[vsnet-alert 11062] Re: re Nova LMC 1971b = LMC V3958

[Mati Morel]

   I have had a quick look at the Table 1 of Subramaniam et al, brought to our attention by John 
Greaves. Very neat and tidy list of precise positions. A bit too tidy, I think. I have had an 
interest in No. 1 in their list, Nova LMC 1926 = RY Dor.  Fortunately a finder chart was published 
in HB 847.  My own position is (2000) 05 14 58.30 -66 50 14.8, in reasonable agreement with GCVS. 
The nova is about 1' due west of the OB star Sk-66 66, so the nova could not be located at the 
position given by Subramaniam, whose end figures are 54.54s, -66 48'44.06".   The last 2 or 3 
positions in their list of 30 novae appear to be ok, no doubt taken from the literature.   A number 
of novae found by J. Graham in the early 1970s appeared on only one or two plates.  In fact, one 
nova,  1970#1 = LMC V3298, was found on an objective prism plate; _no_ direct plate was ever taken. 
See report in IBVS 437.   Only an approximate position was published, yet the Subramaniam paper 
reports a precise position.
       Clearly I think one would be wise to be very careful about accepting these nova positions 
blindly.  In a number of cases the given precision lacks justification. And this probably includes 
the recent interest in LMC 1971b.
Mati Morel
E151:38:33
S32:46:47
mmorel7 at bigpond.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <varposts at Safe-mail.net>
To: <vsnet-alert at ooruri.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:36 AM
Subject: [vsnet-alert 11059] re Nova LMC 1971b = LMC V3958


> According to Capaccioli et al, 1990, ApJ 360, 63, only _one_ observation was reported for this 
> object in IAUC 2353, and it's not clear whether a good position exists.  SIMBAD quotes a good 
> position and gives a source for that position which hints of problems.
<snip>
> A. Subramaniam - G. C. Anupama 2002, A&A 390, 449 are quoted in SIMBAD for the accurate looking 
> position therein, and they do carry a goodly position, but this latter paper quotes the above 1990 
> paper for this object, which doesn't give such a precise position at all.  In fact it gives an 
> imprecise 1950s position that they could likely just have published after converting to J2000 
> without consideration of carrying the sig figs through from source to result.
<snip>
> Cheers
>
> John