English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Galactic novae and supernovae can be studied by utilizing historicalobservations, yielding explosion time, location on sky~etc. Recent publicationsby Hoffmann & Vogt present CVs, supernova remnants, planetary nebulae etc. aspotential counterparts based on their list of historically reported transientsfrom the Classical Chinese text corpus. Since their candidate selectionneglects the state-of-the-art (e.g. Stephenson \& Green), and since it includes`broom stars' and `fuzzy stars', i.e. probable comets, we investigate theircatalogue in more detail. We discuss here their two highlights, the suggestionof two `broom star' records dated AD 667 and 668 as one historical supernovaand of the `guest star' of AD 891 as recurrent nova U Sco. The proposedpositional search areas are not justified due to translation and datingproblems, source omission, as well as misunderstandings of historical Chineseastronomy and unfounded textual interpretations. All sources together providestrong evidence for comet sightings in both AD 668 and 891 -- e.g., there areno arguments for stationarity. The AD 667 record is a misdated doublet of 668.Our critique pertains more generally to their whole catalogue of `24 mostpromising events': their speculations on counterparts lack a solid foundationand should not be used in follow-ups.

Novae, supernovae, or something else? -- (Super-)nova highlights from Hoffmann & Vogt are quite certainly comets (AD 668 and 891)