Another nice report Coen, well done!
You certainly got a lot out of that session!
I've thought of doing a bit of doubles viewing, but in light of reports like yours I find it very confusing. There seem to be so many catalogues and designations that it just seems too hard. Why don't people use the actual star designations? LOL, I realise that there are several catalogues commonly used there too, but at least it is easy to do correlations. If I knew HIP66450 was a nice double, I could look in my copy of Starry Night and find it. HJs & COOs & JSPs mean nothing to me...
Is this a case of too many 'common names'? I'd very much like to hear ngcles' comments on this. Not trying to be contentious or anything on this, I really don't understand. Do the strange doubles naming conventions serve any useful scientific purpose, or are they simply observing conventions?
Cheers -