Re: Suspected Variables in TASS data

[Michael Koppelman <lolife@bitstream.net>]

I would prefer that we work on the data and not just chuck things out there
like that. I know there are no TASS rules and I support the idea that folks
can do what they see fit. I appreciate you not sending out the stars that I
am working on. In general, though, I'd prefer we work on these stars before
we tell the whole wide world about them.

Just my $0.02.

Michael Koppelman


On 6/1/02 5:45 PM, "jg" <jg@jgws.freeisp.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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
> 
>