Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

234Re: MISAO

Expand Messages
  • ncam1999
    Sep 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "martin_piers_nicholson"
      <martin_piers_nicholson@...> wrote:
      > I have looked at the first 10 entires in the MISAO database of "new
      > variable stars"
      > http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100
      > Using VSX seems to show that 8 are known GCVS variables
      > (#1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 10)
      > #7 only has seven data points on three days does also link to NSVS
      > #9 only has six data points on three days but does also link to NSVS
      > I don't really see that the MISAO data adds much to the debate.
      > Should these just appear in VSX named as GCVS or NSVS variables
      > rather than MISAO variables?

      The simplest of investigations reveals MisV0001 is in the GCVS
      primarily because it was published in an IBVS by MISAO and the GCVS
      picked it up later and formally named it, as has happened with many a
      MISAO variable


      In this primary instance the Mira star was found from images of the
      field of the adjacent suspected cataclysmic variable V4334 Sgr via
      using PIXY SYSTEM (1) on donated images for that field.

      The GCVS reference to the study of MisV0002 is again to an IBVS by
      Yoshida et al on MISAO variables.

      VSX also echoes this information. Probably same for t'others, I can't
      be bothered to look.

      MISAO variables predate NSVS red variables in many instances, memory
      tells me up to MisV0500 were published in IBVSs, although in what form
      I remember not, and further that these are subsequently in SIMBAD, so
      the NSVS team should have found them via cross checking. In fact the
      NSVS team did not even fully cross check against the GCVS and NSV as
      at that time said catalogues were only up to date in the SAI ftp
      archive and not integrated into SIMBAD, which had a woefully out of
      date copy. MisV often came afore subsequent published NSVS J, in
      other words, and just as often the NSVS solution is no more accurate
      and many of their long period variable periodicities are between
      farcical and very bad indeed.

      The date is likely around 2003 when which survey has priority probably
      swaps, last I was actively taking note of MISAO stuff and doing cross
      indexing work therefor up to around the MisV1200s, MisV1147 and the
      potential Nova Cephei 2001 = V0709 Cephei which I think = MisV1181 was
      about the last ones I remember. There was no NSVS data to play with
      at that time. Amateurs using visual techniques provided a lot of the
      full lightcurve for the semilegendary MisV1147, plus some allsky CCD
      several passband photometry from folk like Ondrej Pejcha. It was
      quite a little international get together on the quiet was that one.

      It is within the context of these matters that VSX can do work if folk
      experienced in such work are willing to cross correlate multiple
      entries for single objects, show the connection with reference to
      evidence, literature based or new observation based, and tighten up
      the reportage system of the database. That is what it is about. VSX
      makes the MISAO and GCVS and NSVS data available for the tidying up of
      the case of what the true situation is re the MISAO _discoveries_.

      As is, the MISAO list was imported en masse and therefore duplicates
      other entries, as many were published by MISAO, or noted to vsnet
      lists as was, and subsequently were formally adopted into the GCVS,
      which too lives in VSX.

      I'll repeat that a third time. MisVnnnn objects are often in GCVS
      because they were discovered as new by MISAOchan, checked against then
      current catalogues for newness by her alter ego Pixy Misa, and double
      checked for knownness by Kato Taichi and independently for some by
      John Greaves, although neither were formal "MISAO members".

      The NSVS database permits folk to solve such objects if they so wish,
      indeed Yoshida Seiichi himself typed and periodified several long
      known red MISAO objects using the extra data thereby made available,
      sometimes in tandem with new CCD observations by Japanese observers.

      Solution is the emphasis. The current situation reminds me that I
      advised strongly against full MISAO list import into VSX as there are
      _some_ gray area objects whilst the more certain objects are fully
      published in IBVSs (sadly IBVS data still ain't in VSX for some
      unfathomable reason) and/or already integrated into GCVS and later
      namelists. I took the view that misinterpretations re VSX submission
      could ensue based on one or two, and only a handful mind you, of cases
      carefully picked out of MISAO for agenda based illustration by those
      desirous of so doing.

      A list, no matter of what longevity, that contains some objects only
      appearing in that list on a webpage being imported into VSX could
      potentially be an unfortunate precedent, was another view I took.

      However, Seiichi is a devoted and rigorous individual, and took every
      effort to ensure his findings were new afore calling them as such.

      Remember again that the vast majority of the MisV objects appeared
      afore the current surveys and lists began to make their data public.

      > As people probably know I do most of my observing using remote
      > facilities in New Mexico. It would be simple to write a script that
      > would take weekly V band images of say 50 NSVS variables (or indeed
      > 50 MISAO variables) every week for a few months.
      > BUT - would this be a sensible use of observing time? Would these go
      > into VSX as Nicholson 1 to Nicholson 50 <grin>?

      Why not Nicholson 1 to twenty million? Yes, they'd likely go into VSX
      as Nicholson 1 to 20,000,000 provided they were shown variable, shown
      truly to be new and/or shown to be properly and fully analysed and
      solved if their existance in other surveys, such as ASAS3 and NSVS,
      was under a false analysis/variability typing, as perforce they would
      be new solutions for either known or new objects. However, in the
      case of preknown but incorrectly classed objects a note should be made
      of their preknownness. If only for bibliographic reference... ...the
      old paper trail, don'tja know.

      The nature of the MISAO system is somewhat historical, it preceded the
      current datamineable (more properly, datatrawlable) surveys and was
      based on processing of donated CCD observations taken by amateurs.

      It was set up to find new asteroids by happenstance in spare images,
      something soon made irrelevant by LINEAR, and they hoped one day to
      find a nova or two, and they more or less did find one in the end.

      Whether such a scheme is strictly relevant in the modern age is

      A system likely more relevant to the current way of things is likely
      Vello Tabur's survey of the southern sky with a simple system,
      something he unfortunately never wrote up, coz it were impressive, and
      it found truly new variables, and solved their nature, and not all of
      those were found or included in subsequent ASAS3 releases either.

    • Show all 13 messages in this topic