h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [4.229.111.188] (helo=computer)
From: "Mike Simonsen" <mikesimonsen
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:21:46 -0500


RE: ASAS
"Maybe the thing to say is that just because there are no AAVSO observations

"Surely though they are being looked at by ASAS?"

Yes, ASAS makes things different for southern observers for sure. Even with
ASAS ongoing I wouldn't discourage southern observers from observing
anything based on AAVSO data. There aren't enough observers and there are
lots of interesting stars.

Whether or not it is useful to observe stars in the magnitude range and
skies covered by ASAS is up for debate in my mind. What happens when ASAS
finally goes silent. If everyone has stopped observing those stars who and
how will we pick them up again?
Maybe there is some benefit to continued observations of stars with long
historical light curves to maintain continuity? It is the long term behavior
of these stars we are particularly interested in, right?


RE: Charts
charts. Not all of them but the most have bad sequences en and don't go
faint enough."

Yes, agreed. If you see the whole file you will note that the remarks
columns all pertain to the quality of the charts and sequences. This is just
part of the continued effort on Marc's part to evaluate the charts most in
need of updating, fixing, revising with new photometry, etc. Marc is even
more fanatical about charts and sequences than I am, and since my efforts
have been almost exclusively on cataclysmic variables, he has been the
champion of improved AAVSO charts for Miras.

"Your list seems taking into account only those mirae which have an official
chart.
A lot of mirae, some of  them quite bright, don't have such charts, and are
observed using GSC mags."

Yes, I know, but again this list was made (indirectly) as part of the AAVSO
chart process, so it is based on stars with AAVSO charts.

RE: Direction from HQ based on scientific or other criteria

"Just out of curiosity, when I joined the AAVSO many years ago (sorry, no
longer a member),
I was assigned Chi CYG as a "check" star, i.e., to see if my visual
estimates were in line
with more experienced observers.

I wonder if that star is still used for that reason and, if so, if that
doesn't contribute

To the best of my knowledge HQ doesn't assign anyone stars for any purpose
these days. In fact the only resources for suggested targets are buried in
the web pages under 'needs more observations' in the Bulletin, 'easy to
observe stars' and the targets on the campaign page. I can't think of any
others.

Again, maybe there is some scientific reason to keep observing 'legacy
stars' with long historical light curves, even at the expense of most or all
other Miras. I don't know, what do you think?

Professional astronomers don't seem to be particularly well informed or
interested in a great number of Miras. From my "AAVSO usage reports" the
same stars come up again and again as the ones professionals are interested
in, R Leo, Chi Cyg, Omicron Ceti...

RE: Bad advice

"Maybe an appeal for observers to extend their programs and include some
urgently needed stars might be appropriate.
waste of time."

I didn't say observing any of these stars was a waste of time, nor was I
trying to imply it. Merely that there are other stars that may be of
interest that receive little or no attention, and "oh by the way, here is a
list for your convenience".


Mike Simonsen

*********************************
C. E. Scovil Observatory
http://home.mindspring.com/~mikesimonsen/
AAVSO Chart Team
charts
CVnet Administrator
http://cvnet.aavso.org

**********************************

_______________________________________________