February 2005 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Canon EOS 20Da for astrophotography
by astrodeb＠charter.net 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

They need to put a warning label on the camera that reads "Warning. Astrophotography may be addictive!" Debbie > > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > Date: 2005/02/15 Tue PM 07:24:57 MST > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Canon EOS 20Da for astrophotography > > Here's a page that will translate the text. Not a perfect translation > but it is readable. > > http://babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn > > Patrick > > astrodeb(a)charter.net wrote: > > > I found this on the digital-astro group. I wish Canon would put the pages in English. > > > > Debbie > > > > "It appears Canon has done something few of us would have expected > > and will soon produce a 20D made specifically for A-P work. Here > > are some links to provide some info, although the pages are in > > Japanese: > > > > http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/20da/special/index.html > > > > http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/20da/index.html > > > > http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/20da/attention/index.html > > > > It will be quite interesting to see how this camera performs and how > > much of a market it will draw." > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

1 0

Re: Question on focus
by Canopus56 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

Joe asked, > What I can't understand is why Jupiter is > in sharp focus while the moonscape is slightly fuzzy. They both equally fuzzy - the result of the telescope pushing its diffraction limit near its limit of useful magnification per inch of aperature. The mind is better able to interpret the Moon mountains in the "foreground" as blurred since mountainous terrain has terresterial analogues that the mind is used to seeing. Conversely, there is less resolvable detail in Jupiter's bands that can que the mind into the level of imaging blurring. The mind is not used to perceiving cloud bands from above. The same blurry level is less bothersome to view. Try grabbing a copy of the image and view a group of pixels from the Moon and Jupiter image on a highly magnified zoom. The pixelization should show similar levels of detail. - Canopus56 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

5 6

Re: [Utah-astronomy] the Pluto controversy continues
by Canopus56 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

A planet is a non-nuclear fusing object that has accreted more than 50% of the mass in its orbital track, that orbits an object that is a nuclear fusor. A planetoid is a non-nuclear fusing object that has accreted less than 50% of the mass in its orbital track, that orbits an object that is a nuclear fusor. A moon is is a non-nuclear fusing object that has accreted more than 50% of the mass in its orbital track, that orbits an object that is not a nuclear fusor. These articles may also be of interest - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/planet_confusion_001101-1… http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/sedna/#planets - Peace - Canopus56 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Canon EOS 20Da for astrophotography
by astrodeb＠charter.net 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

Patrick, That translation didn't work but I like the picture of the Orion Nebula on the webpage where you click. The Rosette is also more contrasty compared to the stock 20D. I clicked on the Orion Nebula below and scrolled down to see the Rosette. A picture is truly worth thousand words. Debbie > > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > Date: 2005/02/15 Tue PM 07:24:57 MST > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Canon EOS 20Da for astrophotography > > Here's a page that will translate the text. Not a perfect translation > but it is readable. > > http://babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn > > Patrick > > astrodeb(a)charter.net wrote: > > > I found this on the digital-astro group. I wish Canon would put the pages in English. > > > > Debbie > > > > "It appears Canon has done something few of us would have expected > > and will soon produce a 20D made specifically for A-P work. Here > > are some links to provide some info, although the pages are in > > Japanese: > > > > http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/20da/special/index.html > > > > http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/20da/index.html > > > > http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/20da/attention/index.html > > > > It will be quite interesting to see how this camera performs and how > > much of a market it will draw." > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

1 0

SPOC on channel 4
by Patrick Wiggins 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

Channel 4 was out at SPOC today. The story is supposed to air this evening. Patrick

2 2

Daily Utah Chronicle "Top Story"
by Patrick Wiggins 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

According to the email they sent me today, this is their "Top Story". Oh well, SLAS was identified on local TV today as the Salt Lake Astrological Society so maybe I should not be surprised by the editor's choice of a top story... http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/news/864672.html&mkey=509903 Patrick

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] the Pluto controversy continues
by Dale Hooper 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

Yes, that is certainly correct. However, with "planets" it's a somewhat arbitrarily picked size, unlike as was pointed out - for example, a natural physical "unit" that something must be so massive before it can sustain nuclear fusion - giving it the designation of a star. So, even though - large Kuiper belt object may be the correct category - romantically & nostalgically - it will still always be a planet for me. Either that - or a large animated dog. <g> -----Original Message----- Dale Hooper wrote: > I'll always consider Pluto a planet - > because, for me, it always has been. True, but then for millennia we "knew" we lived in a geocentric solar system. 'Course, back then if you spoke out too loudly about a heliocentric system you got burned at the stake... Nowadays if you say Pluto's not a planet you only get roasted. Personally, I'm just waiting for the day when they find a TNO that's just slightly bigger than Pluto. It'll be interesting to see if they call it a planet. Patrick

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] the Pluto controversy continues
by Dale Hooper 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

The whole thing kind of reminds me of the movie, "The Englishman". Just because the cartographers wanted to change the designation from a mountain to a hill because it wasn't 1000 ft high - didn't make it any less of a mountain to the locals. I'll always consider Pluto a planet - because, for me, it always has been. But, perhaps my grandkids will have a different opinion. Of course, to take the movie analogy further - perhaps some enterprising individual with more dollars than sense will crash some asteroids et al into Pluto to increase its diameter and mass. <g> -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission. com] On Behalf Of Kim Hyatt Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:11 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] the Pluto controversy continues Sorry, Jim - I wasn't being contemptuous, but amused. Planet, planetoid, Kuiper Belt Object... the arguments are purely semantic and don't change the fact that Pluto is an unusual and interesting place. I just don't think that the arguments are productive. "I say tomato, you say tomahto..." I heard once that the IAU was planning to define a "planet" as any object whose size is such that its own gravity will make it spherical. Anyone else heard that? If true, then our own Solar System obviously has more than nine "planets." Kim

3 2

Re: [Utah-astronomy] the Pluto controversy continues
by Olhomorto＠aol.com 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

I read that the IAU established a study group which devised a "working definition" as follows: 1) Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System. 2) Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed nor where they are located. 3) Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate).

1 0

the Pluto controversy continues
by Jim Gibson 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

In light of discussions previously held on the list, here is another article on Pluto - Nothing new. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/02/13/pluto.anniv.ap/index.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

4 4