[vsnet-chat 896] Re:Magnitude Sequences(vsnet chat 868)

["Steve H. Lucas" <76620.1721@compuserve.com>]

VSNET and ISN Chatters: 

I have returned from a short holiday and was pleasantly surprised to see
the subject of magnitude sequencing being brought up for extensive
discussion.

Below are highlights of the subject dialogue (that pertains to my
interests) to better set the tone for my humble input....many thanks again
to the forum directors for creating a utility where our thoughts can be
aired.....

In vsnet chat #868 Bruce Sumner wrote (in part):

>>"I have been making CV charts now for over 20 years, and the hardest 
part is getting a sequence."<<

>>"There is so much concern and consternation out there about magnitudes 
- why don't you get off your butts and do something about it? I really hope
Brian's comments get through - good charts and sequences, properly
published, are a thing of both beauty, usefulness and timelessness"<<

In response Taichi Kato outlined several thoughts on the subject (in part):

>>"1) The lack (and cost) of readily available "standard" filters."<<
>>"2) The lack of photometry-oriented easy softwares."<<
>>"3) Some astronomy, in which amateurs are interested, doesn't always
require
   filters."<<
>>"4)  Amateur observers have little time to spend for observation."<<  

Brian Skiff replied (in part):

>>" But why is there not even one amateur or group that can do comparison
sequences?  _Nobody_."<<

In which Arne A. Hendon replied (in part): 

>>".there is no reason why amateurs can't do sequences, yet few do."<<

Taichi Kato in turn replied (in part):

"My feeling is that it's not amateur's responsibility of the lack of
motivation of getting sequence.  At least some of them have got the
sequence,but usually hesitate in publishing, this may result from the
thinking":

"Such sequence with small telescopes will easily be superseded by final'
professional ones - I'd better wait ..."; more cautious amateur
photoelectric
photometrists may think "I'll have to wait until someone else confirms my
result or publishs the supporting data, in order to avoid potential public
embarassment of providing wrong results".<<

I totally agree with Kato-san, especially the statement above.

In response to Mr. Sumner's thoughts:

There are a few of us who have not sought the santuary of the
"potato-couch" in attaining meaningful magnitude comparison sequencing. We
have remained standing upright, and in some cases have stood alone on the
subject matter especially involving supernovae, over the years. Before the
widely used GSC and other catalogues/databases we were left to our own
resources (as you undoubtedly were) and were even responsible for many
"seat of the pants" methods for aquiring same. If it weren't for the
gracious input, guidance and assistance of Mr's Skiff and Kato, and other
professional astronomers over the years, I fear some of us would still be
left standing with our "hats in our hands".

I would therefore like to suggest a #5 to Mr. Kato's list. 

>Even IF bonafide and useful sequencing were available would every one (or
group) use them?< 

It seems to me, especially  years ago, that if any group would obtain
meaningful sequence data that is where it remained...within that group. So
in essence everyone had to "shift" for themselves.  With the advent of both
the VSNET and ISN forums I believe that this problem can be rectified thru
communication and a universal (group and individual) usage of a homogenous
set of standardized magnitude sequences which could be used for visual
observations of novae and supernovae. Perhaps I appear overly naive on this
matter, but in my estimation any attempt to standardize would be better
than things being played so "close to the vest", as they have in the past? 

Best Regards,

Steve H. Lucas
International Supernovae Network

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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