suspected Variables in TASS data

[jg <jg@jgws.freeisp.co.uk>]

Well, I don't personally know whether it's good, bad, right, wrong or
just plain indifferent, but that's how some folk do it, so I copied the
email addresses from a few examples I found around on the web and
hovered over the send button a few seconds, then pressed it.

It's one route of getting discoveries that aren't really publishable
"out there".  At worst case scenario it'll probably just be ignored.

Otherwise the info just sits in the drawer, or takes up a few domains on
the hard disk platters.

Think of it as a kind of experiment (though hopefully the
Frankensteinian parallels of his parable won't apply, as I don't fancy
being cut up for spare parts ;) )


Note that the list didn't include the variables that have sufficient
TASS data to be solvable merely with that, and I have also tried to not
include any stars people are currently taking new data for (eg Mike
K.)... ...apologies to anyone if I failed there.

And finally, just because I couldn't sort out some of these objects, or
find evidence for variability in others, doesn't mean that other people
won't be able to find such, so don't let me bias ought.  Bias in
variable star studies is bad!  It is also rife ;)


Cheers

John

JG