Jump to content


Photo

Data For Test Pairs - Sissy Haas Research project

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 FrenchStar

FrenchStar

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 432
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2010
  • Loc: St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada

Posted 05 August 2012 - 01:57 PM

Hello all,

I have compiled, with the help of my friend, the Data for the Sissy Haas Research Project we can find in the 2012 September edition Sky & Telescopes.

I am attaching an Excel file with SAO and HIP numbers for the 38 pairs as well with the Data found in the S&T edition.

For those interested, I have also compiled a SkyTools file with the same data. If you want a copy of that file, just PM me and I will email it to you.

I am reminding you what Sissy is saying about the project:

“"It needn't be split by any space, or even a one hundred percent ball. But so long as you've UNQUESTIONABLY seen a second body next to the main star, then I think we can call it resolved. The thing that's most important is that the observation be honest.

Don't claim to have seen the companion if you suspect but don't feel certain. And as you don't need me to tell you, a companion you ALMOST think you saw might show up on a better night."

Claude

#2 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5456
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 05 August 2012 - 02:32 PM

THANK YOU! This will bring much happiness in the 60mm Club!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#3 napapete3

napapete3

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 06 May 2009
  • Loc: Santa Barbara County, California

Posted 05 August 2012 - 05:49 PM

Great list ! Thank you Sissy Hass ! And thank you French Star for offering this on Cloudy Nights. Yes, the 60mmtelescopeclub
gang welcome this, indeed !
Pete in California

Celestron Outland 10x42

#4 Karl Fabian

Karl Fabian

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Illinois

Posted 06 August 2012 - 01:11 AM

This evening tried MU Cygni in my 90mm F8.8 achromat. The seeing was good. Was able to positively resolve this pair(4.7-6.2 1.9") at 200x with the PA confirmed without prior knowledge. The next star on the list, is 49 Leo, but it is now below the horizon. So I tried my own test star 25 Cvn (SAO 63648) which is at this time well placed and a good substitute for 49 Leo at mag 5-7 1.8" With constant attention and during steady moments the mag 7 companion appeared in the proper PA without prior knowledge. It was very difficult but definite during still moments. Pushed the magnification to 266X to make it easier. I think that is about the limit for this particular scope and my eyes. At this date nothing in list with appropriate separation with greater mag difference is visible. Another good test star not on the list is Marfik (10 Oph, Struve 2055) magnitude 4.15-5.15 , 1.4". The 90mm showed this at first glance at 200x. Mostly a notched elongation but during very steady moments seen as separate airy disks at 200x.
Clear Skies,
Karl

#5 RAKing

RAKing

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6355
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:28 AM

Claude,

Thanks for compiling this list. :)

I plan to start working on Sissy's targets as soon as the weather cooperates.

Cheers,

Ron

#6 FrenchStar

FrenchStar

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 432
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2010
  • Loc: St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada

Posted 08 August 2012 - 08:19 AM

Hello,

Thanks all for the comments. I am glad that these files can be useful to some of you.

I sent an email to Sissy Haas regarding the threads on CloudyNights. She was quite happy to read all the exchanges regarding her project.

Claude

#7 stray1

stray1

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 283
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2012
  • Loc: SW Ohio

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:31 PM

Hi Claude,

I am going to begin work on the project as soon as time/weather permits. Your list will be of great help!

Thank you kindly,

:grin:

-stray-

#8 fred1871

fred1871

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 915
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:17 PM

Thanks, Claude, for the list. A very useful setting out of the data. And it makes easy adding in extra pairs that can also be useful for extra data points.

You've quoted Haas again on what constitutes a "split". My quibble here, which I'll mention to her, is that one sometimes get false positives with close uneven pairs that are not clearly separated, where what you see is an impression of fainter light extending from the side of the main star. This can sometimes be a result of unsteady air, or of thermals inside the telescope. Agreed, it can also be a genuine sighting of the lesser star. But one can't always be certain.Hence the need to re-observe the less certain pairs.

#9 Bonco

Bonco

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3455
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2006
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:46 PM

I like Sissy's definition of "resolved." When I look at a difficult double I merely want to be able to see it well enough to say, "Yes its a double with a PA that matches what's known. No guessing or imagining. You know it when you see it. If its questionable then its not "resolved", try again.
Bill

#10 WRAK

WRAK

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1186
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Vienna, Austria, Europe

Posted 31 October 2012 - 04:57 AM

... "Yes its a double with a PA that matches what's known." ...


To eliminate the guessing it is probably better not to know the PA in advance when trying to split a double - you can then roughly estimate the PA and then check afterwards. If you are within +/-15° correct then this is positive - else you are in trouble. If your are despite "wrong" PA certain about the split you can then recheck the advertised PA if something may be wrong here (orbit faster than expected or so) and then trying to convince the WDS guards to do something about it.
Wilfried

#11 Bonco

Bonco

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3455
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2006
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:28 PM

... "Yes its a double with a PA that matches what's known." ...


To eliminate the guessing it is probably better not to know the PA in advance when trying to split a double - you can then roughly estimate the PA and then check afterwards. If you are within +/-15° correct then this is positive - else you are in trouble. If your are despite "wrong" PA certain about the split you can then recheck the advertised PA if something may be wrong here (orbit faster than expected or so) and then trying to convince the WDS guards to do something about it.
Wilfried

Yes I totally agree. I typically look up the PA after I've made my estimate. If I'm within + or - 20 degrees I figure I saw it. Bill

#12 cphk96

cphk96

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2007
  • Loc: North Hollywood, CA

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:29 AM

Thank you for the Excel sheet.
I have been wanting to get started with this project.

Chris






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics