[vsnet-chat 2478] Re: [AAVSO-DIS] GRB notification process

[aah@nofs.navy.mil]

Kato-san wrote, regarding GRB980425/SN1998bw:
>   I don't know what is the current consensus of this event (probably none
>yet reached), but I have heard the existtence of the second "fading X-ray
>source" was not so significant as was prevously claimed to be, by later
>examination of the discovery data.
  Pian in GCN 69 reported on the second pointing of BeppoSAX
towards the field about a week after the burst.  He found the fading source to be
present at a level that is consistent with normal GRB decay rates,
and consistent with the two observations near the time of the GRB.
At Huntsville last month, one of the Italian community also confirmed the
existence of the fading source.  This field was too far south for
Flagstaff observations, and so I haven't paid particularly close
attention to the discussions, but from what I remember, both sources
in the gamma-ray error box are still considered to be real and only
the fading, non-SN-counterpart, is similar to other GRBs.  This
does *not* mean that a GRB/SNe association is wrong, just that
the evidence in this particular case is not overwhelming.
Arne

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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