[vsnet-alert 9937] Re: OT_J055924.1-512522 (new object in Pic)

[da55 at Safe-mail.net]

Hiroyuki Maehara observed :-

>In the USNO B1.0 catalog, there is a faint object at the reported
>position.
>
>USNO-B1.0 0385-0053065  05 59 24.07 -51 25 22.0 B2mag=21.13 
>R2mag=20.58

Given the near plate limit nature of this detection, it's interesting to note that GSC 2.3.2 also detected it on the plates at a very similar derived position (within 0.4 arcsecs) in that it is an independent digitization of the same survey plates (suggesting it is real), giving red plate mag 20.41 and blue plate mag 22.13, so colour assessment isn't necessarily possible, but it seems to be brighter on the red plates (southern hemisphere red and blue plates are rarely same epoch).

The SuperCOSMOS interface allows examination of source digitised data from the UKST, which the above is from.

http://www-wfau.roe.ac.uk/sss/pixel.html

quick looks show that it was visible in UKST red and blue, but not ESO red plates, which seem to be of similar depth giving an adjacent star about a dozen arcsecs away of B/J mag 21.2.

According to Aladin AAO red plate is date 1993.962, SERC blue plate is 1978.031 and the ESO red plate 1986.994, and the MAMA digitization of the latter nondetection plate shows the adjacent star more clearly than the AAO red detection plate does.

All this in light of comparison with recent possible high amplitude cataclysmic variables and their progenitors in CMi and Hya.

ASAS3 gives one, single, point only from several years on the field (where 29.999 means nothing detected to faint limit) 

HJD-2450000 V
2755.51219 29.999
2759.54889 12.831
2761.52805 29.999

but it's a single point and flagged "worst data, probably useless".  The null observations either side are certainly very close in time.

It lies adjacent to a fairly bright galaxy so was likely picked up in a supernova patrol search, apparently one with known reliability (so likely older images available for comparison) and the unconfirmed pages do not accept single image detections.


However, the unconfirmed pages state that details from them should not be disseminated, so is this sort of thing alright?

Certainly they possibly welcome direct information, as literature evidential details I passed on for two long standing undecided 'var's on the list that showed they were QSOs has meant they have been removed from it.

Details for var/RET remain, though, even though I same time forwarded the whereabouts of the confirmation notes made on that in places.  Possibly someone needs to make an analysis note on var/RET to some formal publication, maybe PZP or IBVS 5n00, so there is a published reference to it?  Considering as the case for that one looks to be pretty well closed.

Cheers

John

(c) John Greaves 2008