[vsnet-survey 24] Re: Coords and IDs for ASAS variables

["Nikolai N. Samus" <samus@sai.msu.ru>]

Dear Colleagues,

We follow your discussion most attentively. We do see that the situation
with the catalogs of variable stars has changed greatly and many changes
in the GCVS routine are a must. We do try to improve coordinates for all
OLD variable stars, to check identifications with the newly discovered
variables, and ultimately to include the new discoveries into the GCVS
system. However, accurate coordinates of the "old" GCVS stars are the
first priority for us, and lists like that recently presented by ASAS are
quite good and meanwhile are quite sufficient sources of information, so
we are not in a hurry about them. We are going to present our thoughts
about the future of the GCVS at the JENAM meeting in Moscow next week.

My congratulations to the ASAS team!

Nikolai Samus
GCVS

On Mon, 22 May 2000, Taichi Kato wrote:

> Re: Coords and IDs for ASAS variables
> 
>    I remember someone said at the meeting of the variable star section of
> IAU General Assembly held in Kyoto that there would be no need to compile
> a complete general variable star catalog.  The speaker comments that
> large-scale surveys would have own variable star catalog, independent of
> the GCVS nomenclature system.  (And addtional comment such large-scale
> surveys may provide a tiny bit of their funds to assist the GCVS team).
> The GCVS team was apparently (and probably naturally) against this proposal;
> they were apparently in persuit of a unified complete general catalog
> of variable stars, including the extension to extragalactic and globular
> cluster variables.
> 
>   Arne's point:
> 
> >   (b) The current GCVS needs to be checked thoroughly, not
> >       only to find a USNO-A star near the catalogued position,
> >       but confirmation that the star is variable and the
> >       right type.  I know some of this is already being done,
> >       but I think it needs high priority.  We have these cases
> >       of GM Sgr, whether CI Aql = Nova Aql 2000, etc. that could
> >       be resolved conclusively so there is no similar confusion
> >       in the future.
> 
>    Right.  The GCVS team and other volunteers (including me) have been
> trying to improve the GCVS.  This is the most important process of
> "purifying" the GCVS, and it is the most time-consuming process to check
> original literatures (and even photographs) when new variable stars are
> reported near the cataloged position of known variable stars.  The GCVS
> team said they spent many months to check Hipparcos variables against
> known variable stars.  This process could be shorted to less than a day
> when we have a complete GCVS.
> 
>    The problem is (as I have heard from the GCVS team) much of old variable
> star records are written in card systems, which are difficult to handle
> electronically and automatically.
> 
> >   (e) I like Brian's concept of a Variable Star Center (VSC),
> >       and the requirement of inputting all discoveries in a
> >       common format to lessen the workload.  However, the
> >       GCVS group has been doing this work for years, and I'd
> >       hope that some marriage between new effort and old
> >       can occur.
> 
>    Yes, the GCVS team indeed plays this role.  With a time-scale of a few
> years, the GCVS team has been most throughly surveying existing literatures,
> which could not have been done without their enthusiasm.  Please note
> there are many "discoveries" of new variable stars, which are not explicitly
> reported as discoveries.  Such information may appear in some papers
> studying IRAS sources, newly known variable comparison stars in photometry
> papers on known variable stars, optical identification papers of X-ray
> sources, etc.  Such "discoveries" of variable stars will not be easily
> covered by a single concept of Variable Star Center, but could be only
> covered by the continuous, extensive, current work by the GCVS team.
> 
> Regards,
> Taichi Kato
>

VSNET Home Page

---

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