[vsnet-chat 7281] Prioritizing CV targets

[Mike Simonsen]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has come to this point in their
development as an observer, so I would like to share my feelings and
questions, and hopefully spark some relevant discussion.

Besides the numerous list servers in the header, I am blind CCing many
professional astronomers in hopes that they will respond.

When I first began observing CVs to the near exclusion of all other kinds of
variables there was not a lot known about many, or most, of the CVs we were
monitoring. Many were newly discovered and even the type was not known for
sure. Some had never been seen in outburst. A lot has changed in this regard
in the last few years.

Preferential treatment has obviously been given to UGSU types. Detecting
superhumps and deriving a period has been the main game in town in this
regard. In fact, it seems nobody is interested if the long wait for an
outburst ends up revealing a 'mere UGSS'. Cases in point, the recent
outburst of CI Gem and the last two outbursts of DK Cas. Once no humping was
found they were basically ignored.

Question #1- is there no interesting science to be gleaned from UGs or UGSS?
If not, why are so many papers and investigations done on SS Cyg and U Gem?

Question #2- is the reason superhump recognition and period determination is
so popular is because it can be done unfiltered? Isn't there more science
that can be done by placing UBVRI filters on CCDs while investigating CVs?

Question#3- if you insist on working unfiltered, aren't there a bunch of CVs
with no known period that you could work on in quiescence to determine the
period?

I just wonder at the usefulness of jumping all over every new ASAS variable
to see if it is a UGSU or not and then leaving the whole thing at that. Its
kinda like the current situation with novae. What is to be learned by
following yet another novae from outburst to quiescence? OK, its a
nova...big deal.

As an amateur I would appreciate a little direction in this regard. With
more and more surveys coming online there will be more and more CVs, novae
and SN discovered, and we need a way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Certainly a million new W UMa eclipsers will be uncovered, but who cares?
Maybe one or three will prove of interest. I think it is the same with CVs
and novae.

One argument must surely be, "if we don't study each one to a certain extent
how will we know which ones will prove interesting".

Question #4- isn't there a way to pre-determine the probability somewhat?
I don't have an answer. Maybe it takes tools, like spectroscopy, beyond our
means to make that determination.

For visual observers the situation is still much the same as it has been. We
are the fire spotters. We patiently monitor CVs for years that may or may
not prove to be of interest, depending on whether they do the superhump
dance once they go off. But what of the ones we have now alerted the world
to that have had their 'superhumpness' or not and periods determined.

Question #5- is there a valid scientific reason for continued monitoring?

Maybe the emerging role of visual observers is to continue monitoring the
stars with the oldest historical light curves. These 'legacy stars' may show
period changes or surprises in human time scales we are not expecting, and
it will be the visual observers who catch these changes, not surveys with
limited life spans or superhump CCD observers who only observe these stars
for a few hours on a few nights and then move on.

One of the most interesting things any professional has said in a CVnet
interview was when Joe Patterson said, "The dwarf-nova outburst itself has
become generally well understood -- in the sense that there's a theory which
successfully reproduces the observed phenomena.  But it's noteworthy that
all of that theory was crafted to fit previously known data -- it has never
actually predicted something not known in advance. So that higher standard
of scientific worthiness has never been met.  In addition, the theory breaks
down when applied to dwarf novae in quiescence -- it predicts about a
thousand times less accretion than is actually observed!  Plenty of thought
needed there."

Clearly we could all use some help. Isn't there a way we can help each other
(pro/am) more? When I founded CVnet I was hoping for more professional
guidance and participation than we ended up getting. I'd have to say that is
the only disappointment after the first year. There are a few generous and
gracious pros who have contributed, and we all appreciate their
contributions. I am doing what I can to expand on this facet of CVnet.

As a visual observer who now has his other foot in the CCD game, I want to
do the best and most relevant science both visually and with the CCD. I'd
like to keep monitoring the CVs that are active and fairly bright visually,
making as many positive observations as possible, as well as the long term
projects like waiting for PQ And or EG Cnc (or RS Oph for that matter!) to
go off. I rather regard my CV program much like an ornithologist with a
'life list'. There are a number of CVs I just want to SEE before I go. I
don't care if they are particularly scientifically relevant. Its a hobby for
me, and I can wait and monitor what ever I want, enjoying the view, the
solitude and the oneness with the universe I feel when I am out at the
scope.

On the other hand, I started doing variable star observing because I wanted
to contribute to science. There are a bunch of us out here with talent,
enthusiasm, time, money and expertise who want to do good things. Show us
the way and we will follow. Empower us and we will amaze you.

"Build it and they will come."
>From 'Field of Dreams', the movie.


Mike Simonsen

*********************************
C. E. Scovil Observatory
http://home.mindspring.com/~mikesimonsen/
AAVSO Chart Team
charts at aavso.org
CVnet Administrator
http://cvnet.aavso.org

**********************************