Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The font and font size for contributions to the Journal are stipulated here:
https://britastro.org/contrib2
They are rarely accompanied by more than one photograph.
Kind regards,
Ron
Dominic
Yes I agree, if they are badly written but not if it’s just to save space. However, I can see that there is a case for limiting the size of the contribution but not merely to a couple lines for many years devotion to the BAA, a significant discovery or a highly original piece of scientific work.
The full citations are not private nor have they been, or should they be. Only the names of the proposers are concealed.
For some they are the summation of many years, if not a lifetime, of a member’s contributions to the Association and to astronomy in general. To save a few lines in the Journal would be a bit mean.
Perhaps some guidelines might suggest something like the equivalent of the maximum number of words that would fit on a single side of A4, except in very exceptional circumstances such as George Alcock, Harold Ridley and Dr.Steavenson.
AT 2021hiz classified as a young Type Ia supernova.
For clarification, the object designated AT2021biy has not been classified as a supernova but rather a Luminous Red Nova or Luminous Blue variable:The response to my communication with Andrea Pastorello, one of the authours, is as follows:“This is surely NOT a supernova.I’m not sure 100% it is a LRN or an LBV-outburst, we need to follow it to precisely classify it.It is called *red* because it becomes red (cold) very rapidly, much more rapidly than most transient types, and will reach a mid-M stellar spectral typeafter a few months”.I hope this clarifies why the object appears blue, well shown in Peter Tickner’s excellent colour image. It would be nice to see an image when the object eventually turns red. However that may be very difficult as it could be quite faint.Some years ago a BAA section director rediscovered Mars after claiming he had found a naked eye nova, and it wasn’t me.
Ron
There was a important word omitted in my previous post, The passage should have read:
“On many occasions, several in the last few months, I have entered a suspect SN’s coordinates in the report form only to be informed that a report claim has already been posted for an object at the same position which means that I could *not* claim discovery for it. This is exactly what happened in this case.”
If you enter a suspect SN’s coordinates into the TNS report form and a supernova has already been found within ~3 arc seconds of that location, it will treat your data as a follow-up observation. You cannot enter it as a “new” discovery. As my object was located less than a couple of arc second from SN 2010ct, and almost 9 years had elapsed since the event it couldn’t possibly be a follow-up observation of the same object.
Additionally, the chances of a 2nd SN exploding at an almost identical position (~2 arc seconds) in this galaxy are virtually nil so it was quite logical to think it terms of a recurrent object i.e. an new LBV Luminous Blue Variable.
The discovery of a new LBV event usually creates a lot of professional interest but, because of SN 2010ct’s position in the *archives*, several thousand of objects below the latest, it would go completely unnoticed. This why I reported the problem of LBV’s to the TNS staff a couple of years ago and one of the reasons for the creation of the new AstroNotes scheme.
On many occasions, several in the last few months, I have entered a suspect SN’s coordinates in the report form only to be informed that a report claim has already been posted for an object at the same position which means that I could claim discovery for it. This is exactly what happened in this case.
Believing the object to be an LBV which I could not enter, I sent all the relevant data directly to the TNS team just as they were going to announce the launch of AstroNotes and they suggested I use that to convey the discovery information to the community. As it happens I was the first person to use the system.
I couldn’t believe it when I saw the ISSP (Italian Supernova Search Project’s) discovery announcement on the TNS. I have since learned from the TNS staff that a new object *can* be entered for the same position if the original report is over 5 years old, now they tell me!
So, 40,000 images have been taken since my last discovery in Nov. 2017 and to miss this one after sending all the relevant data to the powers to be, leaves me somewhat displeased.
Is it a folded reflector? The focuser does not appear to be at right angles to the tube and there appears to be what looks like a system of baffles, both consistent which such a system. Just a guess.
Hi Grant,
Was this the original focuser and when you say heavy, how heavy? I’m keen to know an approximate weight.
Regards,
Ron
Hi Andy,
I’m glad to hear that the RC system and focuser retains good correct focus over a reasonable time as mine will be operated from a separate control room from which I also control a C14. The GSO RC will also take part in Supernova searching so maintaining good focus over long periods lasting several hours and hundreds of images, will be a big benefit.
I plan to reduce the focal ratio to better match the optical system of the LISA.
Anyway, thanks Andy for your experiences with GSC RC and I will certainly relay my thoughts if I do proceed in getting one.
Regards,
Ron
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the offer. I shall certainly remember that, I want to keep as much of the little hair I have left!
Kind regards,
Ron
Hi Kevin,
Many thanks for your useful comments.
I had wondered about the design of the focuser and the Starlight 3in Feathertouch with the posidrive motorised add-on does indeed look very interesting.
I gather from what you say that a two mirror system and a focuser that can be collimated independently can be somewhat tedious to tame.
My hope is to mount the 16″ model on a Paramount MEll.Kind regards,
Ron
Regarding the Council Minutes. It was agreed by the Council many years ago that after they had been approved by the Council and signed by the President, any fully paid up member could not only view the minutes but could also be provided with a copy providing they paid the postage.
Such a sad loss. to all of us who knew Dudley.
He was a real character. I remember him driving me across London at break-neck speed in his Volvo while operating his car’s wholf whistle at all the girls we passed.
He might have had a business but when we met in his small Golders Green workshop we would chat for ages about amateur optics.
Regards,
Ron
