Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

MISAO

Expand Messages
  • martin_piers_nicholson
    ... impossible ... I would not want colleagues to feel that I had any significant role in the vast amount of work done by the MISAO team. I think the total of
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > In the case of MISAO, it is a catalog of 1340 objects, something
      impossible
      > to check on a one-by-one basis. (Note: it includes variables either
      > discovered by Martin, or on some of his images.)

      I would not want colleagues to feel that I had any significant role in
      the vast amount of work done by the MISAO team. I think the total of
      my contribution is two variables found in one batch of images I
      supplied. The overwhelming majority of the new variables are down to
      Ken-ichi Kadota and Nobuo Ohkura.

      http://www.aerith.net/misao/offer/list.html

      I will work through their list "as and when".
    • arne
      ... That will be a valued contribution to the community. I hope that you will also consider performing some followup observations of your own - it would be
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
        > >
        > > In the case of MISAO, it is a catalog of 1340 objects, something
        > impossible
        > > to check on a one-by-one basis. (Note: it includes variables either
        > > discovered by Martin, or on some of his images.)
        >
        > I would not want colleagues to feel that I had any significant role in
        > the vast amount of work done by the MISAO team. I think the total of
        > my contribution is two variables found in one batch of images I
        > supplied. The overwhelming majority of the new variables are down to
        > Ken-ichi Kadota and Nobuo Ohkura.
        >
        > http://www.aerith.net/misao/offer/list.html
        > <http://www.aerith.net/misao/offer/list.html>
        >
        > I will work through their list "as and when".
        >
        That will be a valued contribution to the community.
        I hope that you will also consider performing some followup
        observations of your own - it would be good to see your backyard
        observatory contributing data again.

        One of my real concerns are the papers either by various surveys
        or by data miners of those surveys. The refereeing process is supposed
        to catch the majority of errors in papers, but when looking at a large
        list of objects, this process can fail.

        For example, I just reviewed a paper from a GRB group that had found
        over a thousand variables in their images. Looking at the data, I would
        agree - these are variables. However, they spent half of their paper
        describing their automated method of deriving periods and classification,
        and when examining the table based on these facts, it was very obvious
        to me that the automated process was not working. Would another reviewer
        have caught this? We've rejected a couple of lists for VSX because
        inspection by the team made it clear that the false-positive rate was
        too high; some of these were refereed publications. Surveys represent
        a real challenge to proper and timely refereeing.
        Arne
      • martin_piers_nicholson
        I have looked at the first 10 entires in the MISAO database of new variable stars http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100 Using VSX seems to show
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I have looked at the first 10 entires in the MISAO database of "new
          variable stars"

          http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100

          Using VSX seems to show that 8 are known GCVS variables
          (#1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 10)

          #7 only has seven data points on three days does also link to NSVS
          #9 only has six data points on three days but does also link to NSVS

          I don't really see that the MISAO data adds much to the debate.
          Should these just appear in VSX named as GCVS or NSVS variables
          rather than MISAO variables?

          As people probably know I do most of my observing using remote
          facilities in New Mexico. It would be simple to write a script that
          would take weekly V band images of say 50 NSVS variables (or indeed
          50 MISAO variables) every week for a few months.

          BUT - would this be a sensible use of observing time? Would these go
          into VSX as Nicholson 1 to Nicholson 50 <grin>?
        • arne
          ... If you look at the references, you will see that these are known GCVS variables because they were discovered by MISAO and published in IBVS. ... That is
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
            >
            >
            > I have looked at the first 10 entires in the MISAO database of "new
            > variable stars"
            >
            > http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100
            > <http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100>
            >
            > Using VSX seems to show that 8 are known GCVS variables
            > (#1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 10)
            >
            If you look at the references, you will see that these are "known
            GCVS variables" because they were discovered by MISAO and published
            in IBVS.

            > #7 only has seven data points on three days does also link to NSVS
            > #9 only has six data points on three days but does also link to NSVS
            >
            > I don't really see that the MISAO data adds much to the debate.
            > Should these just appear in VSX named as GCVS or NSVS variables
            > rather than MISAO variables?
            >
            That is how they appear. Right now, VSX lists all records from all
            catalogs, so you will get multiple hits from stars that appear in
            more than one catalog. Eventually there will be a "primary record",
            where the best information from each catalog is brought together.

            > As people probably know I do most of my observing using remote
            > facilities in New Mexico. It would be simple to write a script that
            > would take weekly V band images of say 50 NSVS variables (or indeed
            > 50 MISAO variables) every week for a few months.
            >
            > BUT - would this be a sensible use of observing time? Would these go
            > into VSX as Nicholson 1 to Nicholson 50 <grin>?
            >
            They would be entered as VSX Jhhmmss.s+ddmmss
            If you published them elsewhere, then there would be a cross-id to
            Nicholson xx if that is how you listed them in the other paper, or
            to NSVS xxxx if that is how they are indexed. There is very little
            personal glory in discovering or studying variable stars; as opposed
            to "minor planet" (parentheses mine, based on the latest IAU meeting)
            studies, where the discoverer can name the body, very few stars are
            known by an individuals' name.

            What is a sensible use of observing time depends on your personal
            opinion, not anyone elses. Likewise, whether you use the nice system
            in your backyard, or RAS, is your choice. I'm just pushing you to
            restart your Daventry system too. :)
            Arne
          • ncam1999
            ... The simplest of investigations reveals MisV0001 is in the GCVS primarily because it was published in an IBVS by MISAO and the GCVS picked it up later and
            Message 5 of 13 , Sep 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "martin_piers_nicholson"
              <martin_piers_nicholson@...> wrote:
              >
              > I have looked at the first 10 entires in the MISAO database of "new
              > variable stars"
              >
              > http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100
              >
              > Using VSX seems to show that 8 are known GCVS variables
              > (#1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 10)
              >
              > #7 only has seven data points on three days does also link to NSVS
              > #9 only has six data points on three days but does also link to NSVS
              >
              > I don't really see that the MISAO data adds much to the debate.
              > Should these just appear in VSX named as GCVS or NSVS variables
              > rather than MISAO variables?

              The simplest of investigations reveals MisV0001 is in the GCVS
              primarily because it was published in an IBVS by MISAO and the GCVS
              picked it up later and formally named it, as has happened with many a
              MISAO variable

              http://www.sai.msu.su/groups/cluster/gcvs/cgi-bin/search.cgi?search=V4652+Sgr

              In this primary instance the Mira star was found from images of the
              field of the adjacent suspected cataclysmic variable V4334 Sgr via
              using PIXY SYSTEM (1) on donated images for that field.

              The GCVS reference to the study of MisV0002 is again to an IBVS by
              Yoshida et al on MISAO variables.

              VSX also echoes this information. Probably same for t'others, I can't
              be bothered to look.

              MISAO variables predate NSVS red variables in many instances, memory
              tells me up to MisV0500 were published in IBVSs, although in what form
              I remember not, and further that these are subsequently in SIMBAD, so
              the NSVS team should have found them via cross checking. In fact the
              NSVS team did not even fully cross check against the GCVS and NSV as
              at that time said catalogues were only up to date in the SAI ftp
              archive and not integrated into SIMBAD, which had a woefully out of
              date copy. MisV often came afore subsequent published NSVS J, in
              other words, and just as often the NSVS solution is no more accurate
              and many of their long period variable periodicities are between
              farcical and very bad indeed.

              The date is likely around 2003 when which survey has priority probably
              swaps, last I was actively taking note of MISAO stuff and doing cross
              indexing work therefor up to around the MisV1200s, MisV1147 and the
              potential Nova Cephei 2001 = V0709 Cephei which I think = MisV1181 was
              about the last ones I remember. There was no NSVS data to play with
              at that time. Amateurs using visual techniques provided a lot of the
              full lightcurve for the semilegendary MisV1147, plus some allsky CCD
              several passband photometry from folk like Ondrej Pejcha. It was
              quite a little international get together on the quiet was that one.


              It is within the context of these matters that VSX can do work if folk
              experienced in such work are willing to cross correlate multiple
              entries for single objects, show the connection with reference to
              evidence, literature based or new observation based, and tighten up
              the reportage system of the database. That is what it is about. VSX
              makes the MISAO and GCVS and NSVS data available for the tidying up of
              the case of what the true situation is re the MISAO _discoveries_.

              As is, the MISAO list was imported en masse and therefore duplicates
              other entries, as many were published by MISAO, or noted to vsnet
              lists as was, and subsequently were formally adopted into the GCVS,
              which too lives in VSX.

              I'll repeat that a third time. MisVnnnn objects are often in GCVS
              because they were discovered as new by MISAOchan, checked against then
              current catalogues for newness by her alter ego Pixy Misa, and double
              checked for knownness by Kato Taichi and independently for some by
              John Greaves, although neither were formal "MISAO members".

              The NSVS database permits folk to solve such objects if they so wish,
              indeed Yoshida Seiichi himself typed and periodified several long
              known red MISAO objects using the extra data thereby made available,
              sometimes in tandem with new CCD observations by Japanese observers.

              Solution is the emphasis. The current situation reminds me that I
              advised strongly against full MISAO list import into VSX as there are
              _some_ gray area objects whilst the more certain objects are fully
              published in IBVSs (sadly IBVS data still ain't in VSX for some
              unfathomable reason) and/or already integrated into GCVS and later
              namelists. I took the view that misinterpretations re VSX submission
              could ensue based on one or two, and only a handful mind you, of cases
              carefully picked out of MISAO for agenda based illustration by those
              desirous of so doing.

              A list, no matter of what longevity, that contains some objects only
              appearing in that list on a webpage being imported into VSX could
              potentially be an unfortunate precedent, was another view I took.

              However, Seiichi is a devoted and rigorous individual, and took every
              effort to ensure his findings were new afore calling them as such.

              Remember again that the vast majority of the MisV objects appeared
              afore the current surveys and lists began to make their data public.

              > As people probably know I do most of my observing using remote
              > facilities in New Mexico. It would be simple to write a script that
              > would take weekly V band images of say 50 NSVS variables (or indeed
              > 50 MISAO variables) every week for a few months.
              >
              > BUT - would this be a sensible use of observing time? Would these go
              > into VSX as Nicholson 1 to Nicholson 50 <grin>?

              Why not Nicholson 1 to twenty million? Yes, they'd likely go into VSX
              as Nicholson 1 to 20,000,000 provided they were shown variable, shown
              truly to be new and/or shown to be properly and fully analysed and
              solved if their existance in other surveys, such as ASAS3 and NSVS,
              was under a false analysis/variability typing, as perforce they would
              be new solutions for either known or new objects. However, in the
              case of preknown but incorrectly classed objects a note should be made
              of their preknownness. If only for bibliographic reference... ...the
              old paper trail, don'tja know.

              The nature of the MISAO system is somewhat historical, it preceded the
              current datamineable (more properly, datatrawlable) surveys and was
              based on processing of donated CCD observations taken by amateurs.

              It was set up to find new asteroids by happenstance in spare images,
              something soon made irrelevant by LINEAR, and they hoped one day to
              find a nova or two, and they more or less did find one in the end.

              Whether such a scheme is strictly relevant in the modern age is
              unclear.

              A system likely more relevant to the current way of things is likely
              Vello Tabur's survey of the southern sky with a simple system,
              something he unfortunately never wrote up, coz it were impressive, and
              it found truly new variables, and solved their nature, and not all of
              those were found or included in subsequent ASAS3 releases either.

              John
            • Sebastian Otero
              ... Actually if the observations are for Misao (or any other known) variables they will enter VSX as revisions of the already existing stars so if they already
              Message 6 of 13 , Sep 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                >> BUT - would this be a sensible use of observing time? Would these go
                >> into VSX as Nicholson 1 to Nicholson 50 <grin>?
                >>
                > They would be entered as VSX Jhhmmss.s+ddmmss
                > If you published them elsewhere, then there would be a cross-id to
                > Nicholson xx if that is how you listed them in the other paper, or
                > to NSVS xxxx if that is how they are indexed.

                Actually if the observations are for Misao (or any other known) variables
                they will enter VSX as revisions of the already existing stars so if they
                already have a designation I don't see why a new name should be added just
                for personal glory satisfaction...
                If every variable star researcher had that purpose in mind when it is
                analysing a new or unsolved variable, the nomenclature would be chaotic.

                Cheers,
                Sebastian.
              • martin_piers_nicholson
                As a way to greatly speed the process. Ask the experts to generate a list of the MISAO variables not currently linked to a GCVS entry. Better still do this
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  As a way to greatly speed the process.

                  Ask the experts to generate a list of the MISAO variables not
                  currently linked to a GCVS entry.

                  Better still do this concentrating on those south of -30.

                  You will find most, if not all, of these are very questionable.


                  MISAO 50-100 but not in GCVS

                  Very questionable
                  52
                  56
                  59
                  64
                  77
                  78
                  79
                  80
                  83
                  89
                  97
                  98

                  Questionable
                  58
                  68
                  90
                  94
                  96
                • Arne Henden
                  Obviously, I m a little confused here. For example, #52 may have few data points, but it has nearly 2 magnitudes variation, and the images are pretty clear as
                  Message 8 of 13 , Sep 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Obviously, I'm a little confused here. For example, #52 may have few
                    data points,
                    but it has nearly 2 magnitudes variation, and the images are pretty clear as to
                    which star is variable and by how much. They are even from the same observer.
                    Are you saying this is not a variable? Or are you saying that you
                    want a minimum
                    amount of information, such as a complete light curve and period
                    analysis, before
                    any star is considered variable? It certainly meets your amplitude > 2-3 sigma
                    criteria. So what do you mean by very questionable? I'm not debating with you,
                    just trying to understand your concern. 64 is similar, and is linked
                    to V1174 Sco.
                    I didn't look further into your list.
                    Arne

                    On 9/2/06, martin_piers_nicholson <martin_piers_nicholson@...> wrote:
                    > As a way to greatly speed the process.
                    >
                    > Ask the experts to generate a list of the MISAO variables not
                    > currently linked to a GCVS entry.
                    >
                    > Better still do this concentrating on those south of -30.
                    >
                    > You will find most, if not all, of these are very questionable.
                    >
                    >
                    > MISAO 50-100 but not in GCVS
                    >
                    > Very questionable
                    > 52
                    > 56
                    > 59
                    > 64
                    >
                  • martin_piers_nicholson
                    Take Misao 98 as an example. BAD NEWS Only 2 data points, March and June 1999. However to my eye quite a few other stars in the field look different as well.
                    Message 9 of 13 , Sep 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Take Misao 98 as an example.

                      BAD NEWS
                      Only 2 data points, March and June 1999.

                      However to my eye quite a few other stars in the field look
                      different as well.

                      GCVS didn't include it although it appears in the same issue of IBVS
                      as many MISAO stars that were accepted.


                      GOOD NEWS
                      They differ by a quoted 1.1 magnitudes and the photos clearly show
                      the indicated star has changed in brightness.



                      What I would like is clear guidance on what constitutes proof of
                      sufficient quality and quantity to qualify for inclusion in VSX. If
                      I were to invest time in going through the material it would have to
                      be on the basis of having this framework in place first. (Refer to
                      forthcoming email on priorities in this context)
                    • kawai.sasami
                      ... You have evidently not read up on or learnt about or taken note of the pixy system and its subsequent revised form the pixy2 system. If you had you would
                      Message 10 of 13 , Sep 3, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "martin_piers_nicholson"
                        <martin_piers_nicholson@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Take Misao 98 as an example.
                        >
                        > BAD NEWS
                        > Only 2 data points, March and June 1999.
                        >
                        > However to my eye quite a few other stars in the field look
                        > different as well.

                        You have evidently not read up on or learnt about or taken note of the
                        pixy system and its subsequent revised form the pixy2 system.

                        If you had you would know that differences between brightnesses
                        between discordant images are allowed for, correction can be applied
                        given the reasonable assumption that the vast majority of the field
                        stars are constant. Once this form of calibration has been applied
                        any remaining difference in magnitude found for any particular star
                        has a likelihood of being variability, the large the amplitude, the
                        higher the likelihood.

                        As most images were unfiltered highish amplitude red LPVs were
                        predominantly detected in the MISAO system.

                        Incidentally, I am not part of and never was part of MISAO and I shall
                        note that separately.

                        > GCVS didn't include it although it appears in the same issue of IBVS
                        > as many MISAO stars that were accepted.
                        >
                        >
                        > GOOD NEWS
                        > They differ by a quoted 1.1 magnitudes and the photos clearly show
                        > the indicated star has changed in brightness.

                        they were measured, reduced, to show this. Not guessed by eyeball.
                        Granted the photometric calibration is against USNO A2.0 red mags, so
                        the magnitudes are purely MISAOing, but that's the way it was.

                        The original intent was to find incidental asteroids in spare images.
                        PIXY and any presumable precursor thus had to match any and all
                        images to the USNO A2.0 catalogue to find new objects that shouldn't
                        be in the field. Some level of magnitude estimate is also useful for
                        such endeavours, and A2.0 at the time, and still now to some extent,
                        is the only readily available bulk system allowing stars to fainter
                        mags than most amateur imaging. ie Seiichi has a copy. Although I
                        vaguely remember PIXY2 could fetch other data off of the net later on.

                        All form memory, all stuff I learnt by bothering to read the MISAO
                        website in the past.

                        John
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.