[vsnet-chat 955] Re: Supernova reports

[Taichi Kato <tkato>]

R. J. Bouma wrote:

> If there should be a new list I vote for one of fainter than estimates.
> This would save me a lot of diskspace...
> Don't get me wrong. I think Gary and co do a good job in keeping an eye
> on a lot of stars that have not been properly studied and classified.
> But I think the goal of variable star observing is still: producing
> POSITIVE observations, and only report something NEGATIVE where it is
> relevant.

   Negative observations are eqully important, as least under the present
coverage of CVs.  Even "U Gem <10.9" may be important when we wish to know
the actual outburst rise.  Brighter upper limits are only superseded
when there are a plenty of "simlutaneous" deeper observations, and the
present general coverage is still far from this ideal state.  More
practically, it is often difficult to even determine the state of a certain
object without the knowledge of negative estimates.  This is one of the
most crucial reason I can't fully catch up with the outburst state of
southern dwarf novae.  The existence of negative observations for northern
dwarf novae (mainly contributed by G. Poyner and G. Hanson) between the
outbursts has quite helped this kind of work, and will equally help
researchers sharing the same interests.

Regards,
Taichi Kato

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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