[vsnet-alert 6193] Re: WZ Sge: true superhumps there?

[Taichi Kato <tkato>]

Re: WZ Sge: true superhumps there?

> As I said, my latest photometry (a 6.5 hours long) gives, if considered
> alone, a period candidate of 0.057299d. Compared with the shorter, orbital
> period (0.05669d), I have a difference of about 1 percent, not so different
> from what reported by Patterson et al. during the 1978 outburst (0.8 percent).
> Just a coincidence?

   Looks like a coincidence.  The same data gave 0.05655 +/- 0.00015 d,
probably caused by the limited length of the run.  One must be always
careful about errors...

   Some more comments: the first signature of "true" superhumps during the
1978 outburst was observed by Heiser and Henry (1979).  Doubly humped
"early superhumps" were correctly described by Bohusz and Udalski (1979),
although this literature seems to have been too overlooked.  As shown in
Patterson et al. (1981), there remained a considerable degree of uncertainty
(shown as ? or () in their figure) in identificating "true superhumps"
and even in their cycle counts.  The present light curve has already far
surpassed the quality of the 1978 observation!  The present outburst thus
provides the FIRST EVER opportunity in firmly identifying the WZ Sge
superhumps and their true period.  The result may be different from
what we know from the 1978 outburst (don't rely too much on them).
Please keep the closest watch with your fresh eyes!

Regards,
Taichi Kato
VSNET Collaboration team

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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