[vsnet-chat 2247] Re: (fwd) Nova Paper research

[Alon Retter <ar@astro.keele.ac.uk>]

Let's resume this discussion. We both agree on most (all-?) 
issues. The 'nova' terminology is used for various astrophysical
phenomena. These systems can be divided into a few subclasses
according to their observational behaviour and / or their
different configuration.

>   Another interesting case.  If Nova Oph 1998 is indeed confirmed to
>   be a recurrent nova, should it be dropped from the "nova" list?

In this case, it should be classified as a recurrent nova to be 
included in the long list of all novae, but not in the classical 
novae list. O.k.?


Regards,
Alon Retter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Taichi Kato wrote:

> Re: [vsnet-chat 2238] Re: (fwd) Nova Paper research
> 
> > As you know, the standard model for a classical nova is a white
> > dwarf and a red dwarf. I believe that this model has been confirmed
> > by the numerous observations.
> 
>    First, we are speaking of "novae".  Classical novae and novae may not
> be necessarily the same category.
> 
>    Yes, many well-observed novae fall in this category.  But there is no
> guarantee all of novae receiving "nova" classification satisfy this
> binary configuration.  Then why they are justified as novae in the narrower
> sense?
> 
> > Anyway, recurrent novae are not 'classical' novae.
> 
>    I think most astronomers believe all novae are essentially recurrent.
> The main distinction is in the recurrence time, not in the underlying
> physical mechanism.
> 
> Regards,
> Taichi Kato
> 
>

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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