Return to Home Page
Date: Thu, 6 May 93 17:20:44 EDT
From: Ralph A.M.J. Wijers <rw@ourania.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: update of 1993j conflicts
##
## $Author: rw $
## $Date: 1993/04/29 13:58:10 $
## $Locker: rw $
## $Revision: 1.1 $
## $Source: /amd_tmp/astro/export/home/rw/supernova/RCS/1993j.conflict,v $
##
################################################
# conflicts of 1993j.mag with other lists #
# and other unresolved issues with SN1993J #
# magnitude estimates #
# Version 5 06 May 1993 #
################################################
Here are the conflicts between compilations/reports that I found.
Anyone able to shed light on them is kindly asked to let the
communicity know about it.
general:
========
ALERT: the star reported to be variable by Hanzl (IAUC 5776) is indeed
used in many estimates, e.g. by the Spanish and Norwegian groups. It is
the 10.7 mag star NW of the galaxy, doubly underlined in the Thomson-Bryan chart.
According to gav's report, it is star D in the AAVSO and BAA/The Astronomer
alert charts.
DO NOT use it anymore. If you have past measurements which are based
on this star, please report them. If you had enough stars, revise the
magnitude, if not, preserve the raw data you have. Perhaps the variations
will turn out to be periodic, so we can reconstruct the brightness at any
given time and revise the magnitudes from the raw data.
Taichi Kato's list:
-- info on errors?
Bjorn Granslo's list: many cases where I noted TB as reference from regular
updates sent on behalf of the Norwegian Variable Star
observers have TA as reference in his compilation. Why?
Spain: the discovery group, Garcia, Pujol, Ripero:
If I plot their measurements for comparison with all the others, it
seems that from 04/01 to 04/06, they are in line with the rest,
from 04/06 to 04/12, they are significantly fainter, and from 04/12 on
they are significantly brighter. I did not yet make such plots for
all other observers, but from what I saw sofar, theirs seem strange.
Since their early points are almost the only early ones we have,
I feel we should make some effort to sort this out.
It should be noted that Rodriguez's CCD measurements are off in
exactly the same sense as the visual estimates of the group.
This makes me suspect that at least part of the deviation could be a
matter of comparison stars.
Update 19930426: I got a message from
Bjorn Granslo, who received a fax from Ripero, listing
all Spanish measurement on or before March 31. This clears up
a lot of confusion. The measurements that are now in my list
are the only correct ones, all other times/magnitudes should
discarded.
Update 19930506: we now have the raw estimates for the early
Spanish measurements, and apart from some of them using the possibly
variable star D (mv = 107 on TB chart), they are OK.
Nothing new on the later ones.
specific entries:
=================
Note: all items containing a "resolution(Date)" will be gone in the next
version.
03 28.30 Neely 13.4 C U IAU 5740, kat \ kato given precedence, as he
03 28.30 Neely 13.7 C U IAU 5740, grl / explains correction made to 5740
resolution (19930506): correction to 13.7 accepted, because
kato, grl now both use that value.
03 28.86 Garcia 12.0 mv U IAU 5731, Kato \ IAUC given precedence
03 28.86 Garcia 11.8 mv U gmh /
resolution (19930506): correction to 11.8 accepted, because it
originates from observer.
03 28.89 Rodriguez 11.8 PHO AAVSO 169,Kato \ AAVSO given precedence
03 28.89 Rodriguez 11.6 PHO grl /
resolution (19930506): correction to 11.6 accepted, because it
originates from observer.
03 29.82 -- 03 29.95 Spanish group. It seems to me I may have a few
too many entries there. Can you solve this one, Bjorn?
resolution (19930506): resolved by Ripero (see above)
03 30.25 Hartwick 10.2 V IAU 5731, grl \ 5761 given precedence, because
03 30.25 Zurek 10.74 V IAU 5761 / it explicitly corrects 5731
resolution (19930506): 10.74 now accepted by all
03 30.900 Midtsk. 11.0 mv U gmh 04/14
03 30.899 Midtsk. 11.0 mv U kat 04/19
03 30.899 Midtsk. 10.6 mv TB grl 04/18 / granslo accepted as primary source
resolution (19930506): 10.6 now accepted by all
03 31.09 Ryan 10.0 mv kat,sel my fault: this is same as entry
by Moore (his data were reported by Ryan, so the Ryan entry should be removed).
resolution (19930506): Ryan entry has been removed
03 31.972 Munari 10.84 V IAU 5750, grl \ munari given precedence, as
03 31.972 Sostero 11.06 V IAU earlier / he reports correction to
sostero explicitly.
followup (19930506): IAU Circular 5750 actually gives the
value as 10.94 (as in Kato's list) --sorry
04 01.083 Schmeer Germany 10.7 0 TB SELF \ In the email I got from
04 01.083 Schmeer Germany 10.7 0 AC kat / he quotes the "Supernova
Search Chart" = TB for all his measurements. The sequence listed by
Kato/Granslo for his data varies from point to point. I think we
have to quote TB for all of them.
followup (19930506): TB accepted for this measurement. Some later
data by Schmeer are quoted as TA, perhaps
he could clarify the issue himself?
04 01.54 Kushida 10.8 PHO grl 04/18 \ kato accepted as primary source
04 01.58 Kushida 10.8 PHO kat 04/19 /
resolution (19930506): 01.58 now accepted by all
04 02.2 Wheeler 10.7 J grl 04/22 News(rw)
should be:
04 02.3 Wheeler 10.7 J grl 04/22 IAUC 5743
resolution (19930506): IAUC 5743 now accepted by all
04 02.716 Abe 10.6 mv TB kat 04/19 \
04 02.716 Abe 10.5 mv TB gmh 04/14 / kato accepted as primary source
resolution (19930506): 10.6 now accepted by all
04 03.011 Granslo 11.2 mv gmh 04/14 \
04 03.011 Granslo 11.3 mv TB grl 04/18 / granslo accepted as primary source
resolution (19930506): 11.3 now accepted by all
04 04.069 Chaloux USA~MD 12.2 mv TB SELF
04 04.069 Chaloux USA~MD 12.2 mv AV kat self given precedence
04 04.069 Chaloux USA~MD 12.2 mv AC grl
resolution (19930506): TB now accepted by all
04 04.23 Rhoads USA~NJ 12.1 0 TB sel 04.23 is right. my fault
04 04.27 Rhoads USA~NJ 12.1 0 TB sel
resolution (19930506): 04.23 now accepted by all
04 05.15 Levy 12.1 mv TB SELF 04/XX \ Levy accepted, because he correc-
04 05.15 Levy 11.6 mv gmh 04/14 / ted his 11.6 estimate personally.
followup (19930506): Granslo and Kato lists still give 11.6. To
convince everyone of the correctness of 12.1,
here is a piece of his email to me:
>> I'd earlier posted an estimate on April 5.15 of ".2 mag fainter than B"; I
>> was calling star B mag 11.4, which seems to be its GSC tabulated V brightness,
>> and so called SN1993J mv 11.6. Michael's recent note calls B mv 11.9 not 11.4
>> (quoted from T&B); I'd like to revise my estimate accordingly. So:
>>
>> Date SN1993J mv System
>> April 5.15 12.1 "TB & Richmond"
>> April 10.14 11.2 "TB & Richmond"
>>
>> Stuart Levy, Geometry Center, University of Minnesota
04 06.140 Beauchamp 11.7 mv TB SELF \ self given precedence
04 06.099 Beauchamp 11.7 mv TB grl 04/18 /
followup (19930506): Kato now lists both, Granslo lists 06.140.
I kept both as well, but I re-checked my
mail, and only have Beachamp's report for
06.140. I will therefore remove 06.099
in version 6, unless Beauchamp says otherwise.
04 07.072 Beauchamp Can~PQ 11.8 10 TB this is same measurement, only I
04 07.07 Beauchamp Can~PQ 11.8 10 TB rounded times to .01 day at first.
resolution (19930506): 07.072 now accepted by all
08.08 Rhoads USA~NJ 11.7 10 TB sel
08.08 Wijers USA~NJ 11.6 10 TB sel
08.13 Rhoads USA~NJ 11.6 10 TB kat,grl -> this one is wrong,
and the other 2 are right, my fault again.
resolution (19930506): 08.13 now accepted by all
04 08.451 Iida 10.9 mv gmh 04/14 \ 11.3 accepted, orig. report 10.9
04 08.451 Iida 11.3 mv TB kat 04/19 / relative to Guide star catalogue,
correction applied by Kato.
resolution (19930506): 11.3 now accepted by all
04 10.588 Okyudo 11.46 V kat 04/19 \ Kato accepted as primary source
04 10.608 Okyudo 11.46 V grl 04/18 /
resolution (19930506): 10.588 now accepted by all
04 14.91 11.44 B *Kulesza, B. IAUC 5763 kat
should be:
04 14.91 11.37 B *Kulesza, B. IAUC 5765 kat
^^ ^
resolution (19930506): 11.37/5765 now accepted by all
04 14.93 10.94 V Ruminski, K. and IAUC 5763 kat
should be:
04 14.93 10.94 V Ruminski, K. and IAUC 5765 kat
^
resolution (19930506): 5765 now accepted by all
04 16.524 Funada 10.9 mv TB kat 04/21 \ Kato accepted as primary source
04 16.524 Funada 10.8 mv TB grl 04/18 /
followup (19930506): Granslo still lists 10.8. Could Granslo
and/or Kato comment on this?
04 17.847 Poyner 10.5 mv TA kat 04/21 \ Granslo accepted as primary source
04 17.845 Poyner 10.5 mv TA grl 04/18 /
resolution (19930506): Granslo and Kato now both list 17.847,
so I corrected my value to be that as well.
Return to the Daisaku
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
