[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]
[vsnet-chat 4679] Re: [vsnet-newvar 1030] re Bernhard Variable 92
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 20:19:02 -0700
- To: crawl@zoom.co.uk
- From: Klaus Bernhard <kl.bernhard@aon.at>
- Subject: [vsnet-chat 4679] Re: [vsnet-newvar 1030] re Bernhard Variable 92
- CC: vsnet-newvar@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp, vsnet-chat@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
- References: <3.0.6.32.20010802163556.00796cb0@pop3.zoom.co.uk>
- Sender: owner-vsnet-chat@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
Dear John, Dear colleagues,
I also think, that both indications (B-R from USNO A2.0 and the
apparently slow variation, deduced from about 10 observations
in different nights within 1-2 months), which I take for classification
as a "SR"-variable are not unambigous.
If a "SR"-variable would be in fact a short period variable,
there could arise wrong B-R values, even if the epochs of the plates
differ only few days.
So I always mention in the VSNET-postings, that the colour and the
apparently slow change in brightness "suggest" a SR-variable.
But I see, especially because of the X-ray source BrhV84
(a "SR-variable" transformed in a likely short period variable) that I have to write instead of
"Other types of l o n g period variability cannot be excluded"
in future
"Other types of variability cannot be excluded"
in my VSNET-postings.
Best wishes,
Klaus Bernhard
>
> The epochs of the USNO A2.0 plates that this variable appears upon are
> dated 1979 for the blue one and 1984 for the red one.
>
> Using magnitudes from two totally different epochs for an avowedly variable
> object in an attempt to decide a colour index and subsequently a
> variability class is a somewhat problematic exercise.
>
> John
Return to Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp