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

[vsnet-obs 3079] Re: FY VUL, JLT


Dear Colleagues,

>Marc Biesmans requested some observations of FY Vul. Below is some visual 
>observations.
>No large variations.
>So I don't observe this star very intensively. I just observe FY Vul to
>see if it ever disappears.
>
>2449944.4659  14.1
>2449946.4520  14.1
>2449947.4576  14.1
>2449948.4729  14.1
>2449949.4541  14.2
>2449951.4638  14.1
>2449952.4375  13.8
>2449954.4277  13.8
>2449956.4930  14.0
>2449958.4506  14.0
>2449959.4416  14.0
>2449960.4277  14.0
>2449981.3451  14.1
>2449982.3666  14.1
>2449984.3958  14.1
>2449987.4118  14.0
>2449989.4152  14.2
>2449990.3652  14.1
>2450012.3013  14.0
>2450019.2333  14.0
>2449627.4243  14.2
>2449629.3451  14.1
>2449631.3430  14.2
>2449607.3791  14.0
>
>Regards
>
>Lasse Teist Jensen
>
Dear Mr Jensen/Colleagues,

Thank you very much for your observations of FY Vul.

Your observations don't show much variation in brightness.

FY Vul is a ZCam star.
Didn't you (and Tonny Vanmunster) overlook the possibility that
during your observation-period this star was in standstill ??

Yesterday you wrote:

"Interesting to see if FY Vul ever becomes really faint (like mag. 16 - 17)."

My AAVSO f-chart (Revision 1 date June 28, 1996) mentions the magnitude
range as 13.4 - 15.33B, so this star becomes not that faint.

I consulted the AFOEV database to look for observations.
Only about 20 observations were available.

My conclusion to call this an outburst was because I saw it at full
brightness (magnitude 13.4) followed by a decline to magn. 13.7 and 13.9.
Unfortunately the patented Belgian totally overcast weather prevents me to
do more observations.

I think that the cliche "more observations are needed" (from more observers !!!)
applies very well to this star.

Regards,
Marc

P.S. Mr Jensen, can you tell me which chart/sequence you used for your
observations ? VSOLJ/Kato I guess ?