Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:16:41 -0600
From: Richard Huziak <huziak
	rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
References: <00a201c648c6$d3656580$6875e504
	<p06110401c03f897868a5

Steve et al:

both a lot of visual observing experience, and now CCD imaging of a 
several hundred fields, I'm finding the most sequences have smaller 
issues than you'd think.  Indeed, I am impressed with the capability of 
 A lot of charts have 'baseline' issues and sequences are sometimes 
baseline issues affect observing values you report.  There are a lot of 
charts that do not cover the bottom end, but most of us don't have scope 
that can get that low anyway.  Good (enough) charts outnumber bad charts 
 >10:1 and there are only a handful of "useless" charts.

But a better reason why star are underobserved is that some people are 
to 200 estimates a night, which means travelling into the realm of stars 

It really boils down to what you want to do and how many hours you want 

rick

Steve Sharpe wrote:

> At 8:17 AM +0100 3/16/06, Hubert Hautecler wrote:
>
>> charts. Not all of them but the most have bad sequences en and don't 
>> go faint enough.
>
>
> That has been my experience as well.
>
> Most of those stars are very faint as well, I suspect.



* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard Huziak
Manufacturing Engineering
SED Systems
Saskatoon, SK, Canada
<huziak
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 



_______________________________________________