Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Double Stars For Small Telescopes By Sissy Haas

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#26 Rustler46

Rustler46

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,211
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Coos Bay, Oregon

Posted 06 November 2019 - 02:24 AM

bob argyle has been using CDSA2 to observe and micrometrically measure double stars with the Innes refractor at johannesburg and ended his email to me with "I can therefore wholeheartedly recommend the [CDSA2] atlas for anyone wanting to observe THE double stars of interest."

 

so i guess the three of us are aficionados of "THE double stars of interest."

 

an important feature of the CDSA2 is that, by looking *only* at high probability physical systems, you develop a better visual understanding of what physical systems actually look like. i hoped for this kind of effect in devising the atlas and announced it in the first paragraph of the introduction, but didn't know for sure would work out until i actually began working through the lists.

What a wonderful website you have, Bruce. There is so much there for our education and enjoyment! I've just begun reading the Double Star Primer. Thanks so much!

 

Russ


  • payner likes this

#27 Rustler46

Rustler46

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,211
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Coos Bay, Oregon

Posted 10 November 2019 - 02:14 AM

I have Sissy's book but don't use it anymore. I also have some other books that don't get used.

 

Cambridge Double Star Atlas by Bruce MacEvoy (CDSA2) has changed my observing more than any other reference. The difference between this atlas and Sissy's is night and day to me. CDSA2 has a layout that simply works for me. It has opened a world of observing that I was unaware of. After getting used to CDSA2, I went back to Sissy's book and it just didn't work at all for me. Obviously others have a different perspective on this and I am just sharing my own feelings.

 

I observe primarily from my balcony in DC and can only see a somewhat small window of the sky. With CDSA2 I can map out a structure for a nights observing which works with my alt/az window. I have to use Sky Safari in order to filter my azimuth and elevation. Using just these two sources, I have an entire structure around which to add planets, asteroids and other objects.

 

Not only is CDSA superior for me in terms of organization, but the supplementary information is well thought out and useful for me in setting perspective. Finally, I value knowing whether a double is a related binary or only visual. It makes a difference to me.

 

After Ceres last night, I finished with my last target from CDSA2 and it turned out to be one of the most impressive binaries that I have observed. It was 84 Ceti (+5.76 and +9.68 at 3.7" from DC and a high thin veil of clouds). The secondary was impossibly small next to its companion and the pair was impressive. This was with a TOA 150 and average seeing.

I have had the Haas book for about a year and haven't used it that much. Just recently I used it to pare down my Cassiopeia doubles list from 118 (taken from Burnham) to just 40 (from Haas). I'll see how this works, since I use SkySafari with a G-11 mount to find the doubles.

 

R.W.Argyle's Observing and Measuring Visual Double Stars (2nd edition) is also a part of my library. This book has a wealth of information on how to examine double stars, when these are subjects of my interest.

 

I'm tempted to add the CDSA2. But I'm a bit hesitant since non-physical pairs are excluded. But your comments, Dave on the benefits of layout, organization and focus on binary stars has me wondering if I should get it. Certainly there are way more doubles of any type than I have time to observe. So perhaps I will find its benefits will far outweigh the negatives.



#28 John Fitzgerald

John Fitzgerald

    In Focus

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,483
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2004
  • Loc: ROR Obs. near Pettigrew, Arkansas

Posted 10 November 2019 - 11:19 AM

I have the original Cambridge Double Star Atlas. I recently ordered the second edition. I hope the improvements justify the expense. Should get it in a few days.

I used the first edition several years ago to complete the AL double star observing challenge, but did not apply for the award. Recognition is not that important to me.

Edited by John Fitzgerald, 10 November 2019 - 11:22 AM.


#29 fred1871

fred1871

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,567
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 11 November 2019 - 07:51 PM

As I read it, Dave's very positive review of CDSA2 is based on the very big advantage of the excellent star maps by Wil Tirion. The Haas book, entirely lacking maps, needs to be supplemented with some good maps from whatever source you prefer. I've found the Haas book very useful over the years I've had it (bought when newly out). A good starting list of objects for every constellation.

 

Back before it was published, I constructed lists of doubles for each constellation from various sources, so I had lists with basic data as a prelude to finding and observing the objects. The lists were extensive. When I had a period of some months in California, enabling me to observe Northern doubles, I managed to observe and make notes on about 130 doubles in Cassiopeia, as an example; and that's not the full list I had for that constellation.

 

I have both editions of CDSA, and have a complaint about each. Jim Mullaney's first edition did not choose the doubles as well as might have been done. But he did have the good sense to retain optical and uncertain-status pairs, some of which are showpieces - and these are excluded from CDSA2. So in the 2nd Edition they're not labeled. Thankfully, in both editions, the Tirion maps mark as double the stars that do not have a double-star discoverer label as well as those that do. My solution has been to label by hand some of these pairs that are without label and without notes.

 

The information section in CDSA2 is much better than in CDSA1. No contest there. The introduction for each edition is quite different in style, and somewhat in coverage. Mullaney in the First Edition emphasises observing. McEvoy in the Second Edition is somewhat more into aspects of astrophysics and optical parameters. For an observer's atlas, I'm inclined to prefer the Mullaney approach. I have better books on astrophysics and on optics and observing limits and methodologies. That's without getting into a detailed discussion of McEvoy's personal preferences in his approach to optical parameters and observing.

 

The CDSA2 has an extended cover sheet that I find annoying. A minor matter of course, but why was it done?

I use both atalases, and generally feel that the best version was missed in both editions. The CDSA2 would be a clear winner if it did not exclude optical pairs, and pairs possibly optical, based on very uncertain data. I can't see there being a 3rd Edition, as it appears Cambridge UP is getting out of books for the amateur. My personal feeling is that CDSA1 was a great idea, fairly well realised; CDSA2 an opportunity to do it better, that ended up being a step forward in some ways and a step backwards in others. No book will be perfect, and each of these has useful qualities; I expect to continue using both. 


  • Mike McShan, MP173 and Rustler46 like this

#30 Gostock

Gostock

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2015

Posted 09 December 2019 - 10:45 PM

The book Double Stars For Small Telescopes by Sissy Haas is available now at the new Sky & Telescope web store for $29.95 USD (shipping is extra).

https://www.shopatsk...mall-telescopes

 

I just received my copy of the book today.  Go get it while it lasts!

 

There's no way to tell if Sky Publishing (via Sky & Telescope shop) have any copies left, because the takeover of S&T by the American Astronomical Society has led to the shop web pages being taken down, temporarily they say. When it returns it'll be possible to see what they have.

 

The Haas book seems to me a good candidate for a revised edition. It's not intended to be utterly comprehensive in the way that access to Stelle Doppie or the WDS is. Instead, a selection of "the best" and many other interesting doubles, not too faint and not ultra-close. Result of course is some folk complaining it has too much, and others seeing it as too little.

 

A new edition could correct the occasional errors, provide some updates and re-assessments of changing binaries, and remain for another decade or two as a very useful compendium of doubles from pole to pole, designed for the observer. Very sensibly, it did NOT attempt to leave out optical pairs (which could possibly eliminate Albireo, and with the Cambridge Double Star Atlas 2nd edition did eliminate the wonderful showpiece coloured pairing HJ 3945 in Canis Major, among others). There are too many uncertainties for that choice; and an observer's guide is not a purist astrophysical treatise even if all cases were accurately known; furthermore, aesthetic astronomy is fine; and the professionals still find reasons for retaining optical pairs in the lists.

 

Back to the main point. A book of the kind Haas compiled is a continuing useful guide to the more accessible doubles including the showpieces, with the benefit of observing descriptions as well as the numbers to describe the objects. Reference to binary orbits can be followed up elsewhere. Most doubles change fairly slowly; some go through periods of quick change such as Gamma Virginis in the last decade; brief notes on these can cover a good period after publication. Most of the changing pairs that are accessible to amateur scopes can have their changes usefully described in a sentence.

 

Once you provide a more comprehensive description, though still abbreviated, such as in Bob Argyle's new book An Anthology of Visual Double stars (Cambridge, 2019) there's a limit to how many doubles you can include. The Argyle book has 175, which includes some optical pairs, and some optical?/gravitational? uncertain pairs, and still runs to over 400 large pages. So it isn't intended to be what the Haas book usefully is - the backyard observer's guide to a fairly comprehensive listing of doubles to about 8th magnitude. Each book is useful for what it intends and achieves.

 

So, back to the original question - getting a copy of the Haas book - difficult at the moment given the changeover at Sky & Telescope. Will they at least reprint the book in its original form if they've run out of copies? We'll have to see.


  • Uwe Pilz and eros312 like this

#31 Tyson M

Tyson M

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,158
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Alberta, Canada

Posted 10 December 2019 - 06:15 PM

I might be interested in both of these books, the Cambridge Double Star Atlas and the Double Stars For Small Telescopes.  It would be good to put my AT92 to the test.



#32 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,381
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Sacramento, Calif.

Posted 01 January 2020 - 04:04 PM

I'm not sure where I got this from, though I think I modified it sometime ago, but this my be an easy list to get you started on some of the most popular doubles.  Its sorted by constellation but easy to manipulate anyway you prefer it.

 

...Ralph

Attached Files


Edited by aa6ww, 01 January 2020 - 04:05 PM.


#33 ghayduke

ghayduke

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2014

Posted 02 January 2020 - 12:02 PM

I have made a SkySafari Observing List of the Sissy Haas double stars. It contains 2061 unique objects. Many of the multiples in her catalog have 2 different names; I dropped the second name in most cases. For those who use Skysafari, you know that the name assigned to stars is usually HD or some other catalog, so the names shown as labels will not necessarily coincide with the name in Sissy Hass' list. But the J2000 RA and DEC should match exactly. Also, I know of no way to carry the comments in her book into the observing list. I suspect one would have to log an actual observation for that. No guarantee, use at your own risk  Here's the link

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing


  • AndyBooth and jpcampbell like this

#34 Astro-Master

Astro-Master

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 739
  • Joined: 09 May 2016
  • Loc: San Diego County,Ca.

Posted 03 January 2020 - 10:55 PM

I have the original Cambridge Double Star Atlas. I recently ordered the second edition. I hope the improvements justify the expense. Should get it in a few days.

I used the first edition several years ago to complete the AL double star observing challenge, but did not apply for the award. Recognition is not that important to me.

I have the original Cambridge Double Star Atlas, the star charts are great, but I don't like the way the double star list jumps around from one constellation to another and back.

 

I like the way Sissy Haas organized her lists by constellations.  I also like that there is room to make notes in the margins.  My copy is well marked with notes on my favorite doubles and favorite powers

 

By the way , what is the difference between the original, and the second edition on the Cambridge?


Edited by Astro-Master, 03 January 2020 - 10:58 PM.

  • c2m2t likes this

#35 fred1871

fred1871

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,567
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 04 January 2020 - 02:34 AM

I have the original Cambridge Double Star Atlas, the star charts are great, but I don't like the way the double star list jumps around from one constellation to another and back.

 

I like the way Sissy Haas organized her lists by constellations.  I also like that there is room to make notes in the margins.  My copy is well marked with notes on my favorite doubles and favorite powers

 

By the way , what is the difference between the original, and the second edition on the Cambridge?

The Second Edition benefit is that the doubles with notes are arranged by constellation, so there's no longer jumping around. Introduction by Bruce McEvoy is quite different than Jim Mullaney's in the 1st Edition, reflecting the different perspectives of the two compilers. Second Edition loss is leaving out doubles that are optical or suspected optical - therefore omits ID and data notes for some showpieces, and was premature in thinking the division gravitational/optical could accurately be made, as data was not sufficient for a lot of objects (still the case). 

 

I see both editions as useful but also as opportunities lost, the First because the choice of objects was sometimes muddled and the end notes on doubles were often outdated or inadequate as well as the "by RA" instead of by constellation arrangements. The Second is less useful for the observer because of the exclusion of doubles, including showpieces, deemed "optical", and by what I see as idiosyncratic approaches in the Introduction and appendices to various matters.

 

There's no reason to think that a Third Edition, building on the 2nd Edition improvements and eliminating the 2nd Ed deficiencies, will ever happen, as Cambridge UP are moving out of amateur astronomy publications. So what we have now is the best available until someone creates a new atlas of doubles, fixing the issues of both Cambridge editions, and keeping the excellent standard of Wil Tirion's maps.

 

I have both Editions. Physically, I prefer the 1st Edition, as not having an extended cover. For quick data checks, the 2nd Edition. Maps, either - and Tirion has retained on the maps the bar through a star indicating a double, even when it has not - in the particular edition - discoverer ID on the chart nor descriptive notes at the end. That provides observers with opportunity to follow up on the "unidentified" doubles and discover if they can split these. Identification can be done (by those who are patient) from map (approximate) positions and looking through Stelle Doppie or the WDS. Lengthy at times, and it can be wearying.

 

The Cambridge Atlas, either edition, can be usefully combined with Sissy Haas's book.
 


  • c2m2t and jpcampbell like this

#36 Astro-Master

Astro-Master

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 739
  • Joined: 09 May 2016
  • Loc: San Diego County,Ca.

Posted 04 January 2020 - 04:18 AM

 Thank you for the info on the second edition, I think I'll pass on buying it.  I'll stick with the original edition for the star charts, and Sissy's book for ease of use, and space for notes.



#37 Uwe Pilz

Uwe Pilz

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3,008
  • Joined: 16 May 2008
  • Loc: Leipzig, Germany

Posted 04 January 2020 - 08:38 AM

I have the Cambridge double star atlas, but I don't use it anymore. I found the interstellarum deep sky atlas the best for searching for double stars. I does not contain any additional information of course. Therefor I love Sissy's book.

 

The interstellarum atlas comes in two versions:

Normal paper

https://www.amazon.c...78144937&sr=8-1

 

and a paper like plastic

https://www.amazon.c...78145035&sr=8-2

 

I started with the paper version until I had one or two loose pages. The get loose because of the perforation. I am sure that can be avoided, but I worked rather hard :) with it.

The field edition is very expansive and I waited until I got one second hand.


  • c2m2t likes this

#38 fred1871

fred1871

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,567
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 06 January 2020 - 01:49 AM

These discussions raise the general issue of what charts to use - for those who want charts - as a companion to any listings of doubles.

 

The most significant limitation for a book such as Haas's Double Stars for Small Telescopes, as it was for TW Webb's Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes in its numerous editions, was the need to supplement the book with a suitable star atlas.  Haas leaves the reader to find their own preferred atlas or star maps. In the 19th century, the well known astronomy writer RA Proctor produced Atlases, and as Webb says "the smaller of these was especially intended as a companion to the present work..." [that is, the Celestial Objects...].

In the 6th edition of Celestial Objects, of 1917, which is long after Webb's death, TE Espin updating the work refers the reader to Cottam's 'Charts of the Constellations' [1889, 1891] which, again, were intended as companions to Webb. 

 

In these later times Haas has not had the gift of an Atlas, intended as a companion for her book, to be produced. In some respects the CDSA 1st Edition was a reasonable fit for such an Atlas, even though designed as a standalone. I've used it as a companion to Haas, along with CDSA2.

 

Back in the 1990s, before these books were published, having compiled my own computer-aided lists, I spent some periods of observing using Sky Atlas 2000 along with Uranometria 2000. With a pair of 10x50 binoculars, a driven but not computer aided telescope (no go-to), I worked my way through many constellations by star hopping.

 

When I had access to quicker methods, such as the push-to system at the public observatory where I worked regular evenings for some years, I found that much preferable and much quicker. I could find the objects rapidly, and make observing notes of the double and its field, noting nearby other doubles, bright stars, clusters, etc. And describing in notes the changing appearance of the double as magnification increased. As I was no longer star-hopping with the push-to (by RA and Dec from my lists) I no longer used Sky Atlas 2000 for finding purposes, but having Uranometria with me enabled noticing other objects near the doubles I observed. I could offset to observe these.

 

These days, with go-to systems, I still make use of various atlases - CDSA 1 or 2 for area overview, sometimes Uranometria, and in the study Cartes du Ciel, with its ability to incorporate various catalogues and links to Simbad. 

 

Uwe, following your note above, I had another look at the Interstellarum Atlas via the sample charts online. Much prettier than Uranometria with the added colour, and with a reasonable sub-set of double stars identified by their discoverer labels. But without the simple bar through the symbol that Uranometria used for all the many more doubles they included. I suspect that had I acquired and used Interstellarum in recent years I'd have been marking the unmarked doubles, as I observed them, with the simple bar or short line through the star symbol. Makes for easier finding later.

 

Interstellarum looks like a very good Atlas for general deep sky use. And I'd expect it to be particularly good for finding the marked doubles. I think it would be a good companion to books such as Haas's.


  • Rustler46 likes this

#39 Inkswitch

Inkswitch

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2003
  • Loc: Walhonding, OH USA

Posted 06 January 2020 - 08:45 AM

Interstellarum looks like a very good Atlas for general deep sky use. And I'd expect it to be particularly good for finding the marked doubles. I think it would be a good companion to books such as Haas's.

 

I have both Interstellarum and the Haas book, I also used Uranometria for years prior to Interstellarum.  I find Interstellarum holds up better and, because of binding, is more useful in the field.  I would also like to comment on the odd double star labels that Interstellarum uses.  Once you get used to them you can tell at a glance whether or not you will be able split a given double by the label.  There is information in the label symbol that gives you a very good idea of separation, position angle, and delta magnitude.  I also dislike when a cartographer uses a different, non standard, symbol but in this particular case I find it to be a winner.


  • Uwe Pilz, flt158 and jpcampbell like this

#40 JimP

JimP

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,397
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2003
  • Loc: USA

Posted 22 January 2020 - 09:53 PM

So, do you use the Interstellarum at the telescope to find doubles by starting at a known object and then using the Atlas to go to the next, and then to the next double just based on what is near the original known object? I hope that makes some sense.

Jim

#41 JimP

JimP

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,397
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2003
  • Loc: USA

Posted 24 January 2020 - 09:10 PM

OK, I will try again. Do you use the Interstellarum atlas to star hop from one double to another at the eyepiece without using goto or digital setting circles, etc.?

Jim

Edited by JimP, 24 January 2020 - 09:10 PM.


#42 Inkswitch

Inkswitch

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2003
  • Loc: Walhonding, OH USA

Posted 26 January 2020 - 09:40 AM

OK, I will try again. Do you use the Interstellarum atlas to star hop from one double to another at the eyepiece without using goto or digital setting circles, etc.?

Jim

Hi Jim,  I carry both the Haas book and the Interstellarium atlas into the field, I typically work in one constellation at a time.  I select a double from the Haas book and note it's RA and DEC.  I have the atlas open to the constellation I am working and use the RA and DEC to find the double, then I find some nearby star that is bright enough for me to point the telescope.  At that point it depends on the size of the constellation and separation of the various double stars as to whether I hop all night from that initial position or must repoint the scope via finder occasionally.  Regardless I star hop, always.

 

I can see the benefit of goto or push to.  I have used others' goto scopes, never a push to setup.  But I cannot help thinking that some of the scenery along the way gets lost.  I have noted doubles along my hop, that didn't make Haas' grade, that I went ahead and split.  I get real pleasure out of star hopping, it is a great mental exercise because I do the orientation flips in my head.


  • c2m2t likes this

#43 JimP

JimP

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,397
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2003
  • Loc: USA

Posted 26 January 2020 - 08:19 PM

Great! Thank you for your response. Much appreciated.  

 

Jim



#44 Uwe Pilz

Uwe Pilz

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3,008
  • Joined: 16 May 2008
  • Loc: Leipzig, Germany

Posted 27 January 2020 - 06:26 AM

> Do you use the Interstellarum atlas to star hop from one double to another at the eyepiece without using goto or digital setting circles,

 

Yes, of course. I need some time to learn to compare the mirror reversed image in the eyepiece with the atlas, but now I have rarely problems.



#45 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,500
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 01 February 2020 - 12:02 PM

The book Double Stars For Small Telescopes by Sissy Haas is available now at the new Sky & Telescope web store for $29.95 USD (shipping is extra).

https://www.shopatsk...mall-telescopes

 

I just received my copy of the book today.  Go get it while it lasts!

Does this double star guide have finder charts to locate these star groups and pictures to show what they look like through an eyepiece?  Thanks.

 

Bill


  • Getasap likes this

#46 CharlieB

CharlieB

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4,792
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Southern NH

Posted 01 February 2020 - 05:03 PM

Does this double star guide have finder charts to locate these star groups and pictures to show what they look like through an eyepiece?  Thanks.

 

Bill

No, they don't.



#47 fred1871

fred1871

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,567
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 01 February 2020 - 07:11 PM

As mentioned above (#38), the Haas book does not include an atlas, and therefore leaves the user free to use any atlas or map system they prefer. When Sky Publishing (Sky & Telescope) decided to offer Haas a contract to make the book, they did not look at having maps included. As they already published some atlases, and other publishers offered atlases as well, they may well have seen it as unnecessary.

 

Bob Argyle's newest book, an Anthology of Double Stars, does give finder charts and (where possible) orbit diagrams, but ends up a quite large book with only 175 doubles described.

 

Any book that attempted both maps and eyepiece views for 2,000 plus doubles would be likely unmanageable in size. Personally I don't see the point of "eyepiece views" for everything given the range of telescopes that can be used. Photographs, such s those Steve Smith shows here on CN might be nice for some, but again I see issues of scale, and the book becoming large and expensive. I'm inclined to think the Haas option is good and sufficient because it allows more doubles to be included and described without the book becoming too large or very expensive.

 

As mentioned above, the original classic works (Smyth and Webb) did not include an atlas. An atlas was designed and produced to accompany the Webb book, but in the 1800s there was not a varied supply of atlases available. These days, we do have a good number of choices. And many of us have an atlas of choice that we use with Haas, according to our varying preferences. 


  • payner and Rustler46 like this

#48 Getasap

Getasap

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2017
  • Loc: Summerfield, FL

Posted 14 February 2020 - 08:29 PM

Personally my go to book for visual double stars is "Observing and Measuring Visual Double Stars" , R. W. Argyle, part of the Patrick Moore Pactical Astronomy Series.  This book is the bible of Double Star Observing.  



#49 fred1871

fred1871

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,567
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 15 February 2020 - 01:40 AM

Personally my go to book for visual double stars is "Observing and Measuring Visual Double Stars" , R. W. Argyle, part of the Patrick Moore Pactical Astronomy Series.  This book is the bible of Double Star Observing.  

Yes, if what you're looking for is intended for measuring above all else, the Argyle book is excellent. The Haas book is a visual observer's guide, with no real intent beyond the aesthetics and visual enjoyment of doubles. A very different purpose, and a very different content. One's an apple the other an orange. They aren't comparable in terms of better or worse at doing the same thing. I find both of them very useful for their intended purposes related to doubles. I'd not want to be without either.

 

 


  • Inkswitch and Uwe Pilz like this

#50 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,500
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 15 February 2020 - 12:38 PM

No, they don't.

Okay thanks.  Probably not the book for me.

 

Bill




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics