From: "Stan Walker" 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. > > UGSS? > If not, why are so many papers and investigations done on SS Cyg and U > Gem? > > 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? > > 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". > > 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. > > > 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 > which > successfully reproduces the observed phenomena. But it's noteworthy that > never > actually predicted something not known in advance. So that higher standard > of scientific worthiness has never been met. In addition, the theory > breaks > 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 > CVnet Administrator > http://cvnet.aavso.org > > ********************************** > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AVSON/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > _______________________________________________