VSNET discussion topics: Unwanted Outburst Alerts?

(vsnet-alert 4807)

please stop posting to vsnet-alert observations of DN outbursts that are neither rare nor bright. Outbursts of FO Aql and normal outbursts of YZ Cnc really do not belong to vsnet-alert - especially when they were already announced on vsnet-obs.

 
Regards,
Patrick

While I don't intend to 'muddy the waters', there are now a number of vsnet maillists. It becomes very difficult to decide where to post something. For example, on an outburst that is not rare, posting to vsnet-obs might make sense to some people, yet personally I don't subscribe to vsnet-obs since I reserve that for just the posting of observations, not any interpretation of those observations. vsnet-chat is more for the current kind of discussion, not for any kind of alert, rare or otherwise.

So, I don't see any problem with posting *any* unusual event such as *any* CV outburst on vsnet-alert. What may seem unimportant to you may be very important to some other observer. You can filter such postings as you see fit.

Arne

(vsnet-chat 2924)

I would like to comment on the remarks made in VSNET-Alert 4807. I hope the writers of VSNET-Alerts 4805 and 4806 get to see this.

FIRST: The mails 4805 & 4806 contained full details of their contents in their subject headings: no one was forced to open and read them. If this formula is adhered to the receivers can easily pick and choose the mails that they are interested in.

Further, the mails were short, to the point, and business like. I cannot see them making any significant difference in practical terms re extended download times etc.

SECOND: Cancer is getting to the end of it's season at the moment. Some people observe from near the meridian towards rising objects. Notification of probably the last swan-song of YZ Cnc for this season brings it to the attention of people who are not necessarily looking to the West anymore, who may be interested.

FO Aql I know little about, but it must be a morning object around now, and maybe people need to stay up just that little bit longer to observe it, which they may not bother to do if they do not know it is in outburst. There are lots of CVs out there that need checking on, and time is precious

Neither YZ Cnc nor FO Aql are exactly SS Cygni...

THIRD: Who decides what is and isn't important? Are VSNET-Alerts to be retained purely for the chosen few, a no doubt self-appointed clique of large fishes in a small pond?

Granted, Patrick Schmeer has found many rare and even unique objects in outburst, sometimes for the first time, or at least for the first time in decades.

Yet if I was cynical I could note that his homilies encouraging time series photometry and spectroscopy on these occasions could be a means of ensuring that the object is scientifically studied and written up, and thereby further ensuring that he is duly noted in the literature, for all time, as the discoverer of this important event... ...if I was cynical.

As an aside, I note that Taichi Kato will often use VSNET-OBS data to create a timely alert notice, for fear that an event or situation becomes lost in the morasse of observations.

And should Mr Novak be castigated for announcing his excellent software on Alert instead of Chat?

FOURTH: Astronomers in general have a difficult enough time of it, with variable star observers even getting stick from their fellow observers. Last thing we need is variable star observers getting ticking offs from variable star observers.

This sort of thing can leave people feeling unnecessarily chastened, and may even put them off altogether.

I say congratulations to the Ball University team, and may they find many more CVs in outburst over many more years!

There is no room for self-appointed cliques in obserational astronomy. The observational astronomer has to start somewhere, and newcomers should be encouraged, not ticked off.

[I still remember feeling almost physically struck after observing U Gem at around mag 14 for weeks and weeks, only to first catch it at full outburst as soon as my eyeball got to the eyepiece on one particular night. Any subsequent ticking off from anybody would have spoilt the sensation].

FIFTH: If subscribers to VSNET-Alert want a worthwhile topic to debate, try the following. CBAT style criteria should be adopted with respect to attribution of discovery when a rare or suspected CV is caught going into outburst. That is, the person who firsts correctly notifies VSNET should be the duly noted discoverer, no matter who saw it first when observations are finally logged.

In that way, and probably only in that way, Patrick Schmeer may be prevented from posting in pre-discovery details of such an event after the original notifier has made his announcement. You all know he's done it, and you all know he's done it more than once.

FINALLY: Astronomy for all! Let's hope D Overbeek & the Ball University gang enjoyed their observing, and are in no way disinclined to continue.

And if any you feel some of the above is possibly a tad harsh, let me state that it is somewhat toned down from the original sodding anger I first felt when I read on the webpages the self important bloody twaddle that is VSNET-Alert 4807!

Yours

John

John Greaves
UK sh*tst*rrer extraordinaire

In re the reporting of outbursts and such, it seems to me that the regular AAVSO alerts (news flashes or whatever) posted to vsnet-alert pretty well take care of the "mundane" outbursts that Patrick complains about. There probably don't need to be additional announcements about them. Likewise, I think Kato-san does an amazing job of picking out the gems he finds in vsnet-obs contributions for things that could lead to additional follow-up. I could also do with far less frequent summaries of supernova magnitude progress. Once in five days or a week is plenty often---those that want them more often can observe them themselves.

I wonder if there is or could be some way of deciding on priorities based on the likelihood of there being some follow-up physical observations (photometry or spectroscopy). Although there is probably some value in visual observations of "ordinary" CV outbursts in the long-term, I do worry that perhaps the time is past for recording them just to record them. A parallel might be made with synoptic observations of planets, where the time is long past for detailed inventories of the movements of features in Jupiter's clouds each apparition. It might be fun and interesting for some observers to do that, but they should not be misled that it is somehow "valuable to science", because about 30 years ago planetary science moved on from that sort of thing.

More specifically, is there any point, for instance, in Danie Overbeek diligently checking scores of dwarf novae each night if no physical observations are ever made of any outbursting object he finds? Are vsnetters really looking at these mag. 17-18-19 supernovae? On any given night it seems that there are a several dozen CVs and supernovae doing their thing, but the combined resources present of vsnet/CBA/AAVSO et al. can only handle maybe three or four "campaigns" at once, and so far only the very brightest events. There needs to be a larger cadre of "master amateur observers" or better selection of targets, or both.

I don't know that there's an easy answer to the problem of how to allocate resources. It would be better for the community here if we had a couple more PhD observational types engaged who could identify some good projects important to their work, act as honcho on campaigns, and get stuff analyzed and published. Joe Patterson and Taichi Kato have done a terrific service to the amateur community by their willingness to do just this (they've done the pros a favor, too, but most of them haven't figured it out yet!). But we need a couple more like them outside the CV field. I have a couple of ideas, but won't "volunteer" anyone specifically.

I'd also like to see a couple of amateur digital sky patrols something like the ROTSE and STARE cameras. I would suggest sacrificing some of their raw efficiency for precision by observing in two colors and with sharper optics (just stopping down the lenses will do), and have it set up for more rapid analysis of the data. The MISAO project provides a model here, though the quick turnaround that Takamizawa makes needs to be preserved.

As regards "discovery" priority, luckily for us in 150 years no one will care one whit who spotted a particular outburst first. These are trivial discoveries, something like discovering an asteroid. I say "luckily" because this means it's one less thing you have to worry about. It's a normal thing for folks to want some glory, but be sure to take it from a distant perspective. It's much more important simply to be out there (or have your robot out there) watching.

\Brian

(vsnet-chat 2927)

I must admit to being a bit amused that my first vsnet posting set off a debate. I may be new to posting on vsnet but I am not new to CV research. I am a professional astronomer with more publications on binary stars than I care to count. I am currently at Lowell observatory making observations of the earliest stages of DN outbursts. After 30 plus years in this field I feel I have a good sense of the scientific "value" of alerts. Some of you expressed concern that I and my colleagues will become discouraged. Don't worry, my research continues. As I write this data is being collected on EX Hya.

Mr. Schmeer has a right to his opinion, but I respectfully disagree. Now let us all get back to science, this discussion has taken up too much time.

Ron Kaitchuck
Professor of Physics & Astronomy
Ball State University

I must confess to being unaware of what VSNET's "written constitution" is, but in partial response to Brian Skiff's "vsnet lists & traffic" note, specifically the part that reads:-

it should be remembered that the vast majority of visual observers observe for observing's sake, and may only consider any professional &/or scientific spin off as a bonus.

Indeed, if all the professional astronomers were whisked off by some malevolent force tomorrow, I seriously doubt that many amateur variable star observers would think "well that's it then, I'd better pack it in".

I know of at least one prolific visual observer whose personal remit is to observe every CV going at every available opportunity for as long as humanly possible.

It can take years before proficient observing at significant volumes becomes automatic to the visual observer, and possibly longer for them to understand any scientific connotations. Participation with others without restrictive restraints will assist in lessening this time.

Do not misunderstand my point: professional liaison is incredibly important, and in the cataclysmic variable star field a great debt of gratitude is owed to Henden, Kato, Patterson and Skiff [apologies to those I've missed out!], with Henden & Skiff also providing valuable assistance to the "lumps o' rock" amateur community.

Let it not be forgot, however, that professionals follow trends and fashions, and amateurs doggedly doing their own thing can often come across the unexpected. Stan Walker's mail and comments on current emphasis is significant here. There's lots of phenomena that LPVs display that are regularly ignored by professionals, I wouldn't be surprised if this was also true of CVs, as Stan Walker quite rightly implies. It's not that these phenomena are "done and dusted" either, it's just that they not studied because they are not in vogue.

The parallel with planetary observations was interesting, especially in the context of the recent merger of two long standing major "satellite ovals" of the GRS on Jupiter. Despite Galileo, would that have been noticed if amateurs weren't keeping watch? The merger details of these two was relevant to current studies of Jovian atmospheric dynamics.

[Although I too must confess to not understanding what this current amateur trend of finding ever fainter supernovae in ever obscurer galaxies is all about, _especially_ if said galaxy is of low z.]

It is, of course, up to VSNETters and Taichi Kato to decide what the remit of VSNET is.

For those bored with the topic already, let me just note that if the proper forum provided by VSNET-Chat had been used to engender proper debate upon the appropriate remit of VNSET-Alert in the first place, instead of VSNET-Alert itself being used by one individual to pontificate to his peers, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me on the subject!!!!!

Cheers, and of course clear skies no matter what you like to look at,

John

John Greaves
UK

Regarding the Patrick's comment on Danie's observation, I understand both of them well understand the importance of each outburst. Such experienced observer like Danie must be aware that FO Aql bursts more than once each month. It may be natural Patrick may have thought that such an expert should better discriminate which outburst is more important than others. Though it may sound ironically, Danie indeed reported pre-discovery details of the first-ever recurrence (since the discovery) of the suspected WZ Sge-type object, WX Cet in 1989 (cf. IAUC 4793). This, and more data, were used in the subsequent paper by O'Donoghue et al. (MNRAS 250, 363). I can't find significant difference between Schmeer's and Overbeek's announcements of pre-discovery observations. The only difference between them is the observing modalities.

Speaking of history, before the internet era, there was a phone-based bulletin board on which world-wide observers can post alerts (just as we do in vsnet-alert). At that time, Patrick asked Japanese observers to report as many outbursts as possible. We asked "even SS Cyg?" and Patrick replied, "Yes, even SS Cyg".

Regards,
Taichi Kato

Let's not forget that the primary purpose of the visual observers watching the dwarf novae is to add to the collection of data on those stars. The visual observers, especially the vehemently dedicated ones like Danie Overbeek (to name but a single example of many) develop an incredible collection of information on these stars. Even/especially the "fainter than" observations are extremely valuable. I used the data on a few selected stars to do several papers (for JAAVSO and VSS RASNZ publ.) on the frequency of outbursts on these stars in the 1980's. Without the vast collection of these data points, it is not possible to discover the long term trends and characteristics in these stars' outburst cycles which is necessary in the development of the theory of these outbursts.

Data gaps were the most frustrating to me because there was often the question: "Was there an outburst there that no one saw or was the star quiet?" The observations at quiescence were as valuable as those in outburst, often because there were few of them.

Currently I am engaged in the "ambulance chasing" or "smoke jumping" side of variable star work, running to newly reported outbreaks of flames. The visual observers do us "smoke eaters" a tremendous favor by maintaining a fire watch in the forest of the dwarf novae and reporting the ones that flare up. I choose which fires to fight and which to ignore. I ignore some spectacular blazes and some dull ones, too. Without the "rangers", we collectively would fail to work some really interesting outbursts. As with any forest ranger, all smoke should be reported. Choosing where to report which star's outburst is a matter of (current) debate of greater heat than it deserves.

The difference between the dwarf novae observers and (tree) forest rangers is that it is often just as important to know there is no smoke. A failure to report a negative observation on a star hinders work of others on that star. Please report them all, and just because the star "wasn't there", it doesn't mean there isn't interest and value in the observation. The smoke jumpers don't care, but the theorists may.

In the long run, the work of the fire crews gets published because the fire rangers reported the smoke in the first place, and the observer who reported the fire is often left out of the news. These unbelievably dedicated ladies and gentlemen deserve our appreciation and a big THANK YOU!

=====
Regards, Lew 

In response to recent discussions on announcements of outburst detections of dwarf novae, we have set up a new sub-list of vsnet-alert: vsnet-outburst. This list "vsnet-outburst" is exclusively for outbursts of dwarf novae (including suspected ones and closely related systems), and not for outburst-type activity of other class of variables.

The list "vsnet-outburst" accepts *any* outburst announcements of dwarf novae. Since this list is mainly for announcements, regular observation reports should be sent to vsnet-obs (note, however, accompanying observation details of outburst detections in the VSNET format are highly encouraged in vsnet-outburst). We hope this feature would help observers of early stages of dwarf nova outbursts.

Rare, unusual, interesting, and other specially weighted (e.g. call for simultaneous observations) dwarf nova phenomena should (also) be sent to vsnet-alert. These announcements would include rare outbursts (roughly rarer than a few known outbursts per year), unusually bright outbursts, superoutbursts (except frequent superoutbursts of well-known ER UMa stars on their regular recurrence cycle), eclipsing dwarf novae, poorly known object, and other priorities depending on the observer's knowledge (in the last case, we would be glad if the reporter could add some information about the importance of the outburst).

Regards,
Taichi Kato

Return to HomePage Return to the Index of VSNET discussion topics

Return to Daisaku Nogami's page

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