Re: GSC 3493-1324 -- what's next?

[Sebastian Otero <varsao@fullzero.com.ar>]

> We "found" a couple of new EA binaries this weekend. We just decided
> that the astronomy world will not be told about them. So if you study
> EA's for a living or are trying to understand relative populations of
> binaries, there are two data points you will not have.

Hi, Michael,

The thing with IBVS as Arne commented is that they were getting overflooded
so they ask for a deeper study for publishing individual stars.
However, they accept lists that contain a huge number of stars at once.
The NSVS, ASAS -and all that it is to come- world, let us find lots of
objects and worked them out so all this info can be published as lists like
I did in IBVS 5480, 5495 and 5532.
With Patrick and other people, we have near 500 eclipsers to be published
soon.
So they will be in the databases eventually.
The thing with these stars is that once they are published, people
interested (for instance, there are several eccentric binaries and some
O-type stars) will know where and when to look. But the info in the
databases is enough to solve periods and types to present them to the
interested parties.
I think that strange stars projects like double-mode pulsators or the
possible YSO we are looking at are more worth projects to do intensive
photometry, since the data in the databases is not enough by itself.


> I don't get why that is good. The IBVS should publish every new "just
> another variable" so it get referenced in SIMBAD and becomes part of
> the big, bad database. Every one that we dismiss as "not special" is a
> gap in the database. We'll never have such a database because we are
> all deciding what is not special and dooming them to be rediscovered
> over and over.
>
> I maintain that when we figure out the type, period, amplitude and
> color of a binary system, it should be reported in a way that gets it
> referenced in SIMBAD. That is my opinion. From what I can tell, most
> people disagree with me.