[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

[vsnet-obs 2815] Re: Outburst of SW Vul

John Isles wrote:

> You should ignore the report by Glasby, and all his writings.  Most of his
> supposed observations were simply fictitious.  His work was repudiated many
> years ago by the British Astronomical Association.  If you like, I can give
> you references to the published announcements.

   Yes, his materials should be read with extreme caution, if not totally
ignored.  I wonder how he obtained such "fictitous" light curves like those
of UZ Boo and HT Cas.  In the SW Vul case, I think the result was derived
from other author's observation, and not his own  -- I should have treated
this reference as a secondary one.

   I have read in at least one reference SW Vul was treated as a possible
SU UMa star, but have totally forgotten where I read this.  This suggested
classification may have resulted from the short outburst cycle length,
which was originally supposed to be one of the chacteristics of SU UMa
stars.  Probably all these findings together with my result of photographic
inspection are consistent, but the inaccesibility to old materials has made
this "logical chase" quite incomplete.

Regards,
Taichi Kato