Talk:T Coronae Borealis

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on T Coronae Borealis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990824013405/http://ftp.aavso.org/ql/ to http://ftp.aavso.org/ql

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Light curve

I'm not convinced that the second light curve shown on the page, which presents the AAVSO data from 1 Jan 2008 to 17 Nov 2010, is captioned correctly. The caption attributes the brightness variation to pulsations of the red giant star, but the period seems to match the orbital period of the binary system. Also, this paper: https://www.aavso.org/news/t-crb-pre-eruption-dip shows a more uniformly sampled AAVSO light curve and attributes the variation to ellipsoidal variability. Does anyone believe that the variations shown in the plot are actually due to the giant star's pulsation?PopePompus (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not due to red giant pulsation. Scientific papers consistently describe it as ellipsoidal. (I also removed a reference to 12.3 magnitude minima, as the original source was referring to observations in 1946 - not recently.) ----mikeu ^talk 23:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll change the caption tomorrow, unless someone else does. We should pay particular attention to this article, since it will get a lot of views if the star erupts in the near future. PopePompus (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I am one such new viewer; I came here precisely because I was reading about what is expected to happen. I want to get my grandkids to help me look for it, but I don't want to raise expectations unless the seemingly growing confidence about imminence is justified. In fact to that end I just added a new (Talk) section, below, on whether the article could do with some updating in the context of what's about to happen. Sleety Dribble (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luminosity

I think is not correct that the white dwarf has 100 solar L. The paper indicates < 100 L for de hot component of the system. But it's referring to an accretion disc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.223.164.63 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption imminent? (June 2024)

I came here in light of the increasing amount of Internet chatter about when T CrB's next eruption is likely to happen. What I'm seeing suggests it could be pretty soon, and while I am not an astronomer, I'd happily keep an eye open each evening for this thing, provided that means at most a month or two of evenings, not a year or two. So, WP was my primary sanity checker in that respect.

Now the article's current lead does mention the next "outburst", but only that it is expected "possibly in 2025, and almost certainly before the end of 2026". It's also mentioned at the very end of the main article, and date of as early as March 2024 is mentioned, but it's still in the context of a range going out to October 2026.

So none of that reflects the more recent chatter which suggests the event could be much sooner than 2025/26; maybe as soon as September of this year (2024), and -- more to my point -- perhaps even within the next few weeks or a month (time of writing is June 23rd). (In fact I've seen it measured in days, although how on earth it's possible to have that level of precision for something almost 3,000 light years away is beyond me).

But as I said, I am not an astronomer, so I can't assess whether the chatter is nothing more than that, or if it is valid and reaches the level of a Reliable source. But presumably a regular editor here could? To help there, I note that NASA themselves mention the September 2024 date, and AAVSO explain why it could be as soon as is being said, mentioning (back in 2023) that T CrB had just started it's "pre-eruption dip". And here's another commentary, from a UKY student observatory. I personally doubt that any of those merits the label "chatter", and in fact they all look RS-ish to me. And I don't think this kind of information is what is meant to come under the likes of WP:BREAKING, WP:RSBREAKING, or WP:RECENTISM. But I leave it to y'all expert-type people to decide if any change in the article is warranted. Sleety Dribble (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in seeing the eruption, you might want to add this article you your watchlist. You can bet that as soon as the eruption occurs, this article will be updated, and if it's on your watchlist, you will get an email when the article is updated. PopePompus (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that a pdf of a presentation I gave last year (March 2023) is being used as the source for the eruption date. That's not a good source to use and it is out of date given the dip. The date I used came from Schaefer 2023, which would be a peer reviewed source and, with the announcement from the AAVSO, is the one of the main sources for the announcement of an upcoming eruption, even for other astronomers. There are other papers too but those are from several years ago. As the author of the source being used at the moment, I would suggest an editor change it to something like: Schaefer 2023 DOI:10.1093/mnras/stad735

Now as to the date: It's a little complicated. The excitement from the dip last year is the source of the idea that could happen this year. However, there are alternate views. For example Munari 2023 (DOI:10.3847/2515-5172/ad0f26) notes that 128 orbits separated the past two eruptions, which would mean November 2025 would be the time based on discussions with other astronomers. I have observing proposals out to observe the system if it erupts this year. I have reasonable hope the eruption will happen but Munari's date is worth considering. Edit: note that I've made an account and changed the ID to the username rather than IP. I hope this is okay. Polaristoacrux (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the source change myself. The discussion about which time range to put is worth continuing given the amount of press the event has received and the expectation that people will go to Wikipedia to learn more about the star. The long time range already being used is based on more data than that predicting the eruption will take place this year. Polaristoacrux (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it IS end of October 2024 - any news? --Andi47 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is over 2000 light years away, this pair may have gone supernova

and we may never know! 2603:8080:3EF0:7280:1DE5:5D59:F6DC:8692 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]