[vsnet-chat 277] Re: Announcing new variable stars

[Fraser Farrell <fraserf@dove.net.au>]

On 1997-04-26 tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp said:
   >rather in experienced observers, who have often gone so far as to
   >be requested to confirm other person's discovery reports.  They
   >probably know "they have discovered", but in order to secure their
   >priority of discoveries, they are unwilling to (or I understand
   >incorrectly -- they may be suggested not to do so) disseminate
   >their discovery reports before the official criteria of discoveries
   >are satisfied (or the reports are "officially" announced), even if
   >they are sufficiently confident of their discoveries or if they
   >know there are investigators in need of early information.

Surely the observer would sent a copy of their discovery message to CBAT
to confirm priority of discovery, as well as to other observers?  Bill
Bradfield tells me this is normal practice among comet hunters.

As I understand the official procedure, CBAT will not publish the first
message of any discovery until independent message of confirmation is
received. Therefore confirmation will not occur unless either (a) the
original discoverer announces their discovery and a message recipient
then sees the object, or (b) another observer discovers the same object
before it is announced.

This leaves me wondering why CBAT publish news of gamma-ray bursts and
other events that are practically unconfirmable?  I seem to be missing
part of the story??

   >delay of more than two weeks of the official announcement in IAUC
   >after the discovery report of Nova Sgr 1996.  I even first thought
   >the discovery was done from old patrol films!  If announced two
   >weeks earlier, some of us could have done first-aid photometry or
   >spectroscopy of the very first oscillation cycle of the nova, even

I could have actually observed it.  There were a few nights of
reasonably clear weather just before official announcement, and seven
weeks of cloudy weather afterwards :(

   >if it was not spectroscopically confirmed.  Or should we remove any
   >minute possibilities of false alarms at the expense of early
   >discovery alerts?

Personally I don't have a problem with false alarms (except when idiots
phone me at 4am after "discovering" Canopus), because I already receive
so many false alarms from novice or careless observers.  I do suggest
that people at least check in Norton's or Sky Atlas 2000!

Of course I would expect an experienced observer to have checked more
thoroughly for known asteroids & comets, known variables, photographic
flaws, etc.  Anything that survives this process is likely to be
interesting...

Confirming (or denying) discoveries can be fun.  For example, Justin
Tilbrook and I got a great thrill as the first to confirm Nova Cir 1995
- with binoculars - less than two days after Liller's photo of a
"possible nova".  Thanks to quick notification by Mati Morel, we
caught this interesting nova just before maximum.

Replying to Stan Walker's comments about isolation and that few southern
observers have Internet.  The same argument applies to other forms of
communication.  For example, only three of my group can receive
facsimile messages, only two have email, and one can only be telephoned
on Sundays.  Those of us who are "well-connected" should Spread The News
to others less fortunate; I'm sure we all know good observers who are
not yet on-line.


   >rules.  Variable stars without "the official criteria of
   >discoveries" even would have then no chance to be reported.

Any thoughts on that "Monthly Circular of New Variables" I described
recently?


cheers,
Fraser Farrell

http://vsnet.dove.net.au/~fraserf/   email: fraserf@dove.net.au
traditional: PO Box 332, Christies Beach, SA  5165, Australia

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp