[vsnet-newvar 690] V493 Aurigae, TA designations and VSNET Report errors

[Guy M Hurst <guy@tahq.demon.co.uk>]

In message <200012211416.XAA02457@ceres.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>, Taichi
Kato <tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp> writes
>Re: IDs of Collins variables
>
>   Please note that the object V493 Aur is differently called as Q1997-029,
>TAV0550+55, TAVJ0550+54 and TAVJ0550+543 even by TA members.  I think
>this kind of inconsistency should be at least avoided.  I would be
>very happy if all Q/TAV/TASV identifications are made publicly available
>on the TA website.
V493 Aurigae
This object, like all discovery suspects reported to us, was logged as
Q1997/029 back in 1997 as the 29th query received in that year.

The 'Q' numbers are NOT designations but merely a catalogue of all
suspects of comets, asteroids, variables, supernovae, novae etc reported
to 'The Astronomer'. This system has been in use for over 25 years.

I would not recommend data on objects logged with 'Q' be stored as they
have not yet been investigated fully.

After investigation this object was given a designation of
TAV J0550+543. The 'TAV' indicates the variation has been confirmed.
Alternatively some objects receive 'TASV' meaning variation strongly
suspected only. We are extremely cautious about the announcements to
avoid false alarms.

All such designations are announced on the E-Circulars of 'The
Astronomer'. If a more detailed analysis is carried out, the details
plus chart and sequence are published in the monthly magazine of 'The
Astronomer'. This is, in turn, reviewed by the GCVS team.

Clearly once a name list is issued, all previously temporary
designations such as 'TASV' or 'TAV' are retained as cross references
only but observers with older charts often do not always notice the
change! 

The two other designations you quote TAV0550+55, TAVJ0550+54 are false.
They have never appeared as such on the TA charts and are due to
observer errors.

Such reporting errors are not confined to TA observers. I have seen
numerous corrections on VSNET messages and gain the impression that
observers in general 'rush out' their reports without always checking
the accuracy. The worry is that there may be other uncorrected reports
where the observer has not re-checked the estimates.

Could some of these affect the actual magnitudes which are unsupported
by actual estimates in these reports?

In the case of the BAA VSS, who are responsible in the UK for logging
results, 'error traps' exist for false designations and are easily
corrected, under advice to observers, by Dave McAdam.

Critically the magnitudes are supported by 'estimates' containing the
comparison stars used, estimate (eg A(1)v(2)B etc) which again traps
errors in magnitudes reported.

Similarly the chart type and revision details are quoted. Dave McAdam
will consult the observer if an out of date chart is used.

I hope the above notes help to clarify matters generally as well as in
the specific case of V493 Aur.

I will reply separately about the list of objects you sent.

Kind regards,
Guy M Hurst
Editor, The Astronomer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guy M Hurst, 16 Westminster Close, Basingstoke, Hants, RG22 4PP,
England. Tel/FAX:(01256) 471074. International +441256471074
INTERNET:  guy@tahq.demon.co.uk  OR  gmh@uk.ac.rl.star.ast
WWW  http://vsnet.demon.co.uk/astronomer
----------------------------------------------------------------

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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