Return to Home Page
Re: [vsnet-chat 6834] (fwd) Some Classical Galactic Novae bumph... > However, I have > attempted some Na/Nb/Nc classifcations where possible (though I had to use T3 > to keep it a homogenous list, as that is what Duerbeck used, whilst the > present trend/fashion/practice/cool-thing-to-do is to use T2, which makes > Nb a less frequent classification likelihood, maybes). Do you really think that this classification scheme is still valid? NA is simply a "fast nova" and NB a "slow nova". The borderline of classification depends on authors (very subjective!). I don't think it very meaningful to correlate this classification with parameters such as T2 or T3. > Won't confess to it being definitive, however, if only because IAUCs > themselves can at times tend towards the apocryphal. After all, the > information in them is an evolving thing, and they are not _necessarily_ > the place where the final word is published on these objects. This is partly because the CBAT has some kind of preference in source of information. For example, no word has been mentioned regarding the much earlier correct classification by M. Fujii on Nova Sct 2003. My conclusion is that the CBAT is too much relying on some selected "authorities" particularly in the field of nova study. There have been numerous mistaken or delayed decisions apparently coming from this preference. It may be time for creating our own (apocryphal ^;) nova nomenclature system which can supersede the CBAT system. Someone would call a nova "VSNET NOVA SCT 2003" and register it in SIMBAD ;-). > It rather abritarily contains > some xray novae seen visibly, such as GU Mus, whilst excluding others, I have seen GU Mus included in different Galactive nova lists. I wonder whether there has been a special historical reason in this X-ray nova? (Yes, V518 Per is sometimes called Nova Per 1992, but I rarely see this in any Galactive nova list). Regards, Taichi Kato
Return to the Powerful Daisaku
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
