RE: [Utah-astronomy] I'd be happy with just ONE!
I know that this kind of work is done by imaging, but I thought that much of it was still done visually, as well, and just as accurately. Thoughts? -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:57 AM To: Visit http://www.utahastronomy.com for the photo gallery. Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] I'd be happy with just ONE! Well, that's what I posited, Kim. I guess I was thinking you wanted to do some visual research. Even PA measurements are now done with CCD's. I think this is, at it's roots, another reason I didn't go into science as a career...I really don't like operating machinery, equipment, electronics...so of course I went into woodworking! ;) We'll see how this is resolved if and when I get my life back. I should have been born 60 years earlier than I was, THEN I could have had the job I still dream about daily! C. --- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:
Separation and position angle can both be accurately measured for research. And, I understand that even world-wide there are few people doing this work. Look in any catalogue and you'll see that many pairs have not been measured for decades. As you know, such measurements are necessary to determine orbital data when possible and develop models for stellar evolution.
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:42 AM To: Visit http://www.utahastronomy.com for the photo gallery. Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] I'd be happy with just ONE!
What, specifically, Kim, do you want to do with double stars?
Bruce has done variable star work for decades, contributed to a paper or two, but I'm not aware of any local double-star work, and I"m stumped as to what you could do except orbital determination.
--- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:
I still have plans to try my hand at double star observations suitable for research. Anyone else ever done this?
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:37 AM To: Visit http://www.utahastronomy.com for the photo gallery. Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] I'd be happy with just ONE!
Remember that these people are frustrated scientists at heart. The science is more important than actual observing-in other words, their motivations diverge from most of ours. Most amateurs are "nature lovers", and enjoy the hobby for the views & social aspects. I think though, that some of us hope to conduct some type of patrol work at some point in our lives, when the kids are grown and scattered, and we can retire from the rat-race.
But take heart, most of the BIG, once-in-a-decade bright comets are still discovered visually by amateurs with small telescopes and large binoculars! Thomas Bopp was using a borrowed Dobsonian when he discovered H-B.
--- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:
Thanks for sharing that article Dale. I don't mean to be a complainer, but it seems the days for visual discoveries of virtually anything are almost gone. Amateurs with the means to acquire automated equipment, CCD imagers and even remotely controlled observatories are making the discoveries. However, the rest of us should never give up!
-----Original Message----- From: Dale Hooper [mailto:Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:26 AM To: Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] I'd be happy with just ONE!
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3112508.stm>
I'd be happy with just ONE discovery! But this also gives me hope - because I've seen how cloudy the skies are in
the UK
- and at least two of their 6 telescopes appear to be stock Meade and Celestron scopes.
Clear skies, Dale.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Some people have gotten very good results using a visual micrometer, but observations must be repeated, repeated, repeated, and statistical averages used to pin-down a most-likely position. CCD data is usually much cleaner, with less scatter of the data points. In other words, much less repetition. The visual method is totally dependant on seeing conditions, whereas with a CCD you can still pull good frames out of the mass of blurred ones. You should get a bi-filar micrometer, though, and become proficient at it the old-fashioned way before proceeding digitally. Just my opinion, some folks don't see the value in "paying one's dues", or picking up fundamentals. --- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:
I know that this kind of work is done by imaging, but I thought that much of it was still done visually, as well, and just as accurately. Thoughts?
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:57 AM To: Visit http://www.utahastronomy.com for the photo gallery. Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] I'd be happy with just ONE!
Well, that's what I posited, Kim. I guess I was thinking you wanted to do some visual research. Even PA measurements are now done with CCD's. I think this is, at it's roots, another reason I didn't go into science as a career...I really don't like operating machinery, equipment, electronics...so of course I went into woodworking! ;) We'll see how this is resolved if and when I get my life back.
I should have been born 60 years earlier than I was, THEN I could have had the job I still dream about daily!
C. --- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:
Separation and position angle can both be accurately measured for research. And, I understand that even world-wide there are few people doing this work. Look in any catalogue and you'll see that many pairs have not been measured for decades. As you know, such measurements are necessary to determine orbital data when possible and develop models for stellar evolution.
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:42 AM To: Visit http://www.utahastronomy.com for the photo gallery. Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] I'd be happy with just ONE!
What, specifically, Kim, do you want to do with double stars?
Bruce has done variable star work for decades, contributed to a paper or two, but I'm not aware of any local double-star work, and I"m stumped as to what you could do except orbital determination.
--- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:
I still have plans to try my hand at double star observations suitable for research. Anyone else ever done this?
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:37 AM To: Visit http://www.utahastronomy.com for the photo gallery. Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] I'd be happy with just ONE!
Remember that these people are frustrated scientists at heart. The science is more important than actual observing-in other words, their motivations diverge from most of ours. Most amateurs are "nature lovers", and enjoy the hobby for the views & social aspects. I think though, that some of us hope to conduct some type of patrol work at some point in our lives, when the kids are grown and scattered, and we can retire from the rat-race.
But take heart, most of the BIG, once-in-a-decade bright comets are still discovered visually by amateurs with small telescopes and large binoculars! Thomas Bopp was using a borrowed Dobsonian when he discovered H-B.
--- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:
Thanks for sharing that article Dale. I don't mean to be a complainer, but it seems the days for visual discoveries of virtually anything are almost gone. Amateurs with the means to acquire automated equipment, CCD imagers and even remotely controlled observatories are making the discoveries. However, the rest of us should never give up!
-----Original Message----- From: Dale Hooper [mailto:Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:26 AM To: Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] I'd be happy with just ONE!
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3112508.stm>
I'd be happy with just ONE discovery! But
this
also gives me hope - because I've seen how cloudy the skies are in the UK - and at least two of their 6 telescopes appear to be stock Meade and Celestron scopes.
Clear skies, Dale.
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
participants (2)
-
Chuck Hards -
Kim Hyatt