[vsnet-alert 22985] Re: [vsnet-outburst 23309] V386 Ser: ordinary superhumps finally, likely WZ Sge object

[Tonny Vanmunster tonny.vanmunster@gmail.com via vsnet-alert]

Dear Taichi,

Please note that in my vsnet-alert 22947 message, I literally wrote: "The
resulting light curve of Jan 19/20 clearly shows the presence of *double-peaked
(early) superhumps* with an amplitude of 0.11 mag, hence classifying this
object as a new WZ Sge type dwarf nova". So, my announcement does mention
*early* superhumps. I maybe should have stressed this even more explicitly,
instead of putting "early" between brackets, but as an amateur astronomer
it's not always straightforward to distinguish "early" from "true"
superhumps.Note also that my early superhump detection of Jan 19/20 is
fully in line with your current statement that the object "should have been
in "early superhump" phase in January".

I'm currently on travel till after this weekend, but upon my return I will
post my Jan 19/20 light curve on a Facebook variable star page, to proof
that the detection was not "spurious under high air masses". The duration
of my observations was short (V386 Ser was an early morning object in
Belgium), but sufficient to clearly distinguish 'spurious' from true
signals.

Best regards
Tonny


On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:17 AM Taichi Kato <tkato at kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
wrote:

> V386 Ser: ordinary superhumps finally, likely WZ Sge object
>
>    Osaka Kyoiku U. team and Itoh-san reported observations
> on Feb. 4.  The data now clearly show ordinary superhumps.
> This modulation was not apparent at least up to Jan. 31.
> Although T. Vanmunster reported the detection of superhumps
> in [vsnet-alert 22947], I consider that this detection
> may have been spurious under high air masses.
> The period was not confirmed by subsequent observations,
> and the present evidence of emerging true superhumps,
> which suggests that the object should have been in
> "early superhump" phase in January, excluding a long
> period ordinary superhumps reported in [vsnet-alert 22947].
> I therefore consider this observation should be credited
> as the type identification of this object.
> Further observations will refine the period of true
> superhumps, and may eventually identify the weak signal
> of early superhumps in January.
>
>

-- 
Tonny Vanmunster
CBA Belgium Observatory
CBA Extremadura Observatory
www.cbabelgium.com
www.peranso.com