Re: Planet X: Only Amateurs with 24 inch Scopes Need Apply

In Article <c6cdf9f8.0206260147.1bcf4c66@posting.google.com> Open Minded wrote:
> In Article <afbjrq$jhs$5@quark.scn.rain.com> Bill Nelson wrote:
>> I think you underestimate the number of large amateur scopes, 
>> or the number of large scopes available to amateurs.
>> 
>> I live in a city of about 50,000 people, and I personally know 
>> of at least 6 reflectors with diameters larger than 24". There are 
>> also two observatories within a few hours drive that have 
>> large "professional" scopes.
>
> Actually, I am pretty well aware of the numbers ... my point is 
> that I do not think that Nancy's followers had 24 inch telescopes
> in mind when Nancy said her planet was previously only 
> viewable by observatory grade telescopes but in mid-2002 it 
> would be viewable by amateurs.

Oh, now you're a spokesperson for "Nancy's followers" Open Minded?  
I don't think so.  Not any more than Mark Hazlewood is a spokesperson 
for ZetaTalk.  Though that was, I'm sure, the PLAN.

In Article <c6cdf9f8.0206250448.1766b9d0@posting.google.com> Open Minded wrote:
> So Nancy says that only if all the stars in the OHP 
> Jan 19 image comparable to the star that she (in error) 
> claims to be her planet are visible with your telescope 
> will you be able to see her planet.  I have done a 
> photometric solution of the FITS image of the region.  
> The stars she is talking about are about 18th magnitude 
> and fainter.  You can go to 
> http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/astro/maglimit.html 
> to calculate the limiting magnitude of your telescope 
> when viewing with the eye.  To reach 18th magnitude 
> requires something like a 24 inch scope.  While many 
> amateurs have scopes this large, I think that Nancy's 
> followers expected that she meant something a bit 
> smaller when she made her prediction.