Xilman

I'm a sad old geek who grew out of stamp collecting.

These days I enjoy making measurements which stand a reasonable chance of being useful to other astronomers, so I observe variable stars and asteroids.

I also enjoy tracking down elusive objects, especially if they form a collection of some sorts. Hence my images of small satellites in the outer solar system, TNOs, and globular clusters, especially those orbiting galaxies other than the Milky Way.

1 hour ago, dciobota said:

Hmmm, maybe I haven't found a place here after all.  I see two members here obliquely referring to me and this kind of behind the back criticism does not sit well with me.  If someone has an issue with what I say or how I say it please say so directly to me.  Being civilized does not mean talking behind someone's back.  Just saying.

I am passionate sometimes and may say things that get misinterpreted as offensive.  I already apologized to Olly once for giving him the wrong impression about something I said.  Maybe I should be more there is a heightened sensitivity here to anything that would be interpreted as offensive?  I don't know.

I think for now I'll just sit out and maybe just watch.

I did enjoy sharing what knowledge I have and trying to help here and there.  This is the main reason I was on CN and the main reason I'm here.  But I'll definitely go away if I'm not welcome, I have no skin in this game.

Peace.

 

I sincerely hope I am not one of them.  If so, I apologize unreservedly and assure that it was not intentional.

3 hours ago, Paul M said:

Like pubs of old, when folk used to pop out for a pint quite frequently, there would always be a familiar face to chat to and even let off the steam of the day.

Exactly.  Well phrased, Sir!

9 minutes ago, rl said:

I too am an electronics/computer engineer...and fully sympathise with the OP.

One of the beauties of visual astronomy is the complete lack of technology..just you, the scope and the stars. No broken wires, no unexpected windows updates, no flat batteries, no USB lockups...

You are quite correct about the beauty.

However, I do most of my "screwin' around" with hardware during daylight when I tend not to be looking through telescopes anyway. For example, one day (not night) I clobbered the Windows registry in such a way that it is unable to perform Windows updates without my explicitly asking for them (in daylight, of course).

Just now, Mr Spock said:

I'm here for the free Jaffa Cakes 

That brings back distant memories.

You weren't a member of OUAS were you? Jaffa Cakes were a society tradition.

25 minutes ago, jjohnson3803 said:

After being a member for several years, I've come to the belief that a fair number of posters on CN are cranky old goats who derive joy from arguing for the sake of arguing.  My ignore list is probably forty members long now.  (Maybe that makes *me* a grumpy old goat. 😀)  I agree there's a lot of knowledge though, so I do sift through forums from time to time for technical info.

Anyway, I find SGL to be quite informative with civil discussions even when disagreements arise.

  

While we're on the CN-bashing wagon: one of the things that drive me away from there for months at a time is the attitude and actions of some of the CN moderators. They appear to be jobs-worth sticklers for the letter of the rules with no imagination or flexibility. Some mods are good people and I know that they are also dismayed by the actions of some of their colleagues.

What is very different about SGL is that the mods are almost always invisible, except when asked for assistance --- when help is usually prompt and plentiful.

In general, I participate in SGL because it feels like a friendly club. Somewhere to learn from others, to help others to learn, to see what others are doing and to boast about ones own achievements, and just to gossip on occasion.

Paul (yet another one. We seem to have a Paul infestation in these parts and may have to start putting down traps.)

Look up "Grandi's Series" on Wikipedia and follow the "See Also" links.

Lots of good fun there. In particular, 1+2+3+4+.. = -1/12.

With a little ingenuity it is possible to make a divergent series sum to any value you wish.

Counting Pleiades? Test of acuity as well as sensitivity.

Bahtinov masks work extremely well, IME. even when the scope is very far out of focus. A single adjustment, whether toward or away from focus doesn't matter, and it is clear which way to make other adjustments.

I find mine invaluable.

42 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

In case anyone was wondering, and I’m sure @ollypenrice has rumbled me, this ditty was composed by ChatGPT. 

If only this had been around when I was doing O Level Eng Lit….
 

With ChatGPT and an in depth study of Brodie’s Notes I might have improved on my grade C.

And all I would have then needed was a way of getting out of PE lessons (In addition to my appendectomy which I milked for a whole term of Off Games notes)

Well, it fooled me.

I thought you were angling for the post of SGL gonnagle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nac_Mac_Feegle#The_Clan_Gonnagle ) but, to be brutally honest, you failed miserably to make the grade. The lines were far too short, by and large, they almost scanned and had nowhere enough non sequiturs. Perhaps I should try to take on that role. Vid. sub.

A couple of weeks ago I had friends round to celebrate Scotland's greatest bard. I made cock-a-leekie soup, haggis, neeps and tatties and provided  far too much whisky.  (The special stuff is unobtainable in La Palma, as are neeps, so they had to be smuggled in.) Scottish pudding (tartan custard) was foregone because I'd made far too much of the first two courses.

The amateur watchers of the sky, they do tell me,
Look with awe on the silv'ry Andromeda Galaxy.

...

28 minutes ago, dciobota said:

The one distinction I do make though is astrophotographer.  That of course involves a camera.  Now, one might debate whether taking milky way shots at night on a simple tripod qualifies.

I regard "astrophotographer" as a subset of "imager". To me an astrophotgrapher is someone who takes images primarily for their aesthetic appeal. They are artists first and foremost, but could well be scientists at the same time.

For my part, I very rarely take pretty pictures but have a collection of well in excess of 30K images, the vast majority of which do not look at all pretty. They exist because they are measurable.

Whether a DSLR on a tripod is used or not is irrelevant. If it is taking images for aesthetic reasons it is being done by an astrophotographer.

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Question: can one 'gaze' into a telescope?

I would say so, and claim to have done it.

Sometimes I seek things out and/or try to understand and/or recognize and/or pay close attention to what I am looking at. Sometimes I just watch the stars drift by because I find it a pleasant experience.

Again, the difference between seeing and observing.

1 hour ago, Second Time Around said:

We of course might be theoretical scientists, but are we entitled to call ourselves observational scientists if we don't record our observations rather than just stargazing?

What do others think?

I suggest that reporting observations is also important, though perhaps not strictly necessary. Quite a bit of science in the past has been published posthumously.

Turning to boasting now: rather a few of my photometric results now reside in the BAAVSS and AAVSO databases. Along with those of thousands of other astronomers, I hasten to add - I'm nothing special in that respect and other SGL contributors can say the same, I know at least one has partaken in this thread. I am also co-author of a paper in MNRAS but that was for purely desk- and computer-based work. I think of myself as a scientist. YMMV.

7 minutes ago, StevieDvd said:

An paleontologist looks at a small bone and says, this is what the Dinosaur looked like 65 million years ago.

An astronomer looks at a the sky and says, this is what this looked like 65 million years ago, but what it looks like now I can't say.

The paleontologist often wrongly guesses important characteristics.  Compare the Jurassic Park dinosaurs with the many species which we now know had feathers.

The astronomer can make pretty good guesses for many things - a red dwarf will look the same in 65 My as it does now - but doesn't have a clue for some others - what will Betelgeuse look like in only 65 ky?

3 hours ago, paulastro said:

Really?  Still don't care.

You can call me anything you like as long as you call me in time for dinner.

3 hours ago, JeremyS said:

Three pages of impassioned lexicology, literary criticism and epistemology, yet not a word from @ollypenrice 🤔

Been browsing your thesaurus again Jeremy?

What do you want to do? Pretty pictures or photometry? The answer may differ.

3 minutes ago, saac said:

Astrometry - never heard of it!   Astrometerists  is not very catchy, you need to call yourselves something like stargazers  

Tracking an asteroid is not science, it's a form of metrology. 

Jim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology: Metrology is the scientific study of measurement.

Nuff said.

8 minutes ago, Bivanus said:

Pray do tell, by whom do you seek to be taken semi-seriously? NASA ? ESA ? The Great Zog He Who Is Looking Back ? Because I can tell you me and others have no intention of being taken serious semi or otherwise but simply enjoy ourselves. 

Our peers?

16 minutes ago, SuburbanMak said:

If I go out to a darker site with a list of double stars to split, a specific DSO object to hunt down or solar system event to observe I like to think of myself as an "amateur astronomer", particularly if I record and share the results.  

If I head out with no plan and just gawp at my favourite objects & targets of opportunity, I would consider this "stargazing".

An almost textbook illustration of the difference between seeing and observing.

In audio, this would be hearing and listening.

2 hours ago, saac said:

I know there are other members who make real scientific studies with photometry and spectroscopy and they could rightly say they are amateur astronomers.

Oi!

What have you got against us wot do astrometry as well as photometry? We track asteroids you know, something which may well save your neck one day.

😄

To be serious: even the pretty picture brigade are well capable of doing real science. Typing "HOYS" into a search engine may prove enlightening.

Yes.

Think about it.

Point a very wide-angle lens at the celestial equator. Wait.  Those star with positive and negative declination will circle their respective celestial poles.

4 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

If that's similar to the Planewave 1000mm scope then the 31mm Nagler would give x194 

Very nice, but, I'm not sure I'd want to commit $575k to a scope, even with a lotto win 

If I had 2 megabucks to spare, I would definitely spend half of it on the 1m Planewave and the other half on cameras, filters, spectrographs, computers, software, housing, etc to be able to make good use of it. Even cameras don't come cheap when you would like to have >= 50mm diameter imaging area.

It would fit on the land still available here.

I have two 6" (150mm) refractors that don't get used any more

They are a pair of Fujinon 25x150 binoculars, mil-spec and originally used for coastal surveillance. An equatorial mount was built for them but that took a bit of damage (a bearing popped out and lost its balls) in the last house move.

Perhaps I should try selling them on but have absolutely no clue as to a fair price.

18 minutes ago, Gerr said:

La Palma is a beautiful Island and I will like to return. My Airb&b base was Puntagorda about 800m up. Took 40mins to get to the top of La Palma from there.😀👍

When you do, let me know. I plan to let out part of my place here to visitors but there is a lot of bureaucracy to overcome first.

Before buying Tacande Observatory, SWMBO and I stayed in a rather nice place in Puntagorda a couple of times. The bad wildfire of last year came right up to the edge of that villa but no further, so it is still in business AFAIK. The altitude sounds about right, so perhaps it was the same place.