RE: GSC 00279 00321

["Richard Klappal" <klappal@xnet.com>]

Michael:

Your abstract says
	Abstract: A previously identified variable star has been discovered.

Shouldn't that be 'unidentified'?  "Discovery" doesn't compute with
"previously identified" to my mind. ... or should 'discovered' be
'confirmed'.

Rich


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com [mailto:owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com]On
> Behalf Of Michael Koppelman
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 23:49
> To: TASS
> Subject: Re: GSC 00279 00321
>
>
> Here is my first attempt at a paper:
>
> http://www.lolife.com/gsc279-321/paper.pdf
>
> I copied the format from here:
>
> http://www.konkoly.hu/cgi-bin/IBVS?5216
>
>
> I'd like comments from y'all if possible on where I'm off base and where I
> need more or less and the like.
>
> Thanks to John's AVE tutorial it is starting to make more sense.
> I can't get
> away from the 0.127 period, even when I fold in one minimum from the TASS
> data. I should try it with all the TASS data to be sure.
>
> I don't now how to tell what kind of variable star this is. It's
> very short
> period excludes many types but I don't know enough to make a theory as to
> what type it is. That is why I do not address that in the paper.
>
> I no longer think this star is the X-ray source 1RXS
> J115752.7+062658. It is
> off by 22 arcseconds in the Aladin viewer. That seems too far away but I
> don't know for sure.
>
> Thanks!
> Michael Koppelman
>
>
>
>
>