Sat, 12/17/2022 - 10:56
Dear observers, I have been interested by article Period Bouncer Cataclysmic Variable EZ Lyn in Quiescence and sent proposal to AAVSOnet. Serial observations were made successfully, but it is my first experience in photometry with VPhot. Errors are huge, but star shown slow growth of brightness during 3 orbital periods. Look, please, the picture and tell me - is there a sense to put all 64 points to AID? Or better to send just average value? Or results are inappropriate?
How 'huge' was the error? In VPhot, the standard deviation of a series of magnitudes is calculated on the basis of the full set of magnitudes. IF the target actually varies during the series, the error will represent that variation in the magnitude as expected. What is the amplitude of the light curve?
The check star error would be representative of a constant (non-variable) star.
IF you observe 'real' variation during your time series, then it would be reasonable to report all the data to the AID so others could analyze the period. Do you think the variation exhibited in the light curve is real and consistent with the type of variable that EZ Lyn is reported to be?
More importantly, how does this rapid variation compare to the variation of the check star which is assumed to be constant? Look at that before you decide that the target's variation is real or not! On this basis you can decide whether to average groups of results (e.g., 3) by using 'bins' in the VPhot time series tool.
Thank you, MZK! I compared light curve with older data - it seems, the brightness of EZ Lyn fluctuates in the same diapason. So I'll send all points to AID - a lot of thanks for AAVSOnet!!!