Return to Home Page
Re: [vsnet-chat 6106] Re: [AAVSO-DIS] Re: NMO Campaign > > there were huge gaping holes. On some occasions, the objects were > > merely once intensively observed as a program of a different variable > > star party. The observers simply stopped observing once the program > > was over. In spite of the AAVSO's effort to encourage observations of > > these stars, there have not been a sign of remarkable change in > > observers trend of action. From these experiences, I have been skeptical > > Just because things didn't work once in the past doesn't mean to give up! > For me, this NMO campaign *HAS* changed my observing plans. Okay, what objects/situatios I referred to were probably different from yours. I first discuss on my finding why some past campaigns for poorly observed objects were not successful as expected, and move to a comment on yours. From my experience, the observers who observed for short-term campaigns by a different organization, and who happened to report their observations also to the AAVSO, rarely resumed their observing activity once the short-term campaigns by a different organization is over. I have examined all the databases by AFOEV, VSOLJ and VSNET (all of them have more than a million reports individaully, and illustrate different aspects of variable star observing, although there are some overlaps), and noticed that this is a widely present trend. Such object will not be good campaign targets because of their "poorly observed" condition, unless there is a different motiviation (a scientific evaluation would be better) appealing to a wider community. I believe that AAVSO HQ or those who organize "campaigns" are aware of the fact on past encouragements, but it is unfortunately not obvious in appealing documents whether this point view has been seriously considered X-). [To the AAVSO, please consider this comment as a positive input, rather than a criticism]. Regarding your experience, I don't mind if this NMO campaign will not change anyone's observing plans. I don't want to criticize some particular campaign, but the starting point I raised was aimed to discuss on a more general design of campaigns. > I used to do > CV's almost exclusively, but now thanks to this NMO I will incorporate the > most needed LPV's into every night's observation, on a rolling schedule, > to keep them covered at least weekly. Although I don't know what CVs you monitored, and which ones have become less observed after your change, but it may have resulted a some negative impact on the entire community (of course, *may not* depending on your selection!). There are additional important factors to consider observing plans, such as geographical importance, time-scales of variability, in addition to whether a particular star is less or well observed. Your location is important, not only to the AAVSO, but also to the entire variable star community. If some CV outbursts become undetected in the early stage by your change, I regard it to a loss to the community. For example, apparently no (or very few) people observed the 2001 outburst of WZ Sge (I bet all of us know the importance of this event) just before a Japanese amateur astronomer recorded this event (http://vsnet.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/DNe/wzsge01.html). There was a gap before this detection, which stage is extremely important for theoretical interpretation. This was nevertheless a rather fortunate case. To my knowledge, there were only two Japanese astronomers who spontaneously tried to watch WZ Sge on that night. The other observed did not report immediately the detection of the outburst. If Ohshima-san (who first detected and reported the outburst) did not attempt to observe WZ Sge on that night, the early stage of this outburst must have been missed. The same is true for the 1978 outburst of the same star. The number of people who continuously watched this star was too few (JSRAC 74, 53, 1980), and the bad weather of a particular observer prevented the early detection. I know that the importance of monitoring WZ Sge in 1978 was already well recognized and how observations were encouraged (the year was the expected year of another outburst; there was even a false alarm preceding the actual outburst). This single instance is sufficient to illustrate the difficulty in encouraging observers, and the importance of CV monitoring by a sufficient number of observers, even if it may sometimes look redundant. It is of course up to the observer whether one would weigh such early detections of CV outbursts, but I were asked whether there is a need for more CV monitoring in a general sense, my answer is yes. Alternately, if there is knowledge that some nearby observers are observing the same targets as yours, you can almost freely select your targets. A list such as "NMO campaign stars" would serve a great deal in these circumstances, but if everyone would rush to these campaigns unconditionally, I would say no. The actual thing will not be so extreme, but all of us must remind that the condition for promoting such NMO campaign objects more severely depends on the observer's circumstances (and on the objects) than what would allow a more generalization. Regards, Taichi Kato
Return to the Powerful Daisaku
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
