[vsnet-chat 281] Re: New variable stars, etc.

[Taichi Kato <tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>]

Stan Walker wrote in [vsnet-chat 278]:

> Like the reason given recently for discovering new minor planets
> is that you get to give it a name. If this is all that keeps the enthusiam
> going then we should change the rules and let the IAU name all minor planets
> and comets in some impersonal manner.

    One of our hunters instead proposed it might as well change the rules
of variable star nomenclature, to allow a discoverer to officially name
(or more exactly, propose to name) his or her own variable star.  He added
he might search variable stars, then...

> I've been amused by three or four instances of relatively unimportant
> variable stars discovered in this country and the initial investigations
> being shrouded in great secrecy with the result that the discovery papers
> have shown the lack of observation with great gaps in the light curves or
> even incorrect conclusions as to type or period. What could a joint approach
> have done?

    For a variable star showing sufficiently periodic signals (i.e. eclipsing
binaries, regularly pulsating stars), it would be easy to supplement the
information lacking in the initial discovery papers by later observations.
The situation would be worse in a more transient phenomenon, which usually
conveys most of its information (and energy) in the earliest part of the
phenomenon.  We can say an object is a CV even in quiescence, but we can
not usually tell whether its historical outburst was a nova a dwarf nova
("Nova" Sgr 1990 is a good example).  This field is probably what a joint
approach can work most efficiently.

Regards,
Taichi Kato

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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