Play

[Thomas Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

I have my variable finding program running on TOM1 data. It is slowly
grinding through the 2 million or so stars in the TOM1 data.  It is finding
variables just about as fast as I can look them up in VizieR with all the
windows set up properly to plot the star, then copy and paste into VizieR
to see what is known.  OK, I am not looking at all the right catalogs etc.,
but it is finding stars a little faster than I can look them up.  About 100
and hour is my guess.  

I have set the cut a little more strict than the last batch, so these
should all be good variables.  I would guess that about 80% are really
variable, the rest are due to various noise in the TOM1 data.  There is
more early data in the TOM1 set, and I think it is not as good as the later
data.  

It is interesting that the area that I looked at a few days ago with TOM2
data seems to have been better explored than the equator where I am now
looking.  I would have thought it would be the other way around.  So I seem
to be finding more unexplored variables in this data.  

There are a lot of stars that are surely variable that do not seem to be in
the GCVS.  

A big WS statistic is not a sure fire indicator of real variability.  Many
of the 5 - 10 values are surely variable, while some of the big numbers
appear to be noise.  So it is worth looking with a cut at WS of 5 where I
have it for this run.  I might even set it lower.

I am now writing out a list in vizier format that also includes the WS
value to please JG.  At last look I was up to 5 hrs RA and had 150 or so
candidates.    

This is just for fun.  Eventually I will have to do this in a systematic
way for a paper.  Well, I may never do it but leave the fun of finding
these variables to others while I concentrate on taking good data.  

Tom Droege