[Aavso-photometry] RE: [AAVSO-DIS] RE: AAVSO special notice 5 object

[Walt Cooney]

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of UCAC2.  Astrometrica is so slick as to be
able to download the B1.0 stars online.  B1.0 is a lot more accurate than my
copy of A1.0.  UCAC2 would be far better.  I haven't really kept up with the
astrometric catalog world.  Is UCAC2 easily available for download somewhere?

-Walt



-----Original Message-----
From: arne at aavso.org [mailto:arne at aavso.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:56 PM
To: Walt Cooney
Cc: 'Aaron Price'; aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org
Subject: Re: [Aavso-photometry] RE: [AAVSO-DIS] RE: AAVSO special notice
5 object


Hey, Walt!
Why are you using USNO-B1.0 for the astrometry, rather
than UCAC2?
Arne

On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 01:51:57PM -0600, Walt Cooney wrote:
> Thanks Aaron.  I'll submit the v data per your note.
>
> Per the color information, that's what I have decided to do previously, sit on
> the data.   I have some color data for several variables that are waiting for
a
> means to publish them clearly.  I'll look forward to the resolution.  It's not
> an easy question.
>
> -Walt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Price [mailto:aaronp at aavso.org]
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:40 PM
> To: Walt Cooney
> Cc: aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org
> Subject: Re: [Aavso-photometry] RE: [AAVSO-DIS] RE: AAVSO special notice
> 5 object
>
>
> (Note I've removed aavso-discussion from the CC: list since this involves
> photometry.)
>
>  This is a good question about a grey area.  Current AAVSO policy is to
> submit absolute magnitudes, not differential. If you don't have a
> magnitude of the comp star in the same filter as your observations then
> what you basically have is a differential estimate with an offset. So we
> recommend that you not submit that data until you can find an appropriate
> comparison star value.  When possible, we find the photometry and will
> post it and/or update the chart. But that is sometimes not possible,
> especially for faint stars in the southern hemisphere. That is something
> for which I don't have an answer for. Perhaps Arne does. I do know it is
> something we plan to address with our upgrade of WebObs and the
> observation pipeline in the next year.
>
>  Note on your other comment, put the magnitude in the "comp star" field
> and then the GSC ID# in the Comments Explained field. And then use Comment
> Code "G" (for Guide Star magnitudes).
>
> Aaron
>
>
> > The next question is what to do with my B, R, and I data.  If I use the same
> GSC
> > as a reference star and use its nominal GSC magnitude, that is patently
wrong
> > and likely going to confuse users of the data if I can't also report the
> > magnitude I assumed for the reference star.  These questions have been
raised
> > before of course.  Any updates on the progress of resolving the issue?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Walt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: aavso-discussion-bounces at mira.aavso.org
> > [mailto:aavso-discussion-bounces at mira.aavso.org]On Behalf Of
> > arne at aavso.org
> > Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:05 PM
> > To: Tom Krajci
> > Cc: aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org; aavso-discussion at mira.aavso.org
> > Subject: Re: [AAVSO-DIS] RE: AAVSO special notice 5 object
> >
> >
> > Hi Tom!  Seiichiro Kiyota indicates that this object
> > is very red (B-V = 1.49), so that is why your unfiltered
> > differential photometry will have a large offset from Walter's.
> > For most novae, it is better to use a standard filter.
> > At 11th magnitude, you shouldn't have any problem using
> > a V filter for example.  Classification waits on a
> > decent spectra.  It is in a tough spot for a single site
> > to follow, so observations from everyone at all of our
> > longitudes will be essential to follow its light curve.
> > Arne
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:12:53AM -0700, Tom Krajci wrote:
> > > >From: "Walt Cooney" <waltc at cox.net>
> > >
> > > >I imaged the area of the ASAS object reported in AAVSO Special Notice 5
> > > this
> > > >morning and can confirm the new object.   It is approximately 0.8
> > > magnitudes
> > > >brighter in V than the nearby star GSC 6826:280.  I am taking a time
series
> > > in V
> > > >now.
> > >
> > > I have submitted about 90 minutes of time series data from this morning
via
> > > WebObs...call it up in Quick Look by the designation 1727-24.  My
unfiltered
> > > data shows it to be about 0.4 mag brighter than GSC 6826-0280.  No signs
of
> > > modulation/humping.
> > >
> > > Tom Krajci
> > > Cloudcroft, New Mexico
> > > http://overton2.tamu.edu/aset/krajci/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 2/10/2006
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > Aavso-discussion mailing list
> > > Aavso-discussion at mira.aavso.org
> > > http://mira.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-discussion
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Aavso-discussion mailing list
> > Aavso-discussion at mira.aavso.org
> > http://mira.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Aavso-photometry mailing list
> > Aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org
> > http://www.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-photometry
>
> --
> Aaron Price (PAH), Technical Assistant, Technology
> American Association of Variable Star Observers
> http://www.aavso.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Aavso-photometry mailing list
> Aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org
> http://www.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-photometry