Return to Home Page
Re: [vsnet-chat 6861] Re: (fwd) nova list update To summarize: (1) Vello Tabur recognized a new variable star prior the announcement of the object as a potential nova. But he did not report the discovery until the nova discovery announcement. Nothing is ambigous; he recognized a new variable star, but did neither suspected its nova nature nor reported it to the public. Everything was within himself, and his later report was a "dependent discovery announcement". Nothing is ambiguous. (2) I asked him about the reality of his March 21 - May 29 prediscovery positive detections, which was reported on the occasion of his initial announcement. I have not yet received a convincing answer from him, and he apparently refused to go on (vsnet-chat 6861) to discuss on this matter. Unless he provides further evidence that these detections were actually those of the nova itself, the astronomical community would have to regard them as unconfirmed reports (if I were to be a catalog compiler as Duerbeck, I must comment as such). The consequence would be significant: (a) the discussion in Kimeswenger and Lechner (astro-ph/0309370) would become no longer valid, (b) the IAUC statement that Tabur regarded the object to be a less uegent variable star because of its visibility on previous images would become less accurate, and the reported data need to be corrected. If this is the case, your authenticity as an "independent discoverer" would become even less substantiated. You had better protect yourself in this (2) point, too. In case there is doubt in discovery or prediscovery observations of novae, I used to confirm the reality of the data, and indeed corrected some of them. Almost all nova searchers have been cooperative in refining the scientific value of the discovery and prediscovery data. There have been, unfortunately, a few cases in which they were not cooperative -- this is quite unfortunate not only to scieince but also to the discoverer or reporter himself/herself, since I have repeatedly seen the general later consequences of these instances. (3) ASAS-3 detection software was written by Pojmanski. The human intervention was unavoidably present. I would propose Pojmanski to issue automated alerts on suspect objects in order to more quickly inform worldwide the detection of potential new objects. The VSNET maillig will be happy to receive these alerts (even though they contain many false alarms), and the VSNET members will try to confirm its reality; this would certainly bring a breakthrough to the nova/transient-object science. Regards, Taichi Kato
Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
