Re: Error was GSC 748-1618 period

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

I remind everyone that the tass Mark IV data that has been posted so far is 
engineering data and it is there "for fun".  A lot of things were changed 
in the course of the run.  I can document most of what I was doing from log 
book entries.  But it would be a monumental task to put all the engineering 
data in a consistent frame and to document the error.  I do not intend to 
do this.

I am now taking data "for science".  I am attempting to be 
consistent.  Still there are minor changes being made.  Sigh!  There are 
unending decisions to be made as to whether it is worth making some 
improvement in order to try to make the data a little better or to stick 
with the previous scheme.

I will continue to post the current data.  While it is intended to be "for 
science"  I will not consider it to be "science" quality until we can 
derive an error.

Until you see a TN titled "error in Mark IV science run" or some such, 
consider all data to be "for fun" and use it at your own risk.

Having said this, I really don't expect the error to change much over the 
current estimates.  So I think it is appropriate to use the tass data as 
"preliminary" data.  It would probably be best to mark the tass data as 
"preliminary" Mark IV measurements.

Tom Droege

At 09:34 AM 2/17/03 -0600, you wrote:
>My errors on the order of 0.01 in terms of internal consistency (not in an 
>absolute sense). In the past, the TASS observations and my observations 
>matched up very well in an absolute sense. See 
>http://www.konkoly.hu/cgi-bin/IBVS?5327
>
>In the past our zero point has been very close. This star is fainter so it 
>may not be as close. My Tycho-2 derived comp star mags are also not great. 
>I'm more worried about the shape issue that Arne mentions. I'll dig up the 
>TASS V-I on the var and comps today.