few days ago I consulted the WDS catalog to see if the data we have published in OED6, both measures and discoveries of new pairs were added to the database. I checked the references themselves are listed in corresponding file, a fact which shows that Brian Mason is already working with the new OED delivery. Normally, according to previous experience, data from a number of OED are added to the catalog within the month following publication. In this sense, it is remarkable how quickly and to thank the diligence and USNO team in carrying out these tasks.
Well, during my consulting the index catalog I got an unexpected and pleasant surprise: I found a couple with my code viewer (MRI) which had no notion of having no conscience discovered. It is system WDS 00032 +7619 , labeled with the number 7 of my personal catalog: MRI 7. I was shocked and in disbelief and my first thought is that it was a mistake. This is the entry in the WDS:
According to the data, it is a couple bright (magnitudes 8.4 and 13.1) and open (49 ") that located in Cepheus. has two official measures (times 2000 and 2007) and the proper motions listed indicate that this is a common proper motion pair (MPC). At this point my level of curiosity was fired and entered the precise coordinates Aladin system in order to see the look of my "discovery." Here I show an image DSS with the superposition of the proper motion vectors according to data UCAC3.
The more I looked the couple was less conscious of having discovered, as if something that works for me fairly well, there is nothing more than memory; at least for now. As in all and before a sudden, it is logical reasoning without being carried away by the side effects of surprise. I thought, "I discovered if I should be referenced in any of my work "and therefore " in the archive file system must appear where it was published the finding ". If none of these assumptions were true it would be a mistake and should be communicated. Consequently, I asked the USNO archive the above measures and in two days I had on my computer. This is the data I found:
Curious: to see references MRI is clear that 7 is released in a paper of mine published in 2009, specifically, at No. 5, JDSO [Double-Star CCD Measurements at Palomares Road Astronomical Observatory (OACP) - First Series] . In this article published measurements made in 2007. We also see that there is another far more ancient (2000) added to the catalog in 2010 by one F. Damm and Brian Mason notified by private communication. Probably, this measure comes from the 2MASS astrometry, according to the findings I have made.
De followed
went to see the article in my notebook comment 2007. I have the healthy habit of archiving all my observations hardware ordered by year (in addition to keeping computer files). It's a hobby like any other, but with my hands touching my work gives me a good feeling. I do not know, is like feeling that my hours at the computer telescope and materialize into something more than just memories and I keep each volume as a precious treasure on the shelves of my study. Sometimes I think they are romantic reminiscences struggling to survive the cold and impersonal computer technology. In each of the volumes include the final article, my personal notes and each of the reports generated by NR during measurements. I have in mind, when you have some time, also include a DVD with all images and documents relating to each campaign. Look, this is the book of 2007.
Even knowing he would not find anything thoroughly checked the text in search of some note, if only subliminally, that reveals an MRI 7. And of course, no trace. It just remains to inspect the dimension table to find values \u200b\u200b= 308.89 º Theta and Rho = 48.982, in anticipation of my mistake in identifying one of the double standards. ¡Et voilá!: en la sexta entrada de la tabla de medidas estaban los valores buscados, así como la fecha de observación que, por lógica, también coincidía... ¡pero todo ello asociado a la estrella doble HJ 3237!:
En ese momento todo estuvo claro, transparente. Recuerdo perfectamente que cuando Brian Mason estaba añadiendo al WDS esta serie de medidas, me envió un correo comentándome que mis medidas para HJ 3237 no eran congruentes con las mediciones históricas y que comprobara mi archivo por si había algún error. Tras medir nuevamente las imágenes y al obtener los mismos resultados, le contesté que, evidentemente, I was wrong in identifying and what I had measured was not HJ 3237. Of course, I told him to throw out the measure. Also remember that it was then, and so I indicated, I decided to collate all my measures with relevant historical records, to avoid in future this type of confusion. And it's something I've been to the letter since then, of course. From here, I forgot about it and did not give more importance. However, in the registration page of my notebook HJ 3237 Observation wrote: "Rejected, this is not."
seems logical to assume that if the identification was wrong MRI is because 7 is about HJ 3237. Again using Aladin I have found that the two couples far about 8.5 minutes of arc and that both are very similar, both regarding the orientation of the components as the magnitudes. Hence the error. Look.
But then, how is that my actions were to stop MRI 7? It is assumed that the pair were recently added to our catalog as above (MRI 6) was included at the end of 2010 and MRI 7 is back, tells you precisely own "seven". I think that the aforementioned astronomer F. Damm has been responsible for unraveling the case. On the one hand, he would realize that my HJ3237 measure listed in the article was wrong and JDSO other, surely the MPC found near the couple, thus linking two pairs. By private communication alerted Brian Mason of the whole thing and he chose to label MRI 7 by considering sufficiently interesting. If so, as has happened all I want to show my appreciation to F. Damm, through whom MRI is a more (and Brian Mason supesto). Here you have the original image OACP taken in September 2007.
As time available I will make a research astrophysicist and characterization of the components. After all the dye that has engulfed anecdotal MRI 7, I think the case deserves it. What things ... has been the discovery of a discovery . Here.
