Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [comets-ml] Another recovery attempt on C/2010 X1 (Elenin)

Expand Messages
  • Alan Hale
    Dear Jakub, and all, I agree that Giovanni s image deserves follow-up. But even he wisely concedes that this may be an artifact. To me, the two objects in the
    Message 1 of 27 , Oct 21, 2011
      Dear Jakub, and all,

      I agree that Giovanni's image deserves follow-up. But even he wisely
      concedes that this may be an artifact. To me, the two objects in the stacked
      images don't even look alike, and there is still the issue of how a small
      telescope like the one his group was using could record a comet that a
      2-meter telescope with a professional observatory-grade CCD could not. But
      again, let's see what follow-up observations reveal.

      In this spirit, I call attention to an image I took when I had my imaging
      system set up several years ago, posted at
      http://www.swisr.org/noncomet.html Just to the lower left of center is a
      "real" comet, while to the upper right you will see another diffuse cometary
      object, sporting a tail. (I in fact imaged several comets that looked
      something like this.) I had previously seen this object in a shorter
      exposure, and it shows well in this longer one; it was moving fairly
      rapidly, but I was able to obtain several additional images of it over the
      next half-hour or so before the telescope reached a physical limit it could
      not go beyond.

      I excitedly e-mailed Brian Marsden and Dan Green to tell them that I had a
      possible comet discovery. But when I was performing the astrometry, the
      positions seemed "strange," and I was less excited when I e-mailed the
      astrometry to them. Brian later politely e-mailed me to tell me that the
      positions "were not consistent with any viable orbital solution," or words
      to that effect.

      There was no moonlight, and no light sources around of any kind other than
      the stars in the sky. But, there are optical surfaces within the telescope
      and camera systems, struts that hold various pieces of the system in place,
      and so on. Somehow these all conspired with "something" -- perhaps a bright
      star -- to produce this "object" in the imaging plane that could be recorded
      by the camera on numerous images. But despite its appearance on these
      multiple images, it was no more "real" than the tooth fairy.


      Sincerely,

      Alan
    • Alan Hale
      October 22.32 UT: Mountain location (elevation 2200 meters), excellent sky conditions (M33 easily visible naked eye, Sculptor dwarf galaxy easily detectable
      Message 2 of 27 , Oct 22, 2011
        October 22.32 UT:

        Mountain location (elevation 2200 meters), excellent sky conditions (M33
        easily visible naked eye, Sculptor dwarf galaxy easily detectable visually
        in telescope):

        Approximately 30 minute search, 41 cm f/4.5 Newtonian reflector, at both 70x
        and 229x:

        No sign of comet whatsoever. No pale diffuse clouds, no suspects . . .
        nothing at all.


        Sincerely,

        Alan
      • Leonid Elenin
        Hi, My observations is running, FOV is 1.65x1.65 deg. I will stop it when the Moon will rise. Leonid Elenin, ISON-NM Observatory (H15)
        Message 3 of 27 , Oct 22, 2011
          Hi,

          My observations is running, FOV is 1.65x1.65 deg.
          I will stop it when the Moon will rise.


          Leonid Elenin,
          ISON-NM Observatory (H15)
        • Leonid Elenin
          I think very interesting observe this cloud by PS. Leonid
          Message 4 of 27 , Oct 22, 2011
            I think very interesting observe this cloud by PS.


            Leonid
          • walcom77
            More details about our images obtained few hours ago. The cloud is roughly 40 long with an extension of 6 near the expected position of the comet. Here you
            Message 5 of 27 , Oct 23, 2011
              More details about our images obtained few hours ago.

              The "cloud" is roughly 40' long with an extension of 6' near the
              expected position of the comet.

              Here you can see an image where the X marked the ephemeris position
              for comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin).

              http://bit.ly/pXxtpY

              And this is an animation showing the movement of the "cloud" along
              with to the movement of the expected comet's position:

              http://bit.ly/qOx8oF

              Ciao,
              Ernesto, Giovanni & Nick
              http://remanzacco.blogspot.com
              http://twitter.com/comets77
            • Alan Watson
              Gidday all, Good efforts by all, very interesting. Not wanting to stir the pot too much, but Elenin is still seen in STEREO HI2A images 10/20-21. It will be
              Message 6 of 27 , Oct 23, 2011
                Gidday all,
                Good efforts by all, very interesting. Not wanting to stir the pot too much,
                but Elenin is still seen in STEREO HI2A images 10/20-21.
                It will be passing above Uranus, and below asteroid Ganymed, in the centre
                of the FOV. It is best seem by its motion in a looping diff animation at
                60fps. You need to use brain discrimination to see it.
                What's brain discrimination, well you know the spotty pictures from the late
                80's, where if you stare at them for a while, your brain sorted out the dots
                and you could perceive a 3D object, a teapot or statue of liberty. Here its
                the motion of objects in the field that the brain syncs too, Uranus, Ganymed
                and Asteroid Euturpe are easy to see, Elenin is moving horizontal towards an
                intersection with Ganymed.

                Looking forward to see more great efforts from you guys, 45P is still very
                dynamic in STEREO, awaiting more CME's.

                Kind regards, Alan Watson
                http://cometal-comets.blogspot.com/


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • gvnn64
                Hi all, ... Indeed, treating the images after a good sleeping, the faint moving halo of C/2010 X1 (Elenin) can be seen also in the shoots obtained Friday
                Message 7 of 27 , Oct 24, 2011
                  Hi all,
                  quoting myself:

                  --- In comets-ml@yahoogroups.com, "gvnn64" <gvnn64@...> wrote:
                  > Myself, ì tried it a few hours ago from home with a similar setup, and found nothing convincing yet (will check again the field with less tired eyes).

                  Indeed, treating the images after a good sleeping, the faint moving halo of C/2010 X1 (Elenin) can be seen also in the shoots obtained Friday night, from the home of one of us (G.S.).

                  The images were obtained from a light-polluted suburban location, with a TeleVue NP127 (diameter 127mm, f/5.2) scope + unfiltered KAI11000 chip. Each stack (there are three of them) is 12 x 120 sec unfiltered exposures, in bin 3x3 (8.4"/px), with dithering.
                  North is up, and East to the left. The central time for each images stack is, respectively: 2011 Oct. 21.97480, Oct. 21.99475 and Oct. 22.01354

                  The animation is available here: http://tinyurl.com/5uxenep

                  Bye,
                  Giovanni, Ernesto and Nick
                • gvnn64@libero.it
                  ... After a good sleeping, and some further processin, the little moving cloud cloud be seen also on these sequences, obtained on Friday night from the
                  Message 8 of 27 , Oct 24, 2011
                    Quoting myself:

                    > Myself, ì tried it a few hours ago from home with a similar setup, and found nothing convincing yet (will check again the field with less tired eyes).

                    After a good sleeping, and some further processin, the little moving cloud cloud be seen also on these sequences, obtained on Friday night from the backyard of one of us (G.S.), a light-polluted suburban location, with a TeleVue NP127 (diameter 127mm, f/5.2) scope + KAI11000 chip.
                    Each stack is 12 x 120 sec unfiltered exposures, in bin 3x3 (8.4"/px), North is up, and East to the left.
                    The central time for each images stack is, respectively: 2011 Oct. 21.97480, Oct. 21.99475 and Oct. 22.01354

                    The animation is available here: http://tinyurl.com/5uxenep

                    Bye,
                    Giovanni, Ernesto and Nick
                  • walcom77
                    Hi All We updated again our blog with a new technique to analyze the debris of comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin) http://bit.ly/qbYQ8J Ciao, Ernesto Guido, Giovanni
                    Message 9 of 27 , Oct 24, 2011
                      Hi All

                      We updated again our blog with a new technique to analyze the debris
                      of comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin)

                      http://bit.ly/qbYQ8J

                      Ciao,
                      Ernesto Guido, Giovanni Sostero and Nick Howes
                      http://remanzacco.blogspot.com
                      http://twitter.com/comets77
                    • Leonid Elenin
                      Very interesting, thanks guys! Leonid
                      Message 10 of 27 , Oct 24, 2011
                        Very interesting, thanks guys!


                        Leonid
                      • jbortle@aol.com
                        Your excellent new processed images are obviously a dramatic improvement over what has recently been posted to this site and clarifies greatly just what C/2010
                        Message 11 of 27 , Oct 24, 2011
                          Your excellent new processed images are obviously a dramatic improvement
                          over what has recently been posted to this site and clarifies greatly just
                          what C/2010 X1's debris cloud really looks like in total. They should prove
                          of great assistance in assessing exactly what has happened to the comet
                          post-perihelion.

                          Would it be possible for you to indicate on the image(s) the ephemeris
                          position of the comet's nucleus/head for the date the images were obtained so
                          that we can see just what position it should have occupied within the
                          debris cloud (or if the location might even be situated sunward beyond the cloud
                          entirerly)?

                          J.Bortle



                          In a message dated 10/24/2011 2:09:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                          walcom77@... writes:




                          Hi All

                          We updated again our blog with a new technique to analyze the debris
                          of comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin)

                          _http://bit.ly/qbYQ8J_ (http://bit.ly/qbYQ8J)

                          Ciao,
                          Ernesto Guido, Giovanni Sostero and Nick Howes
                          _http://remanzacco.blogspot.com_ (http://remanzacco.blogspot.com/)
                          _http://twitter.com/comets77_ (http://twitter.com/comets77)





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • gvnn64@libero.it
                          Dear John and all. ... Thanks. This is a technique well known and practiced by the professionals, however it is completely new for us, so we are still in the
                          Message 12 of 27 , Oct 25, 2011
                            Dear John and all.

                            > Your excellent new processed images are obviously a dramatic improvement
                            > over what has recently been posted to this site and clarifies greatly just
                            > what C/2010 X1's debris cloud really looks like in total. They should prove
                            > of great assistance in assessing exactly what has happened to the comet
                            > post-perihelion.

                            Thanks. This is a technique well known and practiced by the professionals, however it is completely new for us, so we are still in the (steep) learning curve phase. The big issue is mainly to match size and profile of the field stars, in order to optimize the star-subtraction technique, without introducing artefacts (not an easy task).
                            Anyway, today we prepared a second rendition of the previous image, where we had a significative improvement over the background noise (see link below) due to a better star profile matching.

                            > Would it be possible for you to indicate on the image(s) the ephemeris
                            > position of the comet's nucleus/head for the date the images were obtained so
                            > that we can see just what position it should have occupied within the
                            > debris cloud (or if the location might even be situated sunward beyond the cloud
                            > entirerly)?

                            Sure: if you get a look at the previous post on ours blog, we added a panel with the new rendition, where we put some notes (scroll down here): http://tinyurl.com/6yyla9v

                            It seems that the "brightest" part of this extremely faint blob of light, is located about 4.3-arcmin in PA 77 deg (east-northeast) compared to the nominal position of the MPC ephemerids. Incidentally, this places this faint feature nearly overlapped to the line of variation (T about -0-03 days of correction).

                            However we don't know which are the error bars associated with the MPC nominal ephemerids.

                            Anyway, if any boulder-like remain is expected to be seen, we suggest to investigate about 4.3-arcmin N-NE of the nominal position.

                            Bye,
                            Giovanni Sostero, Ernesto Guido and Nick Howes

                            http://remanzacco.blogspot.com
                          • jbortle@aol.com
                            Thank you gentlemen ever so much for your efforts in answering my questions and providing these extraordinary images. In examining the debris cloud relative to
                            Message 13 of 27 , Oct 25, 2011
                              Thank you gentlemen ever so much for your efforts in answering my questions
                              and providing these extraordinary images.

                              In examining the debris cloud relative to the predicted position of comet's
                              nucleus based on the MPC numbers and taking projection circumstances into
                              consideration (which are highly significant in the present case), what I
                              feel that we are seeing is evidence that the comet itself totally and utterly
                              disintegrated shortly prior to or during its perihelion passage, producing
                              essentially a sheet of surviving dust particles differentiated by mass
                              and spread out in the comet's orbital plane. These particles would be
                              situated beyond the actual orbital track that the former nucleus/coma should
                              currently occupy just as the plot suggests and be moving outward from it. Such a
                              situation would, my opinion, produce just the sort of seemingly tilted
                              (relative to the orbit) and highly elongated nebulous train as is visble in
                              the current images.

                              If this interpretation is correct, then just as I had recently come to
                              suspect, any magnitudes secured since about late September would probably no
                              longer be justifiable as actual magnitudes of the comet's "coma", since no
                              such physical feature existed any longer. What is being estimated would be
                              technically a sort of very broad and spreading tail, roughly similar to the
                              situation with C/1887 B1.

                              Thus, the earlier posted contention that recent magnitudes do not and
                              should not be taken to represent the post-perihelion photometric behavior of
                              C/2010 X1 in any lightcurve I feel would indeed be valid, as no viable comet
                              in the usual sense remains.

                              J.Bortle




                              In a message dated 10/25/2011 9:45:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                              gvnn64@... writes:

                              >Dear John and all.

                              > Your excellent new processed images are obviously a dramatic improvement
                              > over what has recently been posted to this site and clarifies greatly
                              just
                              > what C/2010 X1's debris cloud really looks like in total. They should
                              prove
                              > of great assistance in assessing exactly what has happened to the comet
                              > post-perihelion.

                              Thanks. This is a technique well known and practiced by the professionals,
                              however it is completely new for us, so we are still in the (steep)
                              learning curve phase. The big issue is mainly to match size and profile of the
                              field stars, in order to optimize the star-subtraction technique, without
                              introducing artefacts (not an easy task).
                              Anyway, today we prepared a second rendition of the previous image, where
                              we had a significative improvement over the background noise (see link
                              below) due to a better star profile matching.

                              > Would it be possible for you to indicate on the image(s) the ephemeris
                              > position of the comet's nucleus/head for the date the images were
                              obtained so
                              > that we can see just what position it should have occupied within the
                              > debris cloud (or if the location might even be situated sunward beyond
                              the cloud
                              > entirerly)?

                              Sure: if you get a look at the previous post on ours blog, we added a
                              panel with the new rendition, where we put some notes (scroll down here):
                              _http://tinyurl.com/6yyla9v_ (http://tinyurl.com/6yyla9v)

                              It seems that the "brightest" part of this extremely faint blob of light,
                              is located about 4.3-arcmin in PA 77 deg (east-northeast) compared to the
                              nominal position of the MPC ephemerids. Incidentally, this places this faint
                              feature nearly overlapped to the line of variation (T about -0-03 days of
                              correction).

                              However we don't know which are the error bars associated with the MPC
                              nominal ephemerids.

                              Anyway, if any boulder-like remain is expected to be seen, we suggest to
                              investigate about 4.3-arcmin N-NE of the nominal position.

                              Bye,
                              Giovanni Sostero, Ernesto Guido and Nick Howes

                              _http://remanzacco.blogspot.com_ (http://remanzacco.blogspot.com/)







                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Juan José González Suárez
                              Giovanni, John, and friends, ... Giovanni, Ernesto and Nick: congratulations for your splendid imaging work. Is also good to read your suggestion : ... if
                              Message 14 of 27 , Oct 25, 2011
                                Giovanni, John, and friends,


                                > ...
                                > It seems that the "brightest" part of this extremely faint blob of light, is located about 4.3-arcmin in PA 77 deg (east-northeast) compared to the nominal position of the MPC ephemerids. Incidentally, this places this faint feature nearly overlapped to the line of variation (T about -0-03 days of correction).
                                > ...
                                >
                                > Anyway, if any boulder-like remain is expected to be seen, we suggest to investigate about 4.3-arcmin N-NE of the nominal position.
                                >

                                Giovanni, Ernesto and Nick: congratulations for your splendid
                                imaging work. Is also good to read your suggestion : " ... if any
                                boulder-like remain is expected to be seen, we suggest to investigate
                                about 4.3-arcmin N-NE of the nominal position". It would be really very
                                interesting to see the result of an imaging attempt made with a great
                                aperture telescope, ruling out ( or not ... ) the existence of any
                                possible "boulder-like remains as seen at the time of C/1999 S4 (Linear)
                                disruption through the VLT and HST".


                                > ...
                                >
                                > In examining the debris cloud relative to the predicted position of comet's
                                > nucleus ... what I feel that we are seeing is evidence that the comet itself totally and utterly disintegrated shortly prior to or during its perihelion passage, producing essentially a sheet of surviving dust particles differentiated by mass and spread out in the comet's orbital plane ...
                                > ...
                                > If this interpretation is correct, then just as I had recently come to
                                > suspect, any magnitudes secured since about late September would probably no
                                > longer be justifiable as actual magnitudes of the comet's "coma", since no
                                > such physical feature existed any longer. What is being estimated would be
                                > technically a sort of very broad and spreading tail ...
                                >
                                > Thus, the earlier posted contention that recent magnitudes do not and
                                > should not be taken to represent the post-perihelion photometric behavior of
                                > C/2010 X1 in any lightcurve I feel would indeed be valid, as no viable comet
                                > in the usual sense remains.
                                >


                                John, your interpretation about the disintegration is probably
                                correct. But until we have a definitive confirmation, or convincing
                                enough confirmation ( such as a the aforementioned deep image made with
                                a great aperture telescope ), it wouldn't be correct enough to rule out
                                the existence of some kind of "coma-like" feature around any
                                "boulder-like remain" or remains.

                                So, I can't agree ( at the present moment ) on your comment, "...
                                any magnitudes secured since about late September would probably no
                                longer be justifiable...".

                                Further more, I can't agree on your sentence "What is being
                                estimated would be technically a sort of very broad and spreading tail
                                ... ".
                                I'm sorry for repeating again this ( I tried to say it as clearly as
                                possible from the beginning ... ), but on my Oct. 9.20 and 21.00 UT
                                visual observations the m1 estimates were made ONLY for the apparent
                                coma, as usual for a "normal" diffuse comet with tail.

                                Quoting myself from the previous mail:
                                "The m1 estimate on Oct. 21 did refer to the sunward end of the
                                cloud, one of the observed "two near-circular areas of similar
                                brightness with a slightly higher degree of condensation and 7' of
                                diameter". The value, m1=10.2 ( Sidgwick ), isn't "much too bright",
                                was obtained according to the habitual protocol".

                                Considering the visually observable remnant "cloud" as a whole (
                                approximately 7'x24' on my Oct. 21 observation ), any possible visual
                                estimate of the integrated magnitude of this nebula-like object would
                                have given a value higher than 9.0.

                                As previously told: we, visual observers, must report a comet's ( or
                                comet-related object ) observation as accurately as we can, from the
                                eyepiece to the paper.
                                This has been my only purpose regarding this case, without any
                                biased preassumption about the detailed structure of the comet's remnant.

                                So, taking all the previous into account, I only partially agree on
                                your comment "... recent magnitudes do not and should not be taken to
                                represent the post-perihelion photometric behavior of C/2010 X1 in any
                                lightcurve ...".

                                But ... Up to this moment, as far as I know, the only available
                                photometry ( related to the actual state of evolution of C/2010 X1 ) is
                                the visual one ( Paradowski, Gonzalez, Cerny ).
                                ( I agree, this is a humble contribution ... ).

                                Finally ... We can't forget that the visual m1 estimates are the
                                true blood of the serious visual observation of comets. In a time when
                                dedicated observers are more and more scarce, this kind of "CCD vs.
                                Visual" ( or related ) "wars" are giving the wrong kind of motivation
                                for the future observers, and for the linked continuity of such a long
                                historic branch of Astronomy.

                                Best regards,


                                Juan Jose Gonzalez
                              • Nick Howes - FT Project
                                Well said in your closing statement. Your visual observations are what inspired our team to keep trying to image Elenin, so thank you JJ
                                Message 15 of 27 , Oct 26, 2011
                                  Well said in your closing statement. Your visual observations are what inspired our team to keep trying to image Elenin, so thank you JJ

                                  --- In comets-ml@yahoogroups.com, Juan José González Suárez <jjgonzalez@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Giovanni, John, and friends,
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > ...
                                  > > It seems that the "brightest" part of this extremely faint blob of light, is located about 4.3-arcmin in PA 77 deg (east-northeast) compared to the nominal position of the MPC ephemerids. Incidentally, this places this faint feature nearly overlapped to the line of variation (T about -0-03 days of correction).
                                  > > ...
                                  > >
                                  > > Anyway, if any boulder-like remain is expected to be seen, we suggest to investigate about 4.3-arcmin N-NE of the nominal position.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Giovanni, Ernesto and Nick: congratulations for your splendid
                                  > imaging work. Is also good to read your suggestion : " ... if any
                                  > boulder-like remain is expected to be seen, we suggest to investigate
                                  > about 4.3-arcmin N-NE of the nominal position". It would be really very
                                  > interesting to see the result of an imaging attempt made with a great
                                  > aperture telescope, ruling out ( or not ... ) the existence of any
                                  > possible "boulder-like remains as seen at the time of C/1999 S4 (Linear)
                                  > disruption through the VLT and HST".
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > ...
                                  > >
                                  > > In examining the debris cloud relative to the predicted position of comet's
                                  > > nucleus ... what I feel that we are seeing is evidence that the comet itself totally and utterly disintegrated shortly prior to or during its perihelion passage, producing essentially a sheet of surviving dust particles differentiated by mass and spread out in the comet's orbital plane ...
                                  > > ...
                                  > > If this interpretation is correct, then just as I had recently come to
                                  > > suspect, any magnitudes secured since about late September would probably no
                                  > > longer be justifiable as actual magnitudes of the comet's "coma", since no
                                  > > such physical feature existed any longer. What is being estimated would be
                                  > > technically a sort of very broad and spreading tail ...
                                  > >
                                  > > Thus, the earlier posted contention that recent magnitudes do not and
                                  > > should not be taken to represent the post-perihelion photometric behavior of
                                  > > C/2010 X1 in any lightcurve I feel would indeed be valid, as no viable comet
                                  > > in the usual sense remains.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > John, your interpretation about the disintegration is probably
                                  > correct. But until we have a definitive confirmation, or convincing
                                  > enough confirmation ( such as a the aforementioned deep image made with
                                  > a great aperture telescope ), it wouldn't be correct enough to rule out
                                  > the existence of some kind of "coma-like" feature around any
                                  > "boulder-like remain" or remains.
                                  >
                                  > So, I can't agree ( at the present moment ) on your comment, "...
                                  > any magnitudes secured since about late September would probably no
                                  > longer be justifiable...".
                                  >
                                  > Further more, I can't agree on your sentence "What is being
                                  > estimated would be technically a sort of very broad and spreading tail
                                  > ... ".
                                  > I'm sorry for repeating again this ( I tried to say it as clearly as
                                  > possible from the beginning ... ), but on my Oct. 9.20 and 21.00 UT
                                  > visual observations the m1 estimates were made ONLY for the apparent
                                  > coma, as usual for a "normal" diffuse comet with tail.
                                  >
                                  > Quoting myself from the previous mail:
                                  > "The m1 estimate on Oct. 21 did refer to the sunward end of the
                                  > cloud, one of the observed "two near-circular areas of similar
                                  > brightness with a slightly higher degree of condensation and 7' of
                                  > diameter". The value, m1=10.2 ( Sidgwick ), isn't "much too bright",
                                  > was obtained according to the habitual protocol".
                                  >
                                  > Considering the visually observable remnant "cloud" as a whole (
                                  > approximately 7'x24' on my Oct. 21 observation ), any possible visual
                                  > estimate of the integrated magnitude of this nebula-like object would
                                  > have given a value higher than 9.0.
                                  >
                                  > As previously told: we, visual observers, must report a comet's ( or
                                  > comet-related object ) observation as accurately as we can, from the
                                  > eyepiece to the paper.
                                  > This has been my only purpose regarding this case, without any
                                  > biased preassumption about the detailed structure of the comet's remnant.
                                  >
                                  > So, taking all the previous into account, I only partially agree on
                                  > your comment "... recent magnitudes do not and should not be taken to
                                  > represent the post-perihelion photometric behavior of C/2010 X1 in any
                                  > lightcurve ...".
                                  >
                                  > But ... Up to this moment, as far as I know, the only available
                                  > photometry ( related to the actual state of evolution of C/2010 X1 ) is
                                  > the visual one ( Paradowski, Gonzalez, Cerny ).
                                  > ( I agree, this is a humble contribution ... ).
                                  >
                                  > Finally ... We can't forget that the visual m1 estimates are the
                                  > true blood of the serious visual observation of comets. In a time when
                                  > dedicated observers are more and more scarce, this kind of "CCD vs.
                                  > Visual" ( or related ) "wars" are giving the wrong kind of motivation
                                  > for the future observers, and for the linked continuity of such a long
                                  > historic branch of Astronomy.
                                  >
                                  > Best regards,
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Juan Jose Gonzalez
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.