Re: Fwd: IBVS

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

We shall see if we "infest" the variable star community.

OK, until we find a better home, I suggest that we make these efforts 
technical notes.  I suggest a new class ON for observational notes.  If 
someone has a better suggestion for a name I am open to it.

My inclination is to generate a bunch of ON with what we have so far.  We 
can update them as we go.  They will not be complete curves, and most will 
not have a classification.  We can start with a simple search to bring up 
ON within some search radius.  I would name them by their position in some 
standard way.  I would prefer names like ON 234.567 +7.3492

I note that no one else seems to be doing simultaneous V, Ic, though I 
think ASAS is planning on doing it.  Our data will have a unique feature.

Once we get some minimum number, then we will become a resource that is 
searched along with everything else.  I figure that we tried to join the 
community.  If they won't have us, then that is OK, we can do it ourselves.

For me, my natural inclination is to buck the establishment.  But I 
appreciate the value of standard ways of doing things.  Single locations 
for data, etc..  But this in encouraging me to do this on our own.  If 
someone asks "Why did you set up yet another data base?"  we will have the 
correspondence to tell them.

Tom Droege


At 12:24 PM 9/16/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Just like clockwork, another rejection by the IBVS. There was some 
>confusion because they thought they had sent me a referee's report, but I 
>didn't get it, so they thought I blew off their comments when I 
>resubmitted it. I think we've cleared that up and they are going to let me 
>create a new draft and resubmit.
>
>I'm forwarding this for another reason, though, which is the openly 
>hostile attitude they seem to have towards amateur work. I believe that 
>amateurs should be held to the same standard as professionals. We don't 
>want or need any favors. However, I don't think it is fair to say that 
>amateur observations "infest" the IBVS like some sort of vermin. Our paper 
>explains the type and period of a star that has hitherto gone unstudied. 
>It was suspected of being variable and we confirmed it and figured out the 
>type, period and amplitude of the star. That's all we claimed to do and I 
>think we did that very well. If not the IBVS, where else is appropriate to 
>publish this stuff? Seems to me it is the very mission of the IBVS. If I 
>am wrong, please let me know, and I will direct my efforts elsewhere.