[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]
[vsnet-chat 3700] RV: [vsnet-alert 5310] DELTA VELORUM IS AN ECLIPSING BINARY !!
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:53:39 -0300
- To: <vsnet-chat@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
- From: Sebasti$B
- Subject: [vsnet-chat 3700] RV: [vsnet-alert 5310] DELTA VELORUM IS AN ECLIPSING BINARY !!
- Sender: owner-vsnet-chat@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
Dear friends:
VERY IMPORTANT NEWS on a VERY BRIGHT STAR again !!!!!! And it's
another
DELTA...
It has come to my attention, from a note
by Danie Overbeek (incidentally
forwarded to me by Brian Fraser), that Paul
Fieseler of NASA has noted a dip
in light output of delta Velorum in data
from the Galileo spacecraft's star
scanner.
For Paul Fieseler's attention I can say
that the event was most probably real
and not an instrumental feature, as of
I have been monitoring delta Velorum
for several years visually and have
detected three eclipses in that time, as
shown by the attached GIF of my
visual
estimates.
I first noticed the fading on July 1997
when the star was observed at 2.2
instead of its normal 1.95. For 200 days
nothing happened and then again it
dropped down to 2.2. Since 1997 I have
recorded three probable
eclipses.
Searching through the Hipparcos Catalogue
Epoch Photometry Data I could find
that one single transit observation (on
BJD 2448806) out of 112 transits
shows a 2.21 Hp (V= 2.20) instead of the
classical 1.95. Too much of a
coincidence.
Preliminary investigations of the data,
undertaken with John Greaves, had
suggested a period of 67.7 days...: It is
interesting to note that my last
recorded eclipse, centred about JD
241308.7, is exactly 6 times 67.7 days
from JD 2451714.9, or 10am UT on June
19 2000, which I believe is the central
time of the event observed
by
Fieseler.
Another possibility is a 5.88854
day-period. The longer one joins three of
the eclipses and the shorter joins
all. But it's strange that such a short
period eclipser has remined
unseen!!
Coincidentlly, I was just about to start an
intensive campaign soon so in
this light it will be very urgent to get
started.(Although right now the star
is in its worst
position...)
As can be seen from the attached GIF (where
I included Galileo's
disappearance), I have monitored this star regularly
and found no hint of
frequent
eclipse.
I had waited three years for the fourth
(five counting Hipparcos) event and
it happened before Galileo's eyes
(Galileo was seeing well!) !!!!!!!
The
time of mideclipse is then 2451714.9375 and it agrees exactly with
both
the 67.7 and the 5.88854 day-periods.
So, the shorter period fits OK
with most of the data but would mean a short
eclipse time, which seems to be
not possible according to Galileo's
disappearance.
And the longer period
joins three of the four eclipses, and gives an
approximation to the
rest.
If 67.7 days, or submultiple thereof, is a valid and reasonably
accurate
figure, then it should be noted that given the JD 2451714.9
mid-event timing
of the Galileo observations, and also the JD 2451308.7
mid-eclipse timing
from my last recorded visual event, the next eclipse
should occur at:
JD 2451850.3 20001101.8
JD
2451918.0 20010108.5
JD 2451985.7 20010316.2
JD
2452053.4 20010522.9
The star should be monitored for a few
days either side of the predicted
times.
If the period is 5.88854 days,
then the corresponding eclipses would take
place at:
JD
2451850.4 20000101.9
JD 2451915.1 20010105.6
JD
2451921.0 20010111.5
JD 2451985.8 20010316.3
JD
2452050.6 20010520.1
JD 2452056.5
20010526.0
So the question is going to be settled soon
I
was hoping to make one more eclipse observation to further refine this
aspect
before making an announcement.
It is difficult to announce to the world that
one of the apparent brightest
stars in the sky has been visually
detected
as a previously unknown eclipsing binary of low amplitude without
being able
to say when it will next happen!
It's interesting to note that this
spectroscopic binary nature for the A
star (We could call it Ax for now) ends
with a long time discrepancy between
the absolute magnitude prdicted by
theory for delta Vel A (1.0 for an A1V
star) and the actually observed
(0.4)
Probably they are both A stars and that made the detection
harder.
A good picture could be (V apparent magnitudes, probable spectral
types
suggested by the combined color index and the magnitudes of the
components):
A= 2.8 , A0V
x= 3.3 , A3:V
P= 3.6 , A5:V:
B=
5.5 , A9:V:
Up to now it was known that P was 1.6 mag. fainter than A
[Tango, Davis,
Thompson & Brown, proc. ASA, 1979] (actually Ax) and that
the AP combined
magnitude was V=1.99.
But these kind of speculations will
have to wait.
We've got work to do!!!!!
Thanks to John Greaves for his
support and knowledge.
Best regards,
Sebasti$BaO(B Otero,( LIADA -
Liga Iberoamericana de Astronom$ByB(B)
Buenos
Aires,
Argentina.
Return to Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp