Re: (IAAC) Negative Logs
Kim Gowney asked:
>I recently failed to see some objects that were just outside the reach of my 8
>inch Newt'n , I wondered if logging these would serve any purpose in the IAAC,
>obviously it would serve no purpose to log stuff that was way outside the reach
>of a particular instrument, but what about those things that are on the very
>edge, here of course there is only the listed magnitude to go by and previous
>discussions on that have made it clear that such listing are not 100% reliable,
>but they are all most of us have access to right now.
Kim, what a great question - thank you for posting it! I think that "ain't no"
observations (that is, logs where you are recording the fact that you did NOT
manage to see something) are very, very useful. We welcome them on IAAC...
However, before we get flooded with a blizzard of logs like "I couldn't find
this" or "I keyed in the coordinates on my GOTO scope and the field was empty",
it definitely makes sense to give some SUGGESTIONS on these "ain't no" logs!
1 Please ONLY consider sending a log on an object you DIDN'T see, *if* you have
tried to see the object repeatedly and are SURE OF ITS LOCATION. This means not
just its RA/Dec in the sky, but its position relative to other objects in the
same field (most notably stars), whose identity you know and which you DID see.
2 Also, if you have seen the object before with similar instrumentation and/or
conditions, but failed to see the object on a particular occasion, then please
*definitely* send an "ain't no" log, especially if you think you might be able
to identify the *REASON* why you failed to see it on this one try.
I hope these guidelines are useful? As I say, I think careful well thought-out
"ain't no" logs can be just as helpful as logs where you DID see the object!
Clear skies, folks, and may your "got ones" outnumber your "ain't nones". :)
To stop receiving all 'netastrocatalog' lists, use the Web form at: