[vsnet-chat 4256] Re: re vs-chat 4203 [was GK Per etc.]

[Taichi Kato <tkato>]

Re: [vsnet-chat 4224] re vs-chat 4203 [was GK Per etc.]

  Two points:

> Well, a bunch of data from the 1990s and just after is going to cause bias
> due to these spurious pre-discoveries, as they significantly increase the
> rise time of these rare objects, as well as probably changing the profile
> of said rise.
> 
> Of course, the insidious aspect here is that Patrick Schmeer is responsible
> for good and valuable work and important notifications of rare events, of
> which the aforementioned EG Cnc and U Sco are only two examples.  Thus it
> becomes difficult to discern, at a distance, what data is spurious and what
> is valid.

   If an observer reports only non-spurious (or non-fabricated) data,
one can easily imagine the introduction of a bias if the observer preselect
observations.  If an observer reports "positive" observations only, outburst
duty cycle should be always larger than the actuality.  If an observer
reports on rare bursters only, the outburst frequency of such objects
may be overestimated against other objects.  This one of reasons why
"reporting all observations, including negative ones" is strongly
recommended.  In other words, observers who are supposed to report
only selected reports (in their final form), future analysts may be obliged
to ignore these reports.

> Variable star observing is not an "egocentric sport", and as noted above
> and in other posts, most observers look at the stars just cos they want to,

   In your opinion, is there any field of astronomical activities which could
be called as an "egocentric sport"?  If there is, my feeling is that
variable star observing is considered at least by some people getting
closer to the sport than has been ever thought.

Regards,
Taichi Kato

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp