Return to Home Page
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Taichi Kato wrote: > 4C 29.45 etc. He positively recorded these objects at around 15 or > sometimes fainter (I even saw a report of 16.2 or possibly below this). > The values are not inconsistent with the modern knowledge, and were not > inconsistent with the quasi-simultaneous photographic observations > (the object was sometimes undetected by a 30cm photographic instrument, > but was positively recorded by a 10cm visual observation). Shouldn't confirmations not be done the other way around? Certainly, even if one makes a dubious positive observation at a 5% rate or less, its accuracy would be much lower than the normal +/-0.1 for visual. Mike Linnolt
Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
