Nexstar variables - weird selection?

[Ascella]

Hi,

I am an avid variable star observer, and usually starhop where ever I need to go. I really never paid much attention to the Nexstar built in variable star database (It only contains 12 variables in the 104.0 firmware edition to start with). However, last night I'd thought I'd take a look to see what's really in it.... I got rather puzzled when glancing through the list of the 12 variables, and I found it to be quite an intriguing selection of objects. There are a few objects well without range at their minimum, and one of the variables only have a 0.05 mag in amplitude. Nothing you even try visually.

If composing a database, limited to 12 stars, one would surely try to keep the following criterions as a minimum; As many various types as possible, easily observed with good comparisons, a fair amplitude and all observable at maximum as well as minimum.

What criterias did Celestron have in mind when composing the list, or are they just a bunch of randomly selected objects? Am I missing out on anything here?

I do take their database for what it is, a introduction for the beginner, but still believe they could keep the contents on an acceptable level.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Agreed. I would also include a few comparatively fast variables (as kid I had a lot of fun watching delta Cephei and Algol). A variable with a period of a hundred days or more might not capture the imagination that easily. The drawback is of course that these often lack amplitude.