Affiliation
Vereniging Voor Sterrenkunde, Werkgroep Veranderlijke Sterren (Belgium) (VVS)
Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:09
I see that on the observing section of CV's that there is no longer a link to the CV Legacy program
https://sites.google.com/site/aavsocvsection/aavso-legacy-cvs
Maybe a good idea to link it? I have searched for it and found it in the general site of the sections. But someone interested maybe would go directly to the section of cv's and there I couldn't find it.
regards, Hubert
The AAVSO Legacy CVs are all contained in the CV list in the AAVSO Target Tool - that list was created using the CV Legacy list as its foundation. Since the Target Tool also indicates which stars need observations (and can tell you which ones are observable from your location), it is an excellent resource to decide which Legacy CVs to observe at a given time, helping to maximize the productivity of an observing session.
Good observing,
Elizabeth
Hello Elizabeth,
I don't understand why the observing cadence for these CV's is 5 days. DNe should be observed every night surely, as should many of the CV's on this list - or am I reading it incorrectly?
I've raised this point before when the target tool was released, but never did get any response.
Gary
I agree with Gary. I observe CVs every single night, and for UGWZs and UGSUs rising from minimum, more frequently. If we observed just every 5 days a lot of short outbursts would be missed. Mind you, our weather has been pretty lousy but we have had two fine nights so far this month.
Stephen [HSP]
New Zealand.
I agree. It looks like that column was indended tor visual observers and even then as Gary and Strephen point out, it isn't helpful.
Much of the CCD observing of CV's is time series where the cadence is measured in seconds and goes on for weeks at a time.
Replying to #3, I agree also, and stopped using the AAVSO recommended cadence long ago. If one is attempting to either average out errors or improve the accuracy of an estimated period, there is no such thing as too frequent observations. That is especially true for phenomena that lack apparent periodicity.
My question is this: Since it has been pointed out long ago that the cadences for CVs are wrong, how come nobody has fixed them?