[vsnet-alert 13100] Re: DR UMa outburst

[Taichi Kato]

Re: DR UMa outburst

> I doubt that this object, CSS110402:135906+554432, is DR UMa. 
> It's about 0.5 arc minutes northwest of the position given on Romano's
> chart in IBVS 1674 (GR 296).  The nearest SDSS object to that location
> is SDSS J135907.78+554358.3 (r = 22.8).  There is no reason to assume
> that Romano's chart is wrong, as the other charts in that IBVS are quite
> accurate.

   Please note that  other variable stars in the same paper were much brighter,
non-transient objects.  I have experience with his publications, and know
his hand-written charts were often distorted (but better than many other
researchers), especially for sparse fields or dwarf novae.
I had investigated this field in the past, and I'm not surpriaed if his
position is 30" off.  This sparse field was hard to locate even with CCDs.
(The same tentative ID was given in the Downes et al. CV catalog).

see e.g. DX And
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958MmSAI..29..177R

   I don't have a special reason to assume a new object, and we use
the designation DR UMa unless there is sufficient material becomes
available that these two detections refer to a different object.