Well, there's a whole wide range of different types of variable stars,
with all kinds of behavior. Some vary in a smooth predictable fashion, the
classical "Miras". On the other extreme are the cataclysmics and
AGN/Blazars which can be semi-periodic or totally random. Some have small
amplitudes only detectable by CCD, most have enough variability to be
detected visually.
Im not sure where they get their reputation of being "tricky"? Our job as
amateur observers is to monitor their brightness. This is not
difficult. AAVSO has charts for almost every one, and those charts have
the standard comparison stars magnitudes around the variable. You just
compare the variable to the comp stars and estimate its brightness. Its
not as tricky as it sounds, because the comps are usually spaced out about
every 0.5 mag or less, so you can usually find 2 comps, one just brighter,
one just fainter, and make a pretty good estimate of the variable.
Thats pretty much it, in a nutshell.
Mike
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Mark Wagner wrote:
> At 4/18/2005, you wrote:
>
> >Hmmm. Whats the problem with variables? Rather than just looking at
> >"static" galaxies and such, at least there's some action. Plus its
> >a hot area of research (think IBVS publications for us amateurs!)
>
> Okay, I'll dip my toes in here and risk that I know a smidge about these
> (but that's about all I know). Nothing wrong with variables. It is the
> cataclysmic ones that are tricky, right? Plain old dependable variables
> should be a cinch to watch!
>
Received on Mon Apr 18 16:51:14 2005