Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinderboxsky
I think you are over complicating Sissy’s original objectives for this project and it's intended use. Sissy was well aware of the issues you raised and the many other potential variables, in her original briefing materials and I don’t recall any claims from Sissy that this would be original work.
Irrespective of whether Sissy is able to draw useful conclusions from the data sets obtained, it has been a worthwhile exercise for myself.
It has provided a useful set of test pairs that has helped me systematically develop my observing skills at close to the resolution limits of the scopes being used. I am gaining a much clearer picture of the capabilities of the equipment that I am using and, of course, the many factors that affect that performance. Plus, I now have a much better visual appreciation of what to expect at varying combinations of separation and magnitude differences for my scopes and magnification options for the eyepieces I have.
In fact last Saturday night I managed to successfully split two further test pairs on the list. These have got me a step closer to the resolution limits for my scopes and my eyes. First was Hrg 47 (Car) at 1.2” separation and magnitude delta 1.6 and second was 3 Mon at 1.9” separation and magnitude delta 3.0. Both observations were with a 140mm refractor.
Steve.
|
I totally agree with Steve, this project has been the best fun and a terrific opportunity to learn and hone observational skills.
I think the highlight for me is that thanks to training myself to split pairs of stars with uneven brightness helped me to see my first ever supernova. The one recently in Centaurus A which was close to a foreground 8 magnitude star. That was way cool.
Another benefit, I have finally come to appreciate angular separation at various magnifications. A very useful skill.
Why not help someone with their endeavours (crazy or not) if you're having fun and learning things.
I would certainly urge everyone to have a go at it.
Cheers all,
Adam