Return to Home Page
Re: [vsnet-chat 6087] Re: NMO Campaign > I guess those who want to operate such an activity will want to creat > light curves and reveal the status by themselves. Not always. There are a vast number of objects, and it is increasingly becoming unrealistic to expect that the same person makes observation, draws a light curve, and makes an analysis. A better approach is to create a public database, which can be maintained with the least human intervention (with a help of improvement of the software, such as PIXY or AIP4WIN), and to make it available to anyone who wish to draw a light curve and make an analysis. The public database is basically ready at VSNET site, so what is needed from the viewpoint of software is reliable photometry software requiring least human intervention. > The GCVS contains various kinds of stars. Many of them are good > targets for your wide field camera lens. > > But many of them must be too faint. In those cases, the software often > measures the magnitude of the neaby bright star as that of the faint > variable. Then you have to delete them. The main difficulty of PIXY would be that the software tries to make catalog correlations with a single catalog (e.g. GCVS) at one time. To the "eye" of the correlation software, the sky would look "filled with variable stars only". If the software would incorporate multiple catalog correlation (e.g. combination of GCVS and GSC/USNO), confusions with "bright nearby stars" would be more efficiently removed. It would be even adequate not to report anything when there is a bright cataloged nearby star. > I do not know why the PIXY's results became so inaccurate in the case > of Maciej's project. But in the case of the MISAO Project, it was not > too inaccurate, as Taichi pointed out. This problem needs to be fixed from the both sides: PIXY and Maciej. It may simply be a result of bad CCD response (non-linearity etc.), or the combination of problems in PIXY and Maciej's method. Once Maciej confirms the reliability of the CCD, the problem fixing is then up to PIXY. Otherwise, Maciej would move onto different software, and may continue producing unreliable data in different occasions X-). > But using longer focul length, some stars, probably very red stars, > became blur. We called it "infrared blur". Many LPV are very red and > bright in infrared. So they may be blur on camera lens images. Then it > is impossible to measure the magnitude precisely using any methods. Those who will be contibuting to this project should choose a camera lens with the least choromatic aberration up to 1000 nm. Could someone make a recommendation? This is probably as neccesary requirement as one needs to choose an achoromatic (in visual wavelength) lens in visual observation. Designing an observing system before observation is more important than to make compensatory efforts to correct system defects after observation. Regards, Taichi Kato
Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
