[vsnet-chat 4224] Re: re vs-chat 4203 [was GK Per etc.]

[crawl@zoom.co.uk]

Bish Ishibashi wrote :

>Yeah, sometimes it feels good to bitch 
>and mourn, but that ain't solving any problem. I am afraid but I am not 
>really following thru the entire argument here. For one I am not a 
>CV person or a visual observer. But I can say that, from what I read
>so far, no one seems to care to address how to deal with the problem
>in future.  Now that is truly disheartening. 
>
>
>When I face the situation like this, I'd first try to get through the 
>persons and put a sense into them. If that doesn't work, then I just
>simply ignore them as reasonably and prudently as I can muster. But it
>seems some of you in vsnet-chat skipped that "putting a sense" part 
>and went on with a grudgefest. That doesn't seem right to me, even if
>the person may have had it coming, that is. 
>

Dear Bish Ishibashi

Quite valid points.  What obviously doesn't come across from the postings
is that this specifically is an old problem that has more or less been
aired publicly for the first time, and private attempts at resolution have
evidently failed.  Though this is news to you, as I say in my post, I'm
bored with the amount of email generated in the "unofficial" mailing lists
[ie bunch of folk talking to each other with lots of cc-ing] every few
month that this situation recurs.

Although there is hearsay and anecdotal evidence that could be brought
forward, I have neglected to us it.  Primarily because the people directly
involved could potentially be embarrassed by relating said [some would be
able to reverse engineer who the witnesses were].  That is, those that have
informed me of when and how they were shafted, don't want to get involved
in any sort of argument.  They want to look at their stars, log their
observations, post their logs, and maybes between times sleep occasionally.

For anyone interested there is an objective means of analysing this situation.

Taichi Kato gives a clue to the test in his post.  When scp noted EG Cnc
and U Sco in outburst, he reported them quickly and adequately.

The test is to see how regularly he reports his observations to the various
organisations... ...on a regular basis or only on the occasion of
noteworthy outbursts.  I have been informed in the past that the case is
the latter, although I must confess to not testing rigorously testng
archive data to confirm this myself.  Actually it has to be seen on the
fly, as archives don't include the date/time of positing of an observation,
just the date/time given to the observation.

So if we are given such an intermittent reporting pattern, the follow up
test is to check the distribution within the pattern.  What you would be
looking for is a bunch of important outbursts immediately notified, as
separate to a bunch of equally important outbursts post-notified as
pre-discoveries.

Mr Simonsen provided examples of the latter, but neglected to provide
examples of the former, which would have been an informative "control".  I
personally find it incongruous for a need to inform as soon as possible to
lie alongside a disinterest in reporting.  Another, more extended control
(rather than personal opinion) would be to take a sample of other regular
observers of rare outburst CVs and check who they report, both in general
and specifically with regards to actual outbursts.

You see over and above any amount of bitching that may have crept into
this, there is an IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC point here.  Rise time from minimum
to maximum for CVs is temporally short and rarely well covered, and
invariably even then only by visual observers due to the irregular
intervals between outbursts.  This is especially true for CVs with
inter-outburst periods of the order of years to decades.

What is deemed interesting in CV research follows "fashions", as does
everything else.  In 20 to 50 to 100 years time someone may just decide to
gather together what little archival visual data there is to investigate
rise time profiles for these rare outburst objects.  They may not too, but
they may.

Well, a bunch of data from the 1990s and just after is going to cause bias
due to these spurious pre-discoveries, as they significantly increase the
rise time of these rare objects, as well as probably changing the profile
of said rise.

Of course, the insidious aspect here is that Patrick Schmeer is responsible
for good and valuable work and important notifications of rare events, of
which the aforementioned EG Cnc and U Sco are only two examples.  Thus it
becomes difficult to discern, at a distance, what data is spurious and what
is valid.


You know, this topic only appears personal cos there's an individual doing
it.  Indeed, there is a UK precedent here.

In the late sixites / early seventies one John Glasby was the head of the
BAA VSS.  His main interest was CVs, and this at a time when probably few
professionals new what a CV was in astronomical terms, let alone amateurs
[CV in common UK English means Curriculum Vitae (okay, that's Latin, I
know), which is what US English calls a resumé, and most sixties professors
would have had a CV].  There's even a "popular" book Glasby wrote on the
topic, and we all know general non-academic books on CVs are damn rare
(strangely, the local library even has a copy of this book).

Unfortunately, it turned out that most of his observations were spurious.
Later investigation proved that, for example, observations of SS Cyg would
be logged when said was below the horizon.  This was apparently eventually
revealed by a BAA member and is covered in an article in the JBAA, but
unfortunately I forget the reference.  [If somebody out there who knows
more about this could give some better details I feel it would be
informative and of interest.  With care the points can be made without
making it personal, and they are important points.  Is John Isles still out
there in vsnet-chat land, and do you know anything more concrete on this
topic?  This is in _no way_ an insinuation that Mr Isles was in any way
involved in this matter, it's just that he was a lot closer to this event
and organisation in time and space than I am/was, and has a good general
knowledge of the amateur variable star obs field].

Anyway, the point is, what does one do with archival observations by
Glasby?  He can't have invented all his observations.  So, do you pick and
choose or just bin the lot?  And how do you discuss the topic without
mentioning the person themself?  In fact, what did/does the BAA VSS do with
these observations?


So, the current thread will no doubt be brought to a close soon due to
becoming unproductive.  This will probably occur more out of politeness
than any form or resolution.  Thus the whole damn thing will repeat again
in a few months, just as it has many times before [there's a QY Per thread
in the vsnet list archives if you want to see an earlier (possibly more
vitriolic) example, for instance.  That wasn't the last time this occured,
but the last time it became so public].

This ain't a witch hunt, it's a problem that needs resolving, and the only
solution left is "whistle blowing", cos damn all else has worked.  So,
we've whistle-blown in an attempt at protecting the archives.  Yae, some
folk may have taken the opportunity to engage in a bit of spleen venting,
whether I am one of those I cannot say, as I can never be objective about
my own thoughts.

Variable star observing is not an "egocentric sport", and as noted above
and in other posts, most observers look at the stars just cos they want to,
some probably find the whole activity quite therapeutic and personally
enjoyable, without any regard to science or reporting.  But visual
observers capable of putting in long hours on a regular basis, and
surviving neighbours, general light pollution and abysmal weather, are
getting few and far between.  Any newbie to this field would be encouraged
and delighted to have discovered a CV in a rare outburst, and possibly
moderately pleased with themselves.  It would after all be a reward for
effort invested.  Okay, it isn't important whether they're pleased with
themselves or not, but look at it this way, should they get this discovery
"taken away" from them by some dubious pre-discovery, the negative emotions
they could feel would no doubt be far stronger than any positive ones that
they could have felt, and they may actually be discouraged from following
their pursuit further.  After all, what's the point of doing redundant work
[this is even taking the neutral viewpoint that the newbie is not
experienced enough to realise that the pre-discovery may be dubious].

There is enough trouble for the field of visual observing at the moment
engendered by a handful of professionals decrying the field in general and
the validity of visual observations in particular and suggesting we should
all go out and buy ccds and computers and such like, without amateurs
shafting each other.  So, we may not have found a solution, nor any idea of
how to find one, but at least folk now know what is going on, and what to
look for in future.

Sorry to be so long winded.

Cheers

John

John Greaves
UK

PS Dr Kato mentions the idea of a vsnet-outburst-suspect or similar list.
It must be said that when the vsnet lists proliferated some little time
ago, there was a half joking viewpoint doing the rounds that SCP should be
given his own list.  It should be noted that there are a group of observers
out there, spread over 4 continents, who are fed up of this pre-discovery
behaviour.  And it takes a lot to make any dedicated visual observer of CVs
to post anything to any list over and above their observations, cos they
just aren't built that way.  They just want to spend long cold hours
looking at their stars and occasionally getting some kip.  Anything else
they post is invariably the result of a camel-spine-straw cominglement.

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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