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". :)