[vsnet-outburst 6547] Re: [cvnet-discussion] Re: IP Peg eclipse ephemeris

[Mike Simonsen]

Arne Henden wrote:
I'm not on vsnet-outburst, nor do I want to be; anyone can forward this
> email to that list if you want.  I am sure that Kato-san was referring
> to the fact that an alert was made, but an additional statement that
> a long-term outburst was not underway did not follow.
>
> However, unless Tom's observations were simultaneous with Mike's,
> I see no reason for "correcting" the observation itself.  CVs are
> notorious for flares and short-time phenomena (accretion is not smooth).
> Always report what you actually see, not what you are expected to see.
>
> Arne


This is exactly what Taichi was referring to in his latest post.

Kato wrote:
"Re: [vsnet-outburst 6540] Re: IP Peg eclipse ephemeris

> The false alarm I will take credit for. My apologies.
> Can't explain away what I saw July 7; can't deny it wasn't there July 9 in
> the eyepiece.

   You are not blamed.  (I wanted to imply) most responsible people include
the person who issued vsnet-alert 8555, and Kyoto members who immediately
made follow-up observations.  They may have (or they didn't even look at the
CCD images?) noticed the absence of such an outburst.  Perhaps they may be
so addicted to the internet, and had no spare time to even look at images
;-)

   Don't rely on VSNET any more :-)  It's virtually a paper tiger except
for the scientific background ;-)"


Apparently there are still political wranglings going on in the background
of VSNET.
I have remained quietly optimistic in VSNET's return, hoping for the full
blown website with lightcurves and online data and all the broken links all
over the Internet to be fixed. This is the only reason I continue to
participate and submit observations. It seems this will never happen. Very,
very unfortunate in my opinion.

One thing that VSNET had/has that CVnet has been thusfar unable to achieve,
is the professional acceptance and the reputation that went along with
Taichi Kato's expertise and enthusiasm for variable star science. _One day_!
after resuming web operations, VSNET was quoted in the The Astronomer's
Telegram  http://www.astronomerstelegram.org . In spite of the fact CVnet
has brought interesting phenomena to the attention of the professional
community, like the outburst of KV UMa, we have never been taken seriously
by the professionals, in general. And have _never_ been cited in Atel.

I had hoped for more participation from professionals in CVnet, along with
guidance and support for the efforts of the amateur community and all they
have to offer. Alas, I am but one enthusiastic amateur banging on the hull
of the giant ship that is the professional community from my small dingy
here in Michigan. The administrative group that helps keep CVnet going
includes names and reputations that are very familiar to anyone involved in
CV research and observations: Gary Poyner, Rod Stubbings, Erwin Van
Ballegoij, Aaron Price, and many more. We've other participants of note,
like Patrick Schmeer, who keeps us hopping on interesting targets of
opportunity. Frankly, it is the professionals' loss not to take us
seriously.

We are very grateful for the support we receive from the AAVSO and Arne
Henden. The other professionals who have contributed to the interviews and
the online discussion have proved invaluable. I only wish we could count on
more of the same from other professional astronomers. I know they are
lurking out there, but they remain strangely silent.

Maybe noone professional wants to let on what they are working on, or what
they find interesting, for fear of criticism or being scooped on some paper.
I'm glad not to have any of those constraints. Along with my anomalous
citing of ROTSE3J151 in outburst, I still claim to have seen U Sco and
NSV4838 brighter than quiescence on occasion, and I'm not retracting my
observations of any of them. I'll leave it to the silent professionals to
figure out :^)

I think if we just keep doing what we are doing, and do it well, eventually
the professional community will not be able to ignore our efforts. Maybe
then we will all realize the benefits of CVnet, which is unabashedly modeled
after the CV efforts of VSNET.

Taichi and others, your voice is valued and accepted here. Please feel free
to post your opinions, advice and instruction to the eager amateurs who
value your opinion and expertise.

Mike Simonsen

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

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "arne" <arne at aavso.org>
To: <cvnet-discussion at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [cvnet-discussion] Re: [vsnet-outburst 6539] IP Peg eclipse
ephemeris


> Mike Simonsen wrote:
>
> >Taichi wrote:
> >No one seems to be interested in (or feels responsible
> ># for) correcting the false alarm on ROTSE3 J151453.6+020934.2
> ># (vsnet-alert 8555).
> >
> >Upon request for confirmation Tom Krajci reported to CVnet no trace of
> >ROTSE3 J151453.6+020934.2 on CCD images taken July 7, 2005.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I just stacked 10 x 60 second unfiltered images of the field for this
star.
> >>
> >>
> >I've compared it to the finder chart in IBVS 5559.  I can faintly see the
> >tiny edge-on spiral galaxy about 10 arcseconds to the southeast of the
> >target star...but I see no trace of ROTSE3 J1514.  I'd say it's fainter
than
> >about 18.0.
> >
> >I'm moving on to another target.
> >
> >Tom Krajci
> >Albuquerque, New Mexico<
> >
> >The false alarm I will take credit for. My apologies.
> >Can't explain away what I saw July 7; can't deny it wasn't there July 9
in
> >the eyepiece.
> >
> >
> >
> I'm not on vsnet-outburst, nor do I want to be; anyone can forward this
> email to that list if you want.  I am sure that Kato-san was referring
> to the fact that an alert was made, but an additional statement that
> a long-term outburst was not underway did not follow.
>
> However, unless Tom's observations were simultaneous with Mike's,
> I see no reason for "correcting" the observation itself.  CVs are
> notorious for flares and short-time phenomena (accretion is not smooth).
> Always report what you actually see, not what you are expected to see.
>
> Arne
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Visit us on the web at http://cvnet.aavso.org
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cvnet-discussion/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     cvnet-discussion-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>