Re: new stars and such

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

Arne and all,

I have been doing a lot of comparison between the tass data and ASAS.  At 
least by what I can do from my data and Pojmanski's papers.  It is a 
struggle.  I have declared the analysis software to be as good as it can get.

My conclusion is that tass has better optics.  We have a larger aperture 
and a much flatter field.  This promises to produce slightly better 
photometry.

ASAS has a better location.  This gives them more days of coverage, and 
deeper coverage for the same optics.  We have more telescopes 
running.  ASAS have a 2 and 1/2 year head start.  There is something to be 
said for buying most of the equipment off the shelf.  They did build a very 
nice mount.

I am running 3 VI pairs.  All my data so far is VI data.

The result of all this looks like a wash to me.  We will get data that is 
quite comparable to ASAS.  We will get a similar amount of data.  More 
telescopes make up for more good nights.  Better telescopes make up for 
clearer sky.

However, we will not have very many good photometric nights.  So Pojmanski 
can probably do better color correction than we can.  We shall see.  We 
will do the best we can.

I plan to run a survey similar to ASAS.  That is a star is measured once a 
night.  At least for the first couple of years.  The rest of you with 
telescopes might concentrate on the short periods.  Just track the sky for 
4 hours or so.  This is probably more fun, and one is sure to get something 
every night you run.  OK, I know you all will do what you want, but that is 
the design of tass.

Tom Droege

At 06:55 PM 5/2/03 -0700, Arne Henden wrote:
>Michael,
>   The IBVS, over the last few years, has been leaning towards
>fewer papers covering more stars.  Since both objects are from
>TASS, I'd put them together unless you do extensive modelling of
>one system or another.
>   ASAS is not the be-all/end-all.  Greg's photometry does not go that