Well... I've gone from 3 (WR134, 135, 137) at Lac du Taureau to 2 (134, 135) when I came to write up
the science case, for the reasons indicated. Then through discussions there has been pressure to go back to the original 3, which I don't strongly object to, providing one can get enough observations per night for each star at any given telescope. I still insist that whatever stars are actually observed, we observe EACH of them equally well for the whole (presumably 4-month) interval. Anything less would not be taking full advantage of a multi-telescope, log-term campaign. And the science demands it in each case, I believe.
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrenicolas Chene (
fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
To: fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (
fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:39 PM
Subject: [fg-spek] Re: New ProAm campaign in 2013
Well... when I want less targets, you want more, and when I want more, you want less...
Ok... What if we plan the first 3.5 months for WR134+WR135, and, like I said, we keep the last 2 weeks for WR134+WR137. 3.5 months for WR135 is significantly larger than 3 nights, right? Also, for WR137, all we need is to cover a few times the putative 0.8d-period, and to compare what we get with observations obtained during the last 6-7 years in order to verify if any changes in the period are seen at different orbital phases of the binary.
I think whether we do WR134 OR WR134+135+137:
WR134: With 4-5 spectra per night, we can monitor adequately the line profile variations, while 2-3 spectra would be a bit more challenging. Hence, the more spectra we get for that star, the better. If we also observe WR135, will we still have good results for WR134 AND get something good for WR135?
WR134+135+137: If you can convince me that we can share nights with two targets, why should it be only WR135? For just the cost of a fraction of the campaign, we add a third target. It is true that the science case I have in mind doesn't absolutely need the intensive effort the Pro-Am campaign allows. On the other hand, a few spectra would be useful and studying the three first WR ever discovered is a good story for media. "On the traces of Charles Wolf and Georges Rayet". Sounds cool, no?
What do you think?
Saludos
Tony Moffat wrote: Hi AN et al.:
My gut feeling tells me, though, that if we monitor any of these stars, then better to do it "all or nothing",
i.e. intensely during the whole 4 months, rather than part of the time. This applies to whether we want to monitor CIRs and their long-term stability (WR134, 137) or constraining the statistics of clumps (WR135). Observing WR135 for only a few nights (or even a week or two) would probably not go much beyond the already intense 3-day run using WHT/CFHT in 1994 (Lepine et al. 2000). And that short run does not address the question of the long-term behaviour of wind clumps.
Best, Tony
André-Nicolas Chené
Postdoctorado
Universidad de Concepcion
Universidad de Valparaiso
Registrieren
Anmelden
FAQ
Suche
)
) and I can support it. Maybe my expectations are too high. It would be great to establish a REALLY large group being able to cover even WR 137. Perhaps we have the luck to welcome our highly active french friends to the team. 
