Re: final section of TN 0085 is in place

[Stupendous Man <richmond@a188-l009.rit.edu>]

  Michael K asked:

> In the photometry section, did you take into account that some of these 
> stars are variable? Or were there not a statistically significant number? 
> Your standard deviation is going to be skewed if you include stars that 
> are not constant.

  I didn't really account for this.  At one point in the analysis,
when I compared the mean values of magnitudes against stellar 
catalogs, I only included stars which had stdev < 0.50 mag,
so variables of _really_ large amplitude would be discarded;
but there aren't many of those.

  I guess I just assumed that the variables would amount to a
few percent of the total, and wouldn't skew the results very
much.  Perhaps I'm wrong.

  In some of the figures (for example, the first couple in the
"ensemble analysis" section, one can see a few stars with much
larger scatter than the average.  Those might be variables.
I concentrated on the ridge line in each plot -- that's where
the constant stars are, and they are the ones of interest.

                                 Michael