Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
Bill Weir
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 1299
Loc: Metchosin (Victoria), Canada
|
|
Or, you could just write a bunch of names.
http://rascvic.zenfolio.com/p566114947/h3012fc97#h4d9d1d0
Interestingly enough, when I responded to the thread to which you initially refer, I pointed the OP of that thread towards SIMBAD. SIMBAD gave the MCG designation at the top of the pile. Personally I don't care what designation is given as long as a real catalogue prefix is used. I then at least have a direction of which catalogue to look in. Common names are fine, as long as they are not the sole moniker.
I deal with this problem daily in the field of medicine. There are way too many brand names for medications when they are using the exact same chemical. Each company uses a different inert base then calls the drug something new. Then they decide to market it to a different audience and repackage it again with a different coloured capsule and call it something new again. Same company, same drug, two target audiences so two different names. There should be a law.
Bill
--------------------
6'' Orion SkyQuest
12.5'' f/5 Custom Truss Dob
William Optics 80mm ZenithStar ED II
f/5 25" newtonian on a giant GEM, any time I want
Observing sessions grand total for 2008, 121.
So far in 2009, 92
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8288
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
David --
Interesting; I always thought Minkowski's Butterfly was a bipolar protoplanetary nebula as well, but it seems to be classified as simply a bipolar planetary nebula.
The distinction appears to be whether or not the central star has gotten hot enough to ionize the ejected material -- so if I'm understanding this correctly a protoplanetary nebula is reflective while a planetary nebula is emissive.
My observing reports indicate that I didn't use a filter on Minkowski's Footprint. So far so good. I haven't logged Minkowski's Butterfly, but most reports I've seen indicate that a filter wasn't helpful there either. Hmm....
Ah ha, I found a paper (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1999ASPC..188..241B/0000244.000.html) which indicates that Hubble WF2, WF3 and WFPC2 show that Minkowski's Butterfly is emissive, but mostly in Halpha and NII (where scotopic vision is basically non-existant); the Hbeta and OIII emissions peak at about 30% of the Halpha.
Cheers,
-- Jeff.
The research on the Footprint (Mink 1-92) that I have read indicated that the central star is still fairly bright and is also illuminating gas and dust (a continuum reflection) rather than only exciting it with strong UV light to glow in the OIII lines as is seen with most true planetaries. I found that the only filter which seemed to help the Footprint much was a broadband one (Lumicon Deep-sky), so there must be a lot of continuum light from it. Thus, the nebula may be merely on its way to eventually becoming a planetary, although the bipolar feature is also seen in some other types of diffuse reflection nebulae. One "bipolar" one I like to look at is CED 62 (NGC 2163) in Orion, as it is like a giant but fainter version of the footprint. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4122
Loc: Ireland
|
|
Quote:
Or, you could just write a bunch of names. http://rascvic.zenfolio.com/p566114947/h3012fc97#h4d9d1d0
Bill --
Yes, I intend to do that more with my sketches.
(I guess I was mostly motivated by the underlying question of what ID to use as the primary key in the database I store my observations in. While I can search/sort on other keys, it's much easier on the primary.)
Quote:
One "bipolar" one I like to look at is CED 62 (NGC 2163) in Orion, as it is like a giant but fainter version of the footprint.
David --
Cool; I don't have that one on any of my lists.
Cheers,
-- Jeff.
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
PeterSurma
super member
Reged: 08/24/06
Posts: 122
Loc: Heidelberg, Germany
|
|
Actually, I recently thought about the same problem, as I was figuring out how to merge object catalogs based on object IDs. Of course it's silly to have both an entry for M31 and NGC224 :-). The way to solve this is precedence conventions along the same line that you have discribed in your initial post.
On the other hand I now tend to give several names in my oblists, because different people sure have different focus (e.g. Arp vs. NGC) - like this:
http://eyes4skies.de/Internet/Astro/CrossRef/Crossref.htm
People created different cats with different focus, and it's not helpful to show no arp number to people who are just now running a project on arps... (although I do not put a lot of effort in finding those crossrefs)
I find DSB pretty helpful. It gives you a lot of alias names:
http://messier45.com/cgi-bin/dsdb/dsb.pl?ss=120908595465365&str=M+31
For QSOs I tend to use Q numbers, all others drive me crazy... :-) By the way, there is also a 4C catalogue !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Cambridge_Survey
--------------------
Peter
Web: http://www.eyes4skies.de/home_EnglishVersion.htm
Scopes: From 3inch photographic APO to 20inch f/4 Dob
Edited by PeterSurma (10/22/09 03:20 PM)
|
|
8 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Olivier Biot
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
