Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Observing >> Double Star Observing

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
FrenchStar
sage
*****

Reged: 07/23/10

Loc: St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada
Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars
      #5340274 - 07/28/12 03:43 PM

I invite you all to read the September 2012 issue of Sky and Telescope(It's at page 68).

Sissy Haas is asking our help to complete a very interesting project. I invite you all to participate!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Astrojensen
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Bornholm, Denmark
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: FrenchStar]
      #5340320 - 07/28/12 04:17 PM

Nice, but I don't subscribe to S&T.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FrenchStar
sage
*****

Reged: 07/23/10

Loc: St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: Astrojensen]
      #5340324 - 07/28/12 04:20 PM

Me neither! When I heard about this project, I bought it at the store...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fred1871
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/22/09

Loc: Australia
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: FrenchStar]
      #5340705 - 07/28/12 09:34 PM

Thanks for the notice - despite being an S&T subscriber I hadn't yet seen the September issue. I've now accessed it online.

It's good to see Sissy Haas back, as she's been absent pretty much since the publication of her double star book.
The project is a neat idea, though I suspect it won't lead to anything as definitive as the Dawes Limit, simply because there are too many factors involved.

Even Dawes limited his description to stars of a cetain brightness level, and with telescopes of moderate size. Once you get into pairs where delta-m can be anything at all, and separation ditto, with the two interacting - not to mention telescopes of different sizes (probably by a large amount), a big range of observer experience and visual acuity, magnification used, etc etc - well, we can hope the project can come up with some useful and interesting results but I suspect they'll be more approximate than the Dawes Limit.

Regardless of the above musings, I'll be joining in and recommend others to be part of it as well. We'll see where it goes once there are lots of observers involved.

Haas refers to Chris Lord's work, which is the best attempt I've seen thus far on this vexed question. And she's well aware of various complicating factors involved. So I wish her project well and look forward to seeing the results of it - obviously, given the RA spread of test stars, it'll take at least a year to get them observed and the results collated and analysed.

It occurs to me that a useful approach is to use aperture stops or a diaphragm on a telescope - so a pair might be easy at full aperture, difficult at 3/4 aperture, not seen at 1/2 aperture. That way the same observer can give results for multiple apertures.

Now if only the clouds will move away!!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fred1871
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/22/09

Loc: Australia
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: fred1871]
      #5340749 - 07/28/12 09:54 PM

A further thought - we might end up with different results according to the size of the central obstruction in telescopes - from zero to around 40%. It's a big factor as pairs become more uneven in magnitude.

Hmmm... an term in an equation, or separate equations based on CO?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JimP
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 04/22/03

Loc: South Carolina
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: fred1871]
      #5341324 - 07/29/12 09:03 AM

I too am very happy to see Sissy return. I will join up and do my best to help out. It will be a fun project and nice to be working on a double star project. I will, of course, be very interested in the results. The more contributors to the project the better! I hope everyone with an interest in double stars will participate.

best,

JimP


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JimP
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 04/22/03

Loc: South Carolina
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: FrenchStar]
      #5341332 - 07/29/12 09:07 AM

For those who are interested, but do not have access to S&T, Sissy's e-mail address is <has103@comcast.net>

best,

JimP


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FrenchStar
sage
*****

Reged: 07/23/10

Loc: St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: fred1871]
      #5341401 - 07/29/12 10:05 AM

Quote:

And she's well aware of various complicating factors involved. So I wish her project well and look forward to seeing the results of it - obviously, given the RA spread of test stars, it'll take at least a year to get them observed and the results collated and analysed.

It occurs to me that a useful approach is to use aperture stops or a diaphragm on a telescope - so a pair might be easy at full aperture, difficult at 3/4 aperture, not seen at 1/2 aperture. That way the same observer can give results for multiple apertures.




My observing group did contact Sissy Haas and we asked her about the time frame of this Project. It is at least a year of collecting data, if not two.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fred1871
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/22/09

Loc: Australia
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: FrenchStar]
      #5342343 - 07/29/12 08:42 PM

Did the listed email address for Haas work?
I've had my emails bounce back, undelivered, from the listed email address and from a second attempt at "haas103" instead of "has103".


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FrenchStar
sage
*****

Reged: 07/23/10

Loc: St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: fred1871]
      #5342447 - 07/29/12 09:57 PM

Quote:

Did the listed email address for Haas work?
I've had my emails bounce back, undelivered, from the listed email address and from a second attempt at "haas103" instead of "has103".




Hello,

Here is the email I used: has103@comcast.net No error message, yet.

Frenchstar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: fred1871]
      #5342627 - 07/30/12 12:05 AM

Quote:

It occurs to me that a useful approach is to use aperture stops or a diaphragm on a telescope - so a pair might be easy at full aperture, difficult at 3/4 aperture, not seen at 1/2 aperture. That way the same observer can give results for multiple apertures.

Now if only the clouds will move away!!




Excellent advice Fred. Id say thats more meaningful than selecting endless doublestar combinations [in varying seeing conditions] and such. The stars can be chosen easier and more effectively and the results attained far quicker.

Fact is though, a telescope isnt needed at all if some way of creating artifical stars in a darkened room can be a constructed with the brightness calibrated to match the stellar magnitude scale. In that case it could be done with excedingly accurate and excellent results.

I will say if this is leading up to some contrived "Sissy Limit" or some such Ill stay with Lords and be done with it.

Im still gagging on the Caldwell gaff.

Pete

Edited by azure1961p (07/30/12 12:09 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fred1871
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/22/09

Loc: Australia
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5343041 - 07/30/12 09:43 AM

Pete, I don't think the artificial stars viewed naked-eye is a solution - it won't give the same result as real stars viewed through telescopes. Telescope vision differs in a number of ways from naked eye, one being improved visibility of faint stars with magnification, contrast effects, only part of the pupil being used at higher powers thereby reducing astigmatism in the eye as well as reducing other eye aberrations... Others will no doubt think of further differences.

Besides, anything derived by such an experiment would immediately get lots of complaints just because it's an artificial arrangement.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Simoes Pedro
sage
*****

Reged: 02/03/09

Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: fred1871]
      #5343560 - 07/30/12 02:45 PM

What's the project?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: Simoes Pedro]
      #5343614 - 07/30/12 03:12 PM Attachment (38 downloads)

Quote:

Here is the email I used: has103@comcast.net No error message, yet.

Frenchstar




That is the email address that is given in the article.

Quote:

What's the project?




It is in an article by Sissy Haas in the Sept. issue of S&T, Page 68-71, titled Finding the Limit for Uneven Double Stars. Anyone interested in double stars should participate in helping determine this. This information will be used to refine or make a new chart like this one found on page 5 of her book Double Stars for small telescopes


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Astrojensen
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Bornholm, Denmark
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: blb]
      #5343651 - 07/30/12 03:34 PM

Haven't read the article, but I have one immediate question: Does the unequal doubles need to be truly split (difficult to judge) or merely detected as doubles? (IE one component is technically behind the other a little, but it betrays itself by putting up a slight bulge in the first diffraction ring of the main star).


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FrenchStar
sage
*****

Reged: 07/23/10

Loc: St-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: Astrojensen]
      #5343755 - 07/30/12 04:23 PM

Quote:

Haven't read the article, but I have one immediate question: Does the unequal doubles need to be truly split (difficult to judge) or merely detected as doubles? (IE one component is technically behind the other a little, but it betrays itself by putting up a slight bulge in the first diffraction ring of the main star).





Hello!

Here is what Sissy Haas has to say about it (from an email exchange with her) :

"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."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: FrenchStar]
      #5343914 - 07/30/12 06:06 PM

I really wish that this project went beyond a magnitude difference of 4.0 to at least 5.0 or 6.0. There are many challenge objects that we look at that have a greater difference in magnitude. For example I looked at Sirius, the Dog Star and the Pup last winter with my 4" TV102 refractor. Those stars have a magnitude difference of 10.0 and I could see the companion (Pup). Limiting this to a magnitude difference of only 4.0 is to limit the chart to only the brighter pairs. I personaly would like to have information on seeing those pairs with a greater difference magnitude.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Fuzzyguy
sage


Reged: 12/21/11

Loc: Colorado/Kansas
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: fred1871]
      #5344259 - 07/30/12 09:51 PM

Quote:

It occurs to me that a useful approach is to use aperture stops or a diaphragm on a telescope - so a pair might be easy at full aperture, difficult at 3/4 aperture, not seen at 1/2 aperture. That way the same observer can give results for multiple apertures.




I'm not a scientist, optical engineer or astro physicist nor do I play any of these on TV, but if you put field stops on reflectors wouldn't that increase the percentage of CO? And wouldn't this affect results and skew the data? Or does CO only affect lunar, planetary and DSO viewing? I'm kinda new to this, so just thought I'd ask.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
drollere
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 02/02/10

Loc: sebastopol, california
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: blb]
      #5344265 - 07/30/12 09:55 PM

i'm not much interested in the "rules" that float around among astronomers about seeing, magnification, resolution, and so on. and i agree with some of the previous posts that this particular objective -- resolution as a function of aperture and magnitude difference -- is likely to yield disappointing results.

the analogous problem is magnitude limit by aperture. bradley schaefer took a thwack at it with a dataset of observer reports; then nils carlin and chris lord tried to improve on it with more complicated formulations. in schaefer's case, his predictions are inaccurate by about one to one half magnitude, equivalent to the difference between a 6" and 8" telescope.

the problem is that these are all attempts at what is called predictive psychophysics. and those have always come to grief. the simple problem of color matching (color discrimination), which has had several large industrial and academic research projects thrown at it, discovered in the end that human visual response is not at all easy to predict with any accuracy. there is simply too much variation across individuals. and with a target task like double star observing that depends quite a lot on experience and skill and instrument, and the terrifically weak criterion in play (what does "resolve" or "recognize" or "separate" mean, exactly?), well ...

i recently completed a campaign of observing every double star listed in Haas and the Cambridge Double Star Atlas visible from my latitude, over 2100 in all, and there are several dozen pairs i couldn't resolve.

i plan to report those in a separate topic. meantime, i found on reexamination that many pairs i couldn't resolve a year ago i can resolve now, in some cases easily. certainly that's in part due to a year's worth of observing experience, but perhaps also to variations in seeing, atmospheric dispersion, eyepieces, etc. across observing nights.

if your own observing can't predict your own observing, what point is there in the prediction?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fred1871
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/22/09

Loc: Australia
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: Fuzzyguy]
      #5344542 - 07/31/12 01:00 AM

Yes, you're quite correct about changes in central obstruction ratio.
My suggestion about stopping down telescopes would require those using reflectors to indicate the relative size of the secondary obstruction - with an SCT, a central obstruction that starts off large (35%) will be a monster by the time of half-apertture (70%) - very unsuitable for uneven doubles.

Bigger SCTs can use off-axis masks - perhaps a 12cm mask for a C14 or similar.

Netwonians can do better but the relative size of the CO still needs to be noted - so a scope with a 20% obstruction at full aperture will still be manageable, though less effective for its aperture, at 75% aperture where the CO becomes about 27%.

Refractors do best on this - no CO, so you're simply extending the f-ratio. Of course, that will lead to speculation about longer f-ratios being more effective than short (haven't we heard some comments about that before? ).

The project itself is a can'o'worms, as Bruce has now remarked, though he used other words. Even so, I think something interesting might come of it, even if only to suggest that Chris Lord's multi-factored approach represents a fair approximation to what we can predict - and that in terms of a "best-case".

I think we're all familiar with the experience of seeing/not seeing particular pairs at different times.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
theskyhound
Vendor (Skyhound)
*****

Reged: 03/10/06

Loc: Cloudcroft, New Mexico
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: drollere]
      #5364771 - 08/12/12 01:55 PM

I see this issue all the time, because I use these models in my software. I model everything; the faintest star you can see, how difficult it is to detect a faint fuzzy, how difficult it is to split a pair, and I predict SNR for images.

The pedants always say the same thing: there is no way you can do that accurately, particularly for things near the limits. And they are right! But here's the thing: just being in the ballpark is enormously useful in real world applications.

As a start, these algorithms allow you to clearly state those things that are simple to predict. How do most people pick easy pairs? By using pre-compiled lists of stars that others have observed. But this is usually just the tip of the iceberg of objects available. So everyone ends up observing the same subset of the available pairs again and again. Now imagine a program that looks at every pair of stars that has been cataloged, looking for pairs that are easy to split in a 4-inch telescope. Making that particular prediction is not all that difficult and the results will be fairly accurate. If you toss in a filter to select objects that are well placed on a given evening, then you have something quite useful. I can't stress this enough: the emphasis is always put on the most difficult circumstances to predict, but in fact most of the utility comes from being able to predict things that are more easily predicted.

For those things that are difficult to predict, where the prediction is questionable, a predictive algorithm is still quite useful. The algorithms tend to break down at the edges of perception; in other words they break down for the pairs that are difficult to split. This is a happy coincidence. After all, if we could accurately predict whether or not a challenging pair can be split under every conceivable circumstance, then there would be little point in going out to the telescope to try. For the challenging pairs the very point of observing them is to try to push your limits, not knowing if you are going to be successful. If our predictive algorithm says a pair is going to be very difficult to split, sure, it may not be perfectly accurate. In truth the pair may be easier than predicted, or it may not be splittable at all. But if used correctly, the algorithm can still predict which pairs are challenging, regardless of whether or not the detailed prediction is accurate.

So I very much support the efforts of people like Haas! In my world these models aren't just an academic exercise, or something futile. If you start with these algorithms, and toss in some cleverness and ingenuity, they can in fact be extremely useful in real world applications. In particular, they can be an invaluable tool for selecting objects to observe that are appropriate for a given telescope and conditions.

Clear skies,
Greg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: theskyhound]
      #5364864 - 08/12/12 03:02 PM

Hi Greg,

I agree no formula here is perfect and there will be a lot of perception issues between observers but it does, or potentially does, leave a fair *jumping off point* from which to at least have some sort of handle on the challenges. Ill find it in bad taste if after a group compilation the *limit* is merely a banner for one persons name. Havent know this to be Haas at all but mentioning it regardless.

Pete

Edited by azure1961p (08/12/12 03:04 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WRAK
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 02/18/12

Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5367741 - 08/14/12 05:00 AM

Any realistic "formula" can only give a probability for splitting as even an easy double can be tricky under specific circumstances not covered by the formula. So with a reasonable big number of observers for a specific double you get a percentage of splits that can be used as probability - means that even your own yes or no can be the other way around next time.
But certainly aperture, separation, magnitude delta and seeing are not enough relevant criteras - magnitude loss due to light pollution, altitude depending on location and time of observation and yes focal length will play a role here. And seeing should best be split in stability and transparancy. So this gives in total about 10 parameters and I am quite sure probabilities calculated on such a frame would be of high reliability.
Wilfried


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ed Whitney
sage


Reged: 07/08/10

Loc: Palm Coast, Florida
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: WRAK]
      #5376720 - 08/19/12 10:36 PM

This has been very interesting reading. However, even thou there will be many reports and observations for Ms Haas to evaluate and then come to some sort of final conclusion, do feel that this is a worthwhile project.

It might just turn out to be that the journey was more important than the result. And then, there could even be a totally unexpected "bonus" or revelation that was never dreamed of at the start.

In any case, I'm on board to try to help Ms Haas.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
KirtErie
journeyman


Reged: 09/16/12

Loc: Alpena, MI
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: Astrojensen]
      #5441292 - 09/26/12 09:34 AM

I get my copy each month from the local library. If your library does not have it on the shelf, ask if the interlibrary loan system can get one delivered.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nrivard
newbie


Reged: 09/25/12

Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: theskyhound]
      #5442661 - 09/26/12 11:15 PM

For those who are interested to participate in this project, I built a web site that gives all the information you need. Please note that the list of pairs published in S&T has some errors and is incomplete. Sissy has sent many updates since then. I also prepared some sky maps for those who dont have GOTO scope like me.

http://unevendoublestars.wikispaces.com/home

I also hope you become friends of the facebook page, so you can stay up to date with the latest changes on the wiki site.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Unevendoublestars/226255637503049

Enjoy!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rich (RLTYS)Moderator
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 12/18/04

Loc: New York (Long Island)
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: nrivard]
      #5442977 - 09/27/12 06:13 AM

Thanks, excellent site.

Rich (RLTYS)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
drollere
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 02/02/10

Loc: sebastopol, california
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: theskyhound]
      #5443240 - 09/27/12 10:24 AM

Quote:

The pedants always say the same thing: there is no way you can do that accurately, particularly for things near the limits. And they are right! But here's the thing: just being in the ballpark is enormously useful in real world applications. ...



well, as one of those "pedants" i'm happy to concur with your agreement that "we" (i) are correct in our skepticism. however, you seem to concede a point while denying it, as prediction that doesn't work is still "enormously useful", which leaves me unclear as to what you want to say.

Quote:

How do most people pick easy pairs? By using pre-compiled lists of stars that others have observed. But this is usually just the tip of the iceberg of objects available. So everyone ends up observing the same subset of the available pairs again and again. ...



i wouldn't agree that everyone ends up in a rut ... i believe wilfried is embarked on a campaign of rummaging through obscure stars, and there was another discussion here of jonckheere doubles, a catalog that rarely make it into the "top 500" lists. but this is really a digression from your point, which is a defense of "predictive" algorithms as a statistical vade mecum that can lead observers away from the hackneyed into the wide unknown.

really? if you only date those few persons that you "predict" will give you a good night kiss, then you've taken a hell of a lot of excitement and adventure out of dating; and similarly if you only look for double stars that you "predict" in advance will be "kissing", then you've merely fallen into a more elaborate and ritualistic form of routine, and you have not really addressed what seems to be your complaint, which is that the observer should challenge himself with something genuinely novel or unknown. you've just replaced a rut of consensus with a rut of "prediction", which seems to mean a consensus as to how doubles look without actually looking at them. at least, looking was how those lists you disparage were compiled.

the crux is that you seem embarked on the project of telling me what i will see before i've actually looked at it, rather than telling me why something may be difficult to perceive when i try to look for it, which is a very different type of guidance.

Quote:

The algorithms tend to break down at the edges of perception; in other words they break down for the pairs that are difficult to split. This is a happy coincidence. After all, if we could accurately predict whether or not a challenging pair can be split under every conceivable circumstance, then there would be little point in going out to the telescope to try. For the challenging pairs the very point of observing them is to try to push your limits, not knowing if you are going to be successful. If our predictive algorithm says a pair is going to be very difficult to split, sure, it may not be perfectly accurate. In truth the pair may be easier than predicted, or it may not be splittable at all. But if used correctly, the algorithm can still predict which pairs are challenging, regardless of whether or not the detailed prediction is accurate.



ok, the predictive algorithms break down exactly where they are needed most. you must see here that the problem is not with the algorithms but with your use of the term "predictive", which merely begs the question and muddles the issue. any categorization runs up against problematic cases, where one must shrug and toss the case into one category or another. the case isn't difficult to predict, it's difficult to categorize or sort. and categorization, as we all know, is just a shorthand form of description. creating a new category that you call "challenging" doesn't change the basic procedure.

what seems beguiling to the layperson is the ritualistic method by which the "predictive model" is developed. you're only creating a database sorting rule. yes, it's a "consensus" database sorting rule, because you have a lot of individual observers "voting" as to which stars shall be classified this or that way by it. but one could (as i have) create a purely theoretical or judgmental sorting algorithm to combine aperture, magnitude, etc. into a double star "difficulty score", and it amounts to exactly the same thing -- "challenging" pairs can be identified, which are usually either "unsplittable" or "easy". as long as everything stays in a database, nothing is "predicted".

if the goal is to identify, as you say, stars that will be easy or difficult given the instrument and conditions, then i'll just assert that most experienced observers already do that with pretty rudimentary, rough guess rules based on magnitude, magnitude limit and separation, given personal experience with their instrument and observing conditions. since a "challenging" pair is likely to turn out "unsplittable" or "easy" anyway, nothing more elaborate seems useful.

the fundamental question is simple: what makes a double star "difficult"? the magnitude difference by itself is meaningless, because on the one hand the primary can be so bright that it produces substantial glare or scatter, and on the other hand the primary can be so faint that the companion is pushed below the visual limit. simply articulating that explanation of why a pair *may be* difficult seems to me far more valuable than using those factors to "predict" that the pair *will be* difficult. the explanation nurtures an observer's skill, while the ritual of pseudoprediction just paves a new landscape of boredom.

it's not a "happy coincidence" that your descriptive models break down when put to the task of prediction rather than sorting data: it's an outcome that any psychometrician can predict will occur, with a high probability of being right.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: drollere]
      #5443742 - 09/27/12 03:51 PM

Quote:

Quote:

The pedants always say the same thing: there is no way you can do that accurately, particularly for things near the limits. And they are right! But here's the thing: just being in the ballpark is enormously useful in real world applications. ...



well, as one of those "pedants" i'm happy to concur with your agreement that "we" (i) are correct in our skepticism. however, you seem to concede a point while denying it, as prediction that doesn't work is still "enormously useful", which leaves me unclear as to what you want to say.




Well I am one of those that thinks that if enough people will try to make the observations on enough nights, that there will probably be enough observations with good conditions, that the formula will be a good predictor and with good optics and looking on enough nights that you will split it to, if the formula says it is possible. In other words we need as many observers as possible and fewer nay sayers


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: blb]
      #5443756 - 09/27/12 04:06 PM

Quote:

really? if you only date those few persons that you "predict" will give you a good night kiss, then you've taken a hell of a lot of excitement and adventure out of dating; and similarly if you only look for double stars that you "predict" in advance will be "kissing", then you've merely fallen into a more elaborate and ritualistic form of routine, and you have not really addressed what seems to be your complaint, which is that the observer should challenge himself with something genuinely novel or unknown. you've just replaced a rut of consensus with a rut of "prediction", which seems to mean a consensus as to how doubles look without actually looking at them. at least, looking was how those lists you disparage were compiled.

the crux is that you seem embarked on the project of telling me what i will see before i've actually looked at it, rather than telling me why something may be difficult to perceive when i try to look for it, which is a very different type of guidance.




Really, with only the difference in magnitude at a limit of only 4, I think that there are still many stars to challenge us. When planning a nights observing I like the idea of knowing, if the sky cooroporates, I have a chance of seeing an object. If the formula works properly, we will be hunting those nights with good observing conditions and not hunting for something we do not have a chance to see. I see this as something that will tell me if this is an object that if I have good optics, observing conditions, etc., it will or will not be worth spending my time on. We all do this mentaly anyway based on our experences observing.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
drollere
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 02/02/10

Loc: sebastopol, california
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: blb]
      #5446709 - 09/29/12 12:19 PM

well, i'm trying to be constructive and not rain on the parade. there's a lot to be learned for all involved by the exercise of looking for a better rule than is already out there. based on long experience collecting and analyzing performance and attitude data, and observing the way this parade is conceived ... the parade is the thing, not the prediction.

a point i omitted before that is crucial: the database itself is corrupt. not the observer data, but the WDS data that you want to use as your basis for "prediction". please skim the topic here on jonckheere doubles, and see what you conclude.

greg made the point that a rule that actually doesn't reliably "predict" anything is still useful to entice you to *look at* something -- as buddy says, to tell the observer in advance that something "is worth spending my time on." but a blindly applied *categorization rule* can't tell you that, only a consensus of observers can tell you that. you're pretending a rule leads you somewhere that you wouldn't go on your own. that to me is the crux.

everyone can make a pretty good guess about what is "worth looking at" using only primary magnitude, magnitude difference, binary separation and telescope aperture -- they just need to form an expectation, look, and then think for a minute about why their expectation was or was not met. in my obstreperous opinion, that is both a faster way to develop your observing skills, and a more rewarding form of observing.

but ... this is a hobby of diff'rent strokes, and good on us all.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
stray1
sage


Reged: 09/03/12

Loc: SW Ohio
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: drollere]
      #5495707 - 10/30/12 02:32 AM

I'm in.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
cphk96
member


Reged: 11/01/07

Loc: North Hollywood, CA
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: stray1]
      #5499179 - 11/01/12 10:40 AM

I want to take part in this project.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: FrenchStar]
      #5501484 - 11/02/12 07:56 PM

Quote:

I invite you all to read the September 2012 issue of Sky and Telescope(It's at page 68).

Sissy Haas is asking our help to complete a very interesting project. I invite you all to participate!




Well that's a nice invite but really, if its that important to her and these results through this forum could be that valuable why are you sitting in for her with the request? Wouldn't it serve her interests to get involved here like you.



Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Research project - Limit for uneven Double Stars new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5505121 - 11/05/12 09:17 AM

Whether Ms. Haas is a member here or posts here or not is irrelevant. It has come to the attention of many of us (through this thread or via S&T) that she is requesting help and some of us are volunteering to do so.

Dave

Edited by Cotts (11/05/12 09:19 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)


Extra information
1 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  PJ Anway, Rich (RLTYS), rflinn68 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 4123

Jump to

CN Forums Home




Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics