31 August 1996

Dear Lewis;
	Here are the 3 each input and output files from whydra
for the giant branch, main sequence, and turnoff regions of NGC 188's
CMD.  I suggest that the order of importance be GB, MS, TO, as the 
first two include a smattering of the turn-off region.  Also, the giant
branch takes an hour in total, so we're more likely to get *something*
if we prioritize that!  The postscript files are the CMD showing which 
stars were assigned in that setup.

GB   n188whydra3.in n188.3.hydra  n188.t3.ps
MS   n188whydra7.in n188.7.hydra  n188.t7.ps
TO   n188whydra9.in n188.9.hydra  n188.t9.ps
Total assigned-stars CMD         n188.t379.ps
Positions for ALL stars in the field.  n188.xy.ps (Dec increases with Y:
						RA increases with X)

	Here's my STRATEGY: 
Select only stars >65% combined proper-motion and position members per
	Dinescu AJ.  (Are you aware this photometry doesn't go down to
	the G-dwarfs? - too small a telescope.  Damn.)  
Skies were selected by hand from an xy plot of ALL stars in the field.
FOPs were non-members in the field with <10 u's of proper motion, with	
	magnitudes between 13 and 14.5.
There are five special faint stars that were high priority for all fields:
	1352, 1631 (EBHB), 754, 765, 583 (variables).
I demanded 6 FOPs and 12 skies.  I consider this conservative.
If you don't like some of these assumptions, ask me please as I might have
	a good reason! (-;

	QUESTIONS:
Some bright stars are included in the MS and TO fields.  Will they mess
	up the faint spectra if they are next to them on the CCD?  (I
	haven't done the fiborg simulator, as that proved difficult to
	run here.)  Should these bright stars be eliminated?
Is it worthwhile putting a fiber on the faint stars in the GB field for
	the same reason?
I am not 100% sure that the skies are really in a blank spot:  I would
	feel better if you could compare a fiber-map picture with the 
	xy plot for each field to make sure we aren't taking spectra of
	a field star.  (But maybe you consider 12+ skies safe enough?)
Exactly within what timeframe are you out of touch via email?

I am assuming that YOU WILL:
	Make the final submission to the NOAO for these fields and send
me a copy.
	Do the spectrograph set-up.  
	Do the Pleiades standard field.  (I assume you have it but Di said 
that she thinks you used an old version of whydra.)  By the way, does this 
have giants as red as NGC 6791? I assume the blue end is covered.
	Ask KPNO if they can wait for the 19h field, as it seems to me,
frankly, that they won't get to a 19h field.  Maybe just inquire about
which deadline applies:  I wouldn't want to give the impression we don't
WANT the cluster!

I WILL wait until I get feedback from you on tweaking these before I
	do anything more with the NGC 6791 field.  By the way, the
	reason that is a bitch is because I have to do a cross-ID for
	decent photometry, i.e., membership of the fainter stars.
	But in a pinch I can just do the central portion of the cluster
	for which there are proper-motion determinations.  (Oh yes, I
	absolutely have common positions, Kyle just hasn't made a proper-
	motion determination yet on the outer cluster!)

Beth