Talk:Binary Status

Designations?
Cedric, I'll leave the implementation to you in order not to mess up any of your robots. -- Tdall 15:56, 28 December 2006 (CLST)
 * are the 'Y' and 'SB' designations not the same thing? I think we should keep 'SB' instead of 'Y'.
 * the 'VIS' designation, should be for visually separated, but physically connected components, i.e. the stars are orbiting each other. The 'VIS?' would then be used where the components are possibly not connected.


 * I was making a distinction between 'Y' and 'SB' to distinguish for instance photometrically-eclipsing stars and spectroscopic binaries as seen directly in their spectra (either with CCFs, line doubling, or RVs). I don't know if it is useful. One thing I'm sure is that VSOP will explore the spectroscopic side only of the binarity. The problem is what do we do with cases like that:
 * * A star is a known eclipsing binary, but has never been observed in spectroscopy. Of course it is a spectroscopic binary, but has never been observed as such in spectroscopy.
 * * If we say that eclipsing star is a spectoscopic binary because we know it, why we use SB1? A SB1 is of course a SB2 where we don't see the companion's spectrum, in our given spectrum with that given quality.
 * I think that keeping "Y" for an explising, and "SB" for confirmed spectroscopic binaries will help us to avoid situations where the eclipsing reveals itself to be for instance a triple... No? -- 04:13, 30 December 2006 (CLST)


 * Maybe we can say that we use a minimalistic designation of binarity, based on existing observations only, and that the star is at least a eclipsing/mutlple/visual/whatever star, given the current observations. Would you agree? -- 04:15, 30 December 2006 (CLST)

I think what you're putting together on the article page looks good and convincing. As soon as you're done with it, I think it would be good to include (part of) your text in Paper One. I can do that once the text is ready. There are still some discussion on the SB categories missing, i.e. which SB catalogs to use and how to use them. Great work you've done!! -- Tdall 19:31, 1 January 2007 (CLST)

Just read through it, and it makes sense in general. We could dig into the SB catalogs to see whether the designation would be SB1 or SB2 in those cases. And the catalog I/211 is superseded by I/274 (the CCDM) so should not be in the list (it is completely contained in the latter I think). I agree SB1 is a designation of limited usefulness... and VSOP can actually never use that designation, since it requires multiple observations! -- Tdall 04:32, 3 January 2007 (CLST)