[vsnet-chat 3441] Re: Permanent Superhumpers...

[Taichi Kato <tkato>]

Re: [vsnet-chat 3430] Re: Permanent Superhumpers...

> The relation between the superhump
> period excess and the orbital period in CVs above the gap is not
> significantly different from that of SU UMa systems, and may result simply
> because of low statistics,

   I can't properly understand.  What result is because of low statistics?

> (see Murray 2000)

   I probably read the same literature, and have had an impression that
it is already an indication that something different mechanism may be
working in these long-period systems.  At least, it is not so clear-cut
as you suppose.  And there is apparently a lack of consensus between us
regarding this points, which is enough to show the lower achieved consensus
level than classical SU UMa-type superhumps.

   Cited from my reply:

>    Looking at literatures, a number of researchers carefully avoid using
> these terms interchangeably.  This apparent segregation of usage seems to
> stem from the history and the achived consensus level regarding the underlying
> mechanism.

   Please don't too much disregard this point.  You may search through
existing literatures with the phrase "permanent superhumpers" to find
how this term has been used.

Regards,
Taichi Kato

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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