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

[Thomas Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

The great thing about the internet is that it disconnects us from the
establishment.  If the establishment does not want our data we can (easily)
set up a web site and publish it ourselves.  The wiki is a good place to do
this.  Just set up a heading "New Binary Stars" and start putting stuff in
it.  

OK, I believe in standards.  So no need to create a new standard.  Just
write them up in the IBVS format so that people get what they are used to
getting.

So first one tries to work within the system.  If the system doesn't want
your work, then create your own system.

If there are a bunch of new variables and data available, then sooner or
later the interested parties will find the site and the data will get used.
I suspect that we could find an "expert" who would be willing to "peer
review" the stuff put on such a site.  We could have two headings.  Raw
entries, and entries that have passed a review.

Tom Droege


> [Original Message]
> From: Michael Koppelman <lolife@bitstream.net>
> To: Arne Henden <aah@nofs.navy.mil>
> Cc: tass List <tass@listserv.wwa.com>
> Date: 6/7/2004 10:17:22 AM
> Subject: Re: GSC 3493-1324 -- what's next?
>
> Thank you for bringing this up because it is bugging me.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael Koppelman
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2004, at 11:41 PM, Arne Henden wrote:
>
> > In this "brave new world", the problem is that journals are flooded
> > with new variable stars.  They are rightfully requesting detailed
> > analysis in order to publish Yet Another Variable.  So just datamining
> > and getting photometry for a given star from NSVS/TASS/ASAS is not
> > sufficient.
> >   This further means that anyone starting a photometry project to 
> > follow
> > one of these stars has to be prepared to either do the analysis (such
> > as WD modelling for binaries), or else find a collaborator.  (It is
> > usually wiser to find the collaborator before doing much photometry.)
> >   Hard facts of life.  Self-publishing through something like the wiki
> > is probably the simplest alternative for the near future, but some
> > thought is due from the professionals as to how to handle miscellaneous
> > datasets for long-term archival and acknowledgement.
>