| Candidate | Periods | The Curmudgeon's Verdict |
|---|
V1425 Aql =
Nova Aquilae 1995 |
Porb=6.139hr
Pspin=86.5min?
Pbeat=1.89hr?? |
Pro: The detection of three periods is based on
extensive photometry.
Con: The system was still well above pre-nova
brightness at the time of these observations.
Verdict: A solid candidate on paper, yet the
Curmudgeon is uneasy. An independent confirmation,
with the system closer to pre-nova brightness, would
convince him. |
RR Cha =
Nova Chamaeleontis 1953 |
Porb=3.362hr
Pspin=32.5min? |
Pro: The orbital period of 3.362 hr is beyond doubt
from the eclipses; 1950s photometric period is claimed from
Feb 2001 and May 2001 photometry runs.
Con: Are they (particularly Feb 2001 detection)
definitely above the general red noise?
Verdict: The Curmudgeon is not convinced. |
DD Cir =
Nova Circinus 1999 |
Porb=2.339hr
Pspin=670s? |
Pro: The orbital period of 2.339 hr is beyond doubt
from the eclipses.
Con: The ~670 s signal was not seen in all
of their photometry runs.
Verdict: The Curmudgeon is not convinced. |
AP Cru =
Nova Curcis 1935 |
Porb=5.12hr(?)
Pspin=1837s? |
Pro: None.
Con: Even the credentials as CV is still up for
debate. The claimed 1837 s signal is transient.
Verdict: The Curmudgeon would be surprised. |
| WZ Sge |
Porb=1.3605hr
Pspin=27.87s?
P???=28.96s |
Pro: ASCA data appears to have the 27.87 s period.
Bill Welsh can't make the pulsation model work.
Con: If there is a signal in the XMM-Newton data, it's
the 28.96 s one. Joe Patterson
can't make the numerology work in the IP model.
Verdict: The Curmudgeon is confused. |
V697 Sco =
Nova Sorpii 1941 |
Porb=4.49hr
Pspin=3.31hr? |
Pro: Multiple peaks are seen in the FT.
Con: Too many peaks are seen in the FT. An IP
interpretation emerges if and only if it is assumed
that these are due to strictly periodic clocks.
Verdict: The Curmudgeon only sees quasiperiodic
variability in V697 Sco. |
V373 Sct =
Nova Scuti 1975 |
Porb=???
Pspin=258.3s? |
Pro: One of three photometry runs shows a signal at
258.3 s.
Con: The other two don't.
Verdict: The Curmudgeon is skeptical. |
V381 Vel =
RXJ1016.9-4103 |
Porb=134min?
Pspin=122min? |
Pro: 122 and 134 min periods seen.
Con: Greiner & Schwarz, who prefer 134 min,
say "common periods of 123, 134, and 149 min are
possible" due to poor sampling.
Verdict: Evidence for the 134 min period is weak.
An umbiguous detection of it in better sampled data is
necessary to convine The Curmudgeon |
Aqr 1 =
2236+0052 =
SDSSJ223843.84+010820.7 |
Porb=122min?
Pspin=6.728min? |
Pro: Detection of the 6.723 min period
is convincing
Con: The orbital period is uncertain and the
possible sideband features don't match up neatly with
the reported orbital period.
Verdict: A good candidate. An independent
confirmation would be nice. |
| HS0922+1333 |
Porb=4.6hr?
Pspin=4.1hr? |
Pro: Photometric and spectroscopic periods differ
Con: Both observations barely cover one cycle
Verdict: Not convincing. The Curmudgeon will
reconsider if longer observations confirm
the dual periodicity. |
| 1RXS J015317.9+744641 |
Porb=3.94 hr
Pspin=1974 s? |
Pro: Spin-like modulations seen in X-rays and in
the optical.
Con: Orbital period is cited in catalogs via
private communication, with no actual publication. Recent
optical photometry only covers 7 or so beat cycles.
Verdict: This one looks like a genuine IP, but
more data are required before The Curmudgeon will list
this among the confirmed. |
| VZ Sex = RX J0944.5+0357 |
Porb=3.581hr
Pspin=2162s? |
Pro: Spectroscopy establishes the 3.581 hr orbital
period; the 2162 s period is clearly visible in some light
curves.
Con: ...but not in others (Mennickent et al. did not
see this period). Aperiodic variability is strong.
Verdict: It will take a repeated appearances of
this period to convince The Curmudgeon. |
| YY Sex = RX J1039.7-0507 |
Porb=1.574hr
Pspin=1443.7s? |
Pro: Strong orbital photometric modulation
(reflection) and additional power seen.
Con: Are the FT peaks all due to real and strictly
periodic signals, given the general red noise pluse the
possible presence of higher harmonics of the orbital period?
Verdict: The Curmudgeon is not convinced, and will
wait for the results of the XMM-Newton observation. |
| Swift J0732.5-1331 |
Porb=5.604 hr
Pspin=512.42s |
Pro: All observations reported so far are consistent
with IP interpretation.
Con: We only have ATels so far, possibly from
relatively sparse data.
Verdict: The Curmudgeon is waiting for refereed
publications to make it official. |