Designed to fail? - the current state of amateur double star astronomy

[ukastronomy]

On 7 Oct, 04:51, canopus56 <canopu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If the two components have significantly different proper motion then
I would classify them as line-of sight doubles and I would suggest
not the best target for amateur measurement.

At the other extreme some pairs have both components with a large and
very similar proper motion that I would class as a binary "worth"
measuring.

Photometric parallax is of course another option using the SDSS data.
Plenty of new binaries have been identified using this technique but
have yet to reach the WDS.

[Quadibloc]

mommycal...@gmail.com wrote:

I thought it was clear what he was complaining about, and it seemed
like a reasonable complaint to me.

The complaint was, if I understood it correctly:

1) The predominant reference available to amateur observers is the
Washington Double Star Catalog, and

2) This reference is badly out of date, not indicating for the many
double stars that have already been determined to be line-of-sight
doubles only this fact, or for many systems that are true binaries,
the results that are already known about their orbits and periods.

This means that an amateur observer who is trying to collect useful
data about doubles to help determine which are visual doubles and
which are true binaries is shooting in the dark.

On top of wasted observations in collecting data, the method of
submitting data - having it published in a magazine - is no longer the
best available method; it is an out-of-date bottleneck that will slow
progress and thereby cause more duplication of effort.

These objections seem to make sense. On the other hand, amateur
observations do need multiple confirmations before being accepted as
final, and it may be that the office responsible for the WDS catalog
lacks the manpower to handle amateur submissions directly. But if the
WDS catalog isn't including up-to-date satellite observations by
professional astronomers, then at least the first objection seems to
have a strong force.

John Savard

[ukastronomy]

This is an excellent summary by John, thank you.

The folks in Washington seem to have zero interest in doing anything
about the problems which is why amateurs might be well advised to
steer well clear of measuring doubles until there is a change of
policy.


On 22 Oct, 13:53, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

[larkerer@yahoo.com]

On Oct 22, 12:53 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

It does seem a reasonable complaint, especially interesting if you
have the full context of Nicholson having published on websites and
elsewhere hundreds and thousands of line of sight 2MASS objects with
no other data, which have never been included in the WDS, and were
removed from the USNO website after being there several years due to
being line of sight, thus removing optical doubles from the USNO
database in the way he requires.

It is only one edition of a Webb Society Double Star Circular or two
ago that Nicholson published 2,520 more of these optical objects which
have no way of being tested for true binarity

http://webbdeepsky.com/notes/doublest01.html

see DSSC 14

the full article should be available here

http://www.webbdeepsky.com/dssc/dssc14.pdf

and is one more in a long run of such efforts.

Read the methodology and compare it with what is being said.

I must confess to only assuming it is the same methodology he as
always used with 2mass data, and haven't read it myself. 2mass data
carries positions and near infrared magnitudes, no proper motion data
nor radial velocities.

John Greaves

[larkerer@yahoo.com]

On Oct 6, 7:06 am, John H <johnhampto...@yahoo.com> wrote:

This user, who in at least one group insinuates to being from the USA,
can be seen to be using a BT internet account in the UK from
examination of this post's header.

Here he somewhat aggressively agrees with Nicholson's comments. It
has been shown in Binary Stars Uncensored yahoo group that some of his
posts in agreement with Nicholson's blog comments were posted on the
self same modem IP address as posts by Nicholson himself, as can also
be shown by posts of agreement from Ian Hill Smith on these usenet
groups too, because I've just done that somewhere on another thread.

This also explains how Nicholson gets five star ratings to his posts,
I assume. I haven't figured out yet if you can check a ratings log to
see who clicked what.

John Greaves

[larkerer@yahoo.com]

On Oct 22, 12:53 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

The WDS has recently finished, and published a professional paper
upon, integrating all relevant 2MASS measures into the dataset. When
the UCAC3 comes out next spring, that too will be integrated,
apparently.

As to relevant satellite information, it would be nice to know which
satellites are being considered?

The last relevant satellite information in the astrometric context was
the Hipparcos and Tycho data, and all of that, including data from the
recent Tycho2 reprocessing of the latter, is included in the WDS
database, and binaries from them included in the WDS catalogue (not
the same thing as the database). The USNO teams and the Hipparcos and
Tycho teams have in fact collaborated upon several joint astrometric
exercises in regards astrometric catalogues and the Hipparcos mission,
which led to the relevant data from the Tycho Double Star Catalogue
being included into the WDS, and used to update the known objects in
the WDS.

As always something seems reasonable when made in generalised and
unsubstantiated ways, especially if relevant facts are withheld.

Cheers

John

[larkerer@yahoo.com]

On Oct 22, 12:53 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
....

This is indeed the problem. There are several widely known cases of
false reporting and/or data theft by amateur astronomers in the past,
often not seen for years. The information age makes these things even
easier for people. The recent debacle between USA and Spanish
astronomers about a transNeptunian object discovery shows it is not
only a thing related to amateurs, and whether the accusations are true
or not it was apparently not felt impossible enough to not be
considered in the first place.

Nicholson himself had to withdraw an Open European Journal of Variable
Star's submission wherein he published hundreds of thousands of "new
variables" from the DIRBE PSC, that's a point source catalogue from
data taken by the COBE satellite.

These were already fully tabulated and published and flagged as
suspect variables by the DIRBE team themselves in a professional
journal, and his listen carried no extra data or information than was
given in those tables, as the variability was based on the DIRBE
infrared photometry.

When I informed the prime author of that article, the DIRBE team
leader, she expressed dismay that an article which would log Nicholson
and co-author in SIMBAD as the discoverers of this variability, which
was a direct lifting their work, could be published. Worryingly, she
was at a loss as to how to deal with the problem.

Such a potential embarrassment to the entirety of amateur astronomy
was a worry, and after pressure from several amateur and pro-am
quarters upon the people running OEJV, the article, which contained
little or no content in terms of methodology or write up, merely being
a long list of objects with DIRBE data quoted, was apaprently
withdrawn by Nicholson. I to this day wish I'd downloaded a copy for
future reference, though some out there will still remember it and
have read it.

It is within these contexts, and also the context of the following
press release penned by and about Nicholson that all blog entries and
emails by Nicholson suggestive of unfair treatment towards him should
be viewed :-

http://www.tass-survey.org/tass/mail.../msg00147.html

Nicholson is, after all, the self styled researcher who once told the
AAVSO Director that he didn't have time to do full literature search
on his new discoveries to see if they were already known in obscure
journals etc, because the delay may lead to someone else publishing
his new variables before he does.

On several occasions I have had to show that his new lists of
variables, and sometimes his new lists of common proper motion pairs,
contain known objects. As he of late loves to decry material by me
that is in the WDS, I found it quite ironic when checking one Excel
list of his new common proper motion pairs that he had forwarded to
the files section in Binary Stars Uncensored that several of these new
objects were not only already known as Luyten doubles and from other
proper motion pairs like Giclas' lists, but also included pairs
identified by myself, which apparently should be removed from the WDS
(probably so he can resubmit them)?

And he violently and vitriolically attacks anyone who does not see his
viewpoint. I tend to reply in kind. People like Wolfgang Renz try to
conduct reasoned arguments with him.

Personally I'm bored with hearing him bleat, but after these recent
concerted attacks of his on the USNO people, who I think should sue
him, and his use in some groups of false identity clones to agree with
his viewpoints, I've had enough of him, and thus am currently doing a
short run of the rounds pointing out some of the things he neglects to
say.

Only give any credence to any fully documented, itemized and checkable
(ie with references that can be looked up) case that he brings to
issue, and worry little about his viewpoints, as amateurs have no
power whatsoever over professionals duly appointed to fully a specific
remit by the authorities at the IAU.

Cheers

John

John Greaves

[ukastronomy]

The irony of John Greaves making any comment whatsoever on emails is
certainly not lost on me. I seem to recall a time, not so long ago
either, when he wrote, "The author will not engage in dialogue." and
"The concomitant yahoo email account needed to enable gaining a yahoo
ID and accessing yahoo groups is neither used nor read." Add to this
his use of false email addresses and I would have thought that he
would be well advised to keep an extremely low profile on this
particular topic.

[ukastronomy]

Poor old John fails to grasp the difference between the incorrectly
identified common proper motion doubles he has caused to appear in the
widely used (by both professionals and amateurs) WDS and Vizier and
material other people have had published in the paper based magazine
of a small, overwhelmingly amateur, astronomical group.

[ukastronomy]

Poor old John seems to be having memory problems.

John is well aware of the views of other people on the length and
style of many of his postings but he ignores all such advice and as a
result people tend to skim read rather than study his contributions.
He appears to relish his position on the extremes of the hobby and he
once wrote, in the context of VSX, ".... and there are only two people
on this entire planet I would even remotely trust to moderate, but
it's got to start somewhere."

Would you pay the slightest attention to somebody who considers that
only two people on the whole planet can moderate variable star
submissions? Somebody who also considers that a public and personal
attack on a US based amateur astronomer and cancer sufferer is
acceptable.

Exactly - join the many people who ignore John.