Re: NSV 10892

[Michael Koppelman <lolife@bitstream.net>]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 02:00  PM, aah@nofs.navy.mil wrote:

> Some comments on the paper.
>   The Balmer series of hydrogen are "lines", not "bands".
>   I don't see a lot of need for Figure 1; you repeat the
> TASS V-band magnitudes in Figure 2 anyway.

I included Figure 1 for two reasons. One, it was the "discovery" 
observations and two, it had dual band time-series photometry. I 
suppose I could phase the Ic data in to Figure 2...

>   In Figure 2, it looks like there is a significant
> difference in V between Koppelman and TASS near maximum.
> You might comment on that in the text.

I wasn't sure that would be considered "significant". The 
difference is in the range of 0.02 magnitudes. These are not 
transformed to a standard system and in general the TASS data 
seems a bit brighter across the board. It just becomes more 
apparent as it curves into maximum. That was my thinking, 
anyway. How would you suggest I address it in the text?

>   I don't understand this 4750A feature in the spectrum;
> it looks like you picked this as the "peak" of the energy
> distribution as well, and that is probably not correct.
> You should also indicate how you flux-calibrated the spectrum.
> With a spectrum, you should be able to determine the spectral
> class better than with a crude Te fit; line strengths help.

I'd defer these questions to Doug.

>   What is the source for the coordinates?

In other papers I read I didn't see references to the coordinate 
source. These are Tycho-2 coordinates with precession calculated 
by VizieR.

>   How did you obtain the V-magnitude calibration?  Did
> Doug calibrate the comp stars and you use these to obtain
> the differential V magnitude?  If he calibrated the comp
> stars, you should present the calibration.

I used the two GSC comp stars cited in a multi-star solution. I 
used Tycho magnitudes. Doug used the Cousins magnitudes of his 
comp star for the BVRI stuff. Do you think I should describe our 
methods more thoroughly in the text?

>   In general, looks good.
>

Thanks, Arne. I always appreciate your feedback. This has 
already been submitted to the IBVS but we are going to get a new 
version ready just the same.

Michael Koppelman