[vsnet-chat 3169] Re: re Potential CVs

[no name <crawl@zoom.co.uk>]

Taichi Kato wrote :

>    During recent communications with the IBVS people, they tend to
> become
> more unwilling to publish basic materials (this is one of the reasons
> why
> no new MISAO variables and related materials appear in recent IBVS --
> they
> no longer accept reports of new variable stars in the earlier manner).
> They said they want to publish outstanding papers.  I suppose the IBVS
> may
> be no longer an ideal place to put such individual catalog
> correlations.

There is a general trend here, probably based on a sensible move by the
IBVS to limit the exponential growth in workload they would have to put
up with otherwise.

A similar example can be stated.  Many IBVS's of late will carry IDs of
such and such a GSC or HIP star, with photometric lightcurve, and
derived elements.  These are invariably short period pulsators and
eclipsing binaries.

Other IBVS's will carry lists of photometrically derived maxima and
minima for such objects.

On the other hand, you'll find no similar details for LPVs.

It is widely accepted that many LPVs in the GCVS have uncertain [even
wrong] periods and epochs, which in some cases is because they have just
not been updated since first defined from a scattering of survey plates.

AFOEV, AAVSO and VSOLJ have masses of data available electronically for
these stars from 1970 onwards, whilst the BAAVSS has a wide variety
prior to that time [they went CV mad after that, though they have 100+
years for some few LPVs].

It is more than possible to use this data to create folded phase plots
and derive elements, either on a star by star basis or just tables of
derived elements for many objects, exactly analogous to the SPVs often
quoted in IBVS.

But this data is "visual", and not photometric, and I believe not
acceptable on that basis.

Make no interpretational mistake here: the situations are the same as
each other, only the passband of the data is different, and with many
LPVs the sheer amplitude of the object makes this not too great a worry.

Also, as I say, many published values for LPVs are totally out of date.
Okay, some may get assessed and published in amateur rags, but these
don't get into SIMBAD, as noted.

No.  No matter how rigorous and thorough and correct a set of derived
elements for LPVs was, I doubt it'd get into IBVS unless it was purely
photometric work.

Yet in essence it'd be no more different than publishing some new
elements for an EB or RR Lyr star... ...and just cos LPV analysis is out
of fashion, or too busy averaging the living daylights out of tons of
LMC microlensing data, doesn't mean LPV elements are not worthwhile.  If
SPVs have their maxima and periods continually published, why not LPVs?
Okay, they suffer scatter and phase jitter, but that is actually the
point [which the averagers miss]!

There is a short fall in this and similar areas of fundamental variable
star data re publication, especially re publication in places where
professionals doing a literature search will find the info.

It could easily be thought that maybe some new professional publication
should be derived to fill the gap between "amateur" [as long as done
rigorously and formally] and "professional" domains to publish what in
many cases is still important fundamental data...

...then again, that is probably already the case.

It is possibly no great surprise to anyone that a large number of the
references for the 75th Name List of Variable Stars from the SAI do not
start "Author et al, Journal, Vol, page, year" etc but start:-
"http://kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vnset/...";


John

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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