[vsnet-id 306] (fwd) Re: DO Dra and YY Dra (from Samus)

[Taichi Kato <tkato>]

(fwd) Re: DO Dra and YY Dra (from Samus)

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:51:39 +0300 (MSK)
From: "Nikolai N. Samus" <samus@sai.msu.ru>
Subject: Re: [vsnet-id 305] Re: (fwd) Re: DO Dra and YY Dra

Dear Dr. Kato,

Tsessevich's observations used Simeiz plates. A part of Simeiz collection
perished in the World War II, another part survived and is now in Pulkovo.
The Pulkovo collection does not contain plates around the dates of minima
originally announced by Tsessevich. Also, some plates could survive and be
taken to Odessa, but, again, they could not be found so far.

Tsessevich was a VERY experienced person and could not mix up an eclipser
with a dwarf nova.

Best regards
Kolya

P.S. I'll be unreachable next week, until Dec. 1.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Taichi Kato wrote:

> Re: [vsnet-id 304] (fwd) Re: DO Dra and YY Dra
> 
> Dear Prof. Samus,
> 
> > Despite polemic in the literature, the GCVS team strongly insists that the
> > cataclysmic star should be called DO Dra, whereas the name YY Dra is
> > reserved for the (apparently lost) eclipsing variable originally
> > discovered by Tsessevich. Interesting enough, Tsessevich claimed he had
> > not forgotten the field, but the plate from the Moscow collection on which
> > we had asked him to mark the star did not arrive in time - he died!
> 
>    Would it be possible to check the exact dates of Moscow plates containing
> the DO Dra field?  We can then look for the plates which were near the
> center of the published YY Dra eclipse ephemeris.  If DO Dra was indeed
> faint at such moments, the star might have been a misclassified variable
> star and DO Dra = YY Dra.  If DO Dra was recorded normally, we can exclude
> the possibility of DO Dra = YY Dra.
> 
> Regards,
> Taichi Kato
>

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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