Binary Orbits Revisited!

The place to discuss creating, porting and modifying Celestia's source code.
ElChristou
Developer
Posts: 3776
Joined: 04.02.2005
With us: 19 years 11 months

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #81by ElChristou » 18.03.2009, 17:40

t00fri wrote:...After all Sirius A and Sirius B exist...

I guess what Grant means is in the mythology (or perhaps the collective unconscious) Sirius is... Sirius... (and not Sirius A or B). And in fact, looking at the sky, the light you see is the result of the entire system, not from one of the stars only... So perhaps it would be better to say "this is Sirius (referring to the system)" and not the is Sirius (referring to the star = wrong because the star "Sirius" do not exist)) or this is Sirius A (better but also wrong in part...)...
Image

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 10 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #82by t00fri » 18.03.2009, 17:53

ElChristou wrote:
t00fri wrote:...After all Sirius A and Sirius B exist...

I guess what Grant means is in the mythology (or perhaps the collective unconscious) Sirius is... Sirius... (and not Sirius A or B). And in fact, looking at the sky, the light you see is the result of the entire system, not from one of the stars only... So perhaps it would be better to say "this is Sirius (referring to the system)" and not the is Sirius (referring to the star = wrong because the star "Sirius" do not exist)) or this is Sirius A (better but also wrong in part...)...

We'll sure read shortly what he meant. Meanwhile, let me cite from my "favorite" resource (Wikipedia :lol: ):

wiki wrote:What the naked eye perceives as a single star is actually a binary star system, consisting of a white main sequence star of spectral type A1V, termed Sirius A, and a faint white dwarf companion of spectral type DA2, termed Sirius B.

Fridger

PS
Already as an adolescent telescope fanatic, I was keen to spot Sirius B exploiting all sorts of hexagonal masks that can be rotated for best viewing of nearby dim components in the glare from the "big" primary...
Image

granthutchison
Developer
Posts: 1863
Joined: 21.11.2002
With us: 22 years 2 months

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #83by granthutchison » 18.03.2009, 18:50

Well, what I meant actually doesn't work. :(
I'm a little vexed by the appearance of "Sirius A" and "Procyon A" in the sky of Earth as seen in Celestia, and would prefer just plain "Sirius" and "Procyon". I had assumed that moving the Hip number to associate it with the barycentre (and therefore the "clean" system name) would fix that for me, but it doesn't. <sigh.> When binaries are viewed from a great distance, we see either the name of the brighter star, or the names of the two components superimposed. Makes sense.

Grant

chris
Site Admin
Posts: 4211
Joined: 28.01.2002
With us: 23 years
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #84by chris » 18.03.2009, 19:02

granthutchison wrote:Well, what I meant actually doesn't work. :(
I'm a little vexed by the appearance of "Sirius A" and "Procyon A" in the sky of Earth as seen in Celestia, and would prefer just plain "Sirius" and "Procyon". I had assumed that moving the Hip number to associate it with the barycentre (and therefore the "clean" system name) would fix that for me, but it doesn't. <sigh.> When binaries are viewed from a great distance, we see either the name of the brighter star, or the names of the two components superimposed. Makes sense.

I think that a code fix is probably necessary to make this work. We need to figure out a good rule to show the name of the system at a distance and the names of the components at close range.

--Chris

ElChristou
Developer
Posts: 3776
Joined: 04.02.2005
With us: 19 years 11 months

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #85by ElChristou » 18.03.2009, 19:15

chris wrote:...I think that a code fix is probably necessary to make this work. We need to figure out a good rule to show the name of the system at a distance and the names of the components at close range.

In the case of Sirius, "Sirius" till 1ly from the barycenter then on a short distance, fade off of "Sirius", fade in of "Sirius A" and "Sirius B"... (the two fade effect in the same time)
If well done, the user will have a smooth change almost invisible...

Edit:
In fact, you have already a rule for the fade in of the second star; it's at this point the fade off of the system's label could be attached to get a good result...
Last edited by ElChristou on 18.03.2009, 19:23, edited 2 times in total.
Image

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 10 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #86by t00fri » 18.03.2009, 19:19

chris wrote:
granthutchison wrote:Well, what I meant actually doesn't work. :(
I'm a little vexed by the appearance of "Sirius A" and "Procyon A" in the sky of Earth as seen in Celestia, and would prefer just plain "Sirius" and "Procyon". I had assumed that moving the Hip number to associate it with the barycentre (and therefore the "clean" system name) would fix that for me, but it doesn't. <sigh.> When binaries are viewed from a great distance, we see either the name of the brighter star, or the names of the two components superimposed. Makes sense.

I think that a code fix is probably necessary to make this work. We need to figure out a good rule to show the name of the system at a distance and the names of the components at close range.

--Chris

I suppose you are referring mainly to the labels, rather than the options offered in the command line.

If I switch on the star labels then I see Sirius A overlaying Sirius B. That is not very nice and can be easily fixed for large enough distances in the label code of render.cpp.

But in the command line I want to see always Sirius, Sirius A and Sirius B as possible GOTO options.

We should also keep in mind that in many places Celestia effectively visualizes the Universe as seen in a smallish telescope rather than with truly naked eye vision. As I mentioned, with some tricks Sirius B can be seen in amateur telescopes (~ 8" distance from Sirius A. My 8 inch telescope resolves double stars of similar brightness down to 0.5"! It's the glare problem in case of Sirius B, not the diffraction) . So at the level of smallish earthbound telescopes, many double stars are double from the beginning...
Where do you want to draw the transition line?

For me it's important to associate the system's barycenter with the single star limit at large distance.

Fridger
Image

chris
Site Admin
Posts: 4211
Joined: 28.01.2002
With us: 23 years
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #87by chris » 18.03.2009, 21:04

t00fri wrote:
chris wrote:
granthutchison wrote:Well, what I meant actually doesn't work. :(
I'm a little vexed by the appearance of "Sirius A" and "Procyon A" in the sky of Earth as seen in Celestia, and would prefer just plain "Sirius" and "Procyon". I had assumed that moving the Hip number to associate it with the barycentre (and therefore the "clean" system name) would fix that for me, but it doesn't. <sigh.> When binaries are viewed from a great distance, we see either the name of the brighter star, or the names of the two components superimposed. Makes sense.

I think that a code fix is probably necessary to make this work. We need to figure out a good rule to show the name of the system at a distance and the names of the components at close range.

--Chris

I suppose you are referring mainly to the labels, rather than the options offered in the command line.

If I switch on the star labels then I see Sirius A overlaying Sirius B. That is not very nice and can be easily fixed for large enough distances in the label code of render.cpp.

But in the command line I want to see always Sirius, Sirius A and Sirius B as possible GOTO options.
Yes, I was referring to the labels. In the command line, I agree with you that Sirius, Sirius A, and Sirius B should all appear.

Fixing the labels is *mostly* easy, but there are some cases that complicate things a bit. For example, it would be embarrassing if the label for the Sun were replaced by "Solar System Barycenter." :)

We should also keep in mind that in many places Celestia effectively visualizes the Universe as seen in a smallish telescope rather than with truly naked eye vision. As I mentioned, with some tricks Sirius B can be seen in amateur telescopes (~ 8" distance from Sirius A. My 8 inch telescope resolves double stars of similar brightness down to 0.5"! It's the glare problem in case of Sirius B, not the diffraction) . So at the level of smallish earthbound telescopes, many double stars are double from the beginning...
Where do you want to draw the transition line?

I'd say that the transition should occur when the distance between two stars in a pair is some 'reasonable' number of pixels apart, maybe 20. The estimated orbital radii are stored with stars, so it's easy to make a quick calculation. It's still possible that the stars and their labels would overlap when projected onto the image plane, but this is no different than what happens with planet labels.

--Chris

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 10 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #88by t00fri » 18.03.2009, 21:47

chris wrote:Fixing the labels is *mostly* easy, but there are some cases that complicate things a bit. For example, it would be embarrassing if the label for the Sun were replaced by "Solar System Barycenter." :)

-Chris

That would look VERY scientific ;-) . No, of course, that's not what we want. I'd like to be more simplistic (only for the labels ;-) ) and --if possible-- just use the popular names at large distance: Sun, Sirius, Procyon etc. That doesn't look too difficult.

In my new, completely revised visualbins/spectbins data files, the popular names (from starnames.dat) are the first in the row of barycenter names. Next come the familiar Bayer-Flamsteed type notations (if existing), next come GJ xxx, then ADS xxx, finally for more serious cross referencing with CCDM and WDS double star catalogs, I display the CCDM Jxxxx+-yyyy labels. SIMBAD also puts large weight on CCDM designations.

I made all barycenter designations strictly SIMBAD compatible, while for the components this is not always possible (since SIMBAD is not very good at components...).
I'd say that the transition should occur when the distance between two stars in a pair is some 'reasonable' number of pixels apart, maybe 20.

But that needs to be calculated each time, since the mutual distance is time dependent.
(strongly so sometimes!) This could give a clutter when people hit the keys and let the doubles "dance" with "lightspeed"...

Fridger
Image

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 10 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #89by t00fri » 02.04.2009, 15:36

Hi all,

today, I have checked in to SVN my significant update on Celestia's binary star database.

Well, my new binary *.stc data files result altogether from about 1000 lines of completely rewritten Perl code. As I noted elsewhere, the code is downgraded a bit from my Celestia.Sci version (in preparation), which in addition includes real-time downloading of all needed catalogs by means of a Perl ftp module...

Since this is a considerable rewrite, it "deserves" adequate testing efforts (beyond my own!).

Here are the most important news:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  • Overlaps with Grant's 'nearstars.stc' have been cleanly eliminated by means of a unique and simple <= 25 ly splitting criterion ;-) . Alleluia!

  • Barycenter distances and coordinates are now from Andrew's revised HIP stars. (stars.txt and revised.stc in SVN)

  • Complete and exact SIMBAD compatibility of nomenclature (including spaces etc) at the barycenter level has been implemented.

  • I introduced a new "component parser" in my Perl scripts. It names the binary components, depending on whether SIMBAD denotes the barycenter name as:

    <name> ==> <name> A <name> B
    <name> A ==> <name> Aa <name> Ab
    <name> B ==> <name> Ba <name> Bb
    <name> AB ==> <name> A <name> B

    etc.

    This fancyness comes about, since some binaries in my listings are actually
    subsystems of multiple stars with > 2 components...

    Note: Syntax compatibility with SIMBAD cannot be maintained entirely at the
    component level, since SIMBAD is not specializing on multiple systems, really.

  • For each binary, there is now an extensive listing of important alternative names, ordered by decreasing "popularity"/mnemonics:

    ** popular starnames (<== starnames.dat) [e.g. Capella:Alhajot]
    ** Bayer-Flamsteed notation (if existing) [e.g. ALF Aur:13 Aur]
    ** extensions thereoff
    ** GJ xxx (Gliese & Jahreiss, if existing) [e.g. GJ 194]
    ** ADS xxx (Aitken, Double stars, if existing) [e.g. ADS 3841 AP]
    ** CCDM Jxxxxx+-yyyy (if existing. Almost synonymous with the WDS!)
    [e.g. CCDM J05168+4559AP]
    ** HIP number
    ** HD number
    ** SAO number

  • Both large, authoritative catalogs (WDS[2009], SB9[2009]) on visual and
    spectroscopic double stars are scanned
    for information on the
    spectral types and app.mags. of individual components!

  • Redoublings among visualbins.stc and spectbins.stc are eliminated and spectbins data are added to visualbins in that case...

  • As a last resort for lacking entries, I have replaced the arbitrary '?' and m_Vis = 5.0 assignments for the components in question by the respective data for the entire HIP system. I think this is altogether a more sensible approach, as discussed elsewhere...

  • Systems that have been moved to 'nearstars' or would amount to a redoubling
    have been commented out by the Perl script and respective comments are added in the
    data files, also about necessary rough, "last resort" approximations.


Please do some testing, if you have a little spare time...

Special issues to watch out for in my updates:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  • There may always be a "catch" in some Perl regular expression, possibly leading to a spurious (typo-like) inconsistency, notably from the new component parser.

  • The barycenter nomenclature (including ALL alternative names) should be SIMBAD compatible without exception (including spaces etc)!

Here is the URL of SIMBAD, the universal astronomical database with "world impact".

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/

Click on "by identifier" and enter my barycenter names, to see whether SIMBAD recognizes all of them!!

In case of doubt as to the component allocations, you best start the ALADIN Java applet located at the bottom of the SIMBAD page, and plot the neighborhood of the star in question at high zoom... A VERY neat tool...
Here is an example for MU1 Boo (at fairly LOW zoom ;-) ):
Image


Thanks,
Fridger
Image

granthutchison
Developer
Posts: 1863
Joined: 21.11.2002
With us: 22 years 2 months

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #90by granthutchison » 15.06.2009, 16:02

I've now commited a revision to nearstars.stc which moves it close to uniformity with Fridger's naming structure above. Hip numbers have been moved to appropriate barycentres. I've moved Gliese numbers and added ADS so that the name listings are laid out in the same order as above. (I've omitted CCDM codes, because the display gets extremely cluttered for nearby stars which already have many common designators.) Catalogue names like Struve, Lacaille, Groombridge and so on, which are commonly used for nearby stars but which aren't directly recognized by Simbad, have been moved to the end of the displayed list.
I found myself, for consistency's sake, also moving some names around in starnames.dat. So now the name ordering should have a pretty uniform look to it as you travel around in both nearby and distance space.

Grant

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 10 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #91by t00fri » 15.06.2009, 16:11

granthutchison wrote:I've now commited a revision to nearstars.stc which moves it close to uniformity with Fridger's naming structure above. Hip numbers have been moved to appropriate barycentres. I've moved Gliese numbers and added ADS so that the name listings are laid out in the same order as above. (I've omitted CCDM codes, because the display gets extremely cluttered for nearby stars which already have many common designators.) Catalogue names like Struve, Lacaille, Groombridge and so on, which are commonly used for nearby stars but which aren't directly recognized by Simbad, have been moved to the end of the displayed list.
I found myself, for consistency's sake, also moving some names around in starnames.dat. So now the name ordering should have a pretty uniform look to it as you travel around in both nearby and distance space.

Grant

Great news!

Fridger
Image

granthutchison
Developer
Posts: 1863
Joined: 21.11.2002
With us: 22 years 2 months

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #92by granthutchison » 16.06.2009, 10:05

t00fri wrote:Great news!
Well ...
For anyone who is interested in the stars of our local space, the Star Browser is now a desert of unfamiliar names. :(
Everything has a cost.

Grant

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 10 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #93by t00fri » 16.06.2009, 12:55

granthutchison wrote:
t00fri wrote:Great news!
Well ...
For anyone who is interested in the stars of our local space, the Star Browser is now a desert of unfamiliar names. :(
Everything has a cost.

Grant

Grant,

that is most of all a matter of programming. In the star browser, one could easily display just the most popular names that typically are the first ones in the name string.

In the current multiple star browser of the Qt-version of Celestia SVN that will soon represent the official GUI, your namelists from the latest nearstars.stc look quite OK I would say. Here is the listing in the multiple star browser for a distance cut-off of 25 ly. For reasons of space, I only show the first portion and the last one.

Image
...
Image

Fridger
Image

granthutchison
Developer
Posts: 1863
Joined: 21.11.2002
With us: 22 years 2 months

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #94by granthutchison » 16.06.2009, 16:07

t00fri wrote: In the star browser, one could easily display just the most popular names that typically are the first ones in the name string.
Well, for many of the cooler stars on that list, the most popular names for near-space aficionados are precisely the ones that have been pushed to the end of the list because they're not Simbad-friendly.
In your first screenshot we've got (for instance) BL Cet + UV Cet (better known as Luyten 726-8 A&B) and GX And + GQ And (better known as Groombridge 34 A&B).
My point is simply that when you gain one thing, you lose another. That's life. I find the new format reasonably tolerable because it's pretty close to the naming priorities RECONS uses; but a lot of star lists (such as the scientifically quite savvy SolStation) still preserve the old familiar names.

Grant

Avatar
Chuft-Captain
Posts: 1779
Joined: 18.12.2005
With us: 19 years 1 month

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #95by Chuft-Captain » 17.06.2009, 00:29

I haven't really been following this topic, however it seems to me that it would be "just a matter of programming" to enhance the Star Browser so that it allows the user to choose (perhaps with radio buttons) which name classification to display. eg. If "Popular Name" was selected, it would display Alf Centauri; if "HIP" was selected, it would display HIP 71683; etc....

Why is it necessary to hardcode for one system in preference to the others? It would certainly be educational if users could switch between the different naming systems.

CC
"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological civilization?"
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)

CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 10 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #96by t00fri » 17.06.2009, 09:52

Well,

@Grant:

your above judgement of what notation is more popular, really depends a LOT on the people you ask. On the popular side, let me take the members of this forum as a test sample: here I pretend with confidence that the large majority will neither have ever heard of Luyten 726 nor BL Cet . And similarly as to GX And and Groombridge 34. However, the BayerFlamsteet type notations (BL Cet, GX And) at least tell in which constellation the respective stars are located! Since I am an astro-amateur since childhood, I certainly claim that the Bayer-Flamsteed scheme is most popular among amateurs in general.

@CC:

Yes, one day , we may well think about allowing people to have still another switch for customizing "star name popularity". But additional customization switches also have a tendency of making things less transparent...

For Celestia 1.6.x , I have told the computer a well-defined "popularity-based" ordering of the names that is also compatible with SIMBAD as much as possible. Let's take your example of Alpha Centauri (in Grant's nearstars.stc):

Of course,first preference is given to proper names like e.g.

Rigel Kentaurus, Toliman

Next comes the best known systematic naming scheme according to Bayer-Flamsteed, if existing. It is notably popular among amateurs and scientists alike and hence SIMBAD! For the above star,

ALF Cen

Next come more specialized catalog designations like

GJ (Gliese) xxx, ADS xxx,...

Here Grant still prefers the notation from the outdated Gliese catalog, while SIMBAD and I use GJ xxx (since the Gliese catalog update is now Gliese+Jahreiss =GJ!).

Only towards the end follow the purely professional entries in CCDM, HIP, SAO etc.

In this way at least the "front seats" in the name string should be pretty sensibly ordered...
That's what appears for now in the multiple star browser of Celestia-Qt.

Fridger
Image

granthutchison
Developer
Posts: 1863
Joined: 21.11.2002
With us: 22 years 2 months

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #97by granthutchison » 17.06.2009, 14:51

t00fri wrote:@Grant:

your above judgement of what notation is more popular, really depends a LOT on the people you ask.
That is a feature of the concept "popularity", yes.

Grant

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 10 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #98by t00fri » 17.06.2009, 15:15

granthutchison wrote:
t00fri wrote:@Grant:

your above judgement of what notation is more popular, really depends a LOT on the people you ask.
That is a feature of the concept "popularity", yes.

Grant

Not really, in the mathematical sense, at least. In principle, one could base the question of "popularity" on a solid statistical study. That's what is done e.g. on a weekly basis with our polititians... If such a statistical study is properly done and analysed, the understanding is that the results do barely depend on the sample of people asked (due to the Central Limit theorem of statistics ;-) ). However, the art of such more serious investigations is to avoid correlations among the people questioned. I think we discussed that already in a different context. The issue of correlations is one reason, why I am often sceptical as to the significance of statistical investigations in Medicine, where highly complex humans are involved that can hardly be "decorrelated". Correlations prevent the stochastic variables from being normally distributed in the "large number limit", whence the Central Limit theorem breaks down...

All this "seriousness" is impossible with your specific claim that e.g. GX And was less popular than Groombridge 34 since barely any "Celestian" whom one might ask has ever heard about GX And or Groombridge 34 ;-) .

Fridger
Image

granthutchison
Developer
Posts: 1863
Joined: 21.11.2002
With us: 22 years 2 months

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #99by granthutchison » 17.06.2009, 15:45

t00fri wrote:All this "seriousness" is impossible with your specific claim that e.g. GX And was less popular than Groombridge 34 since barely any "Celestian" whom one might ask has ever heard about GX And or Groombridge 34 ;-) .
You missed out the bit where I defined my relevant sub-population: "near-space aficionados". It's a group with whom I have some small experience, stretching back thirty years. I made no claim for a larger population.

Perhaps you should just stick with your original response ("Great news!")?
I'm not going to get into a wrangle over a set of preferences I have anyway specifically abandoned for the sake of improved uniformity in the Celestia interface.

Grant

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 10 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Binary Orbits Revisited!

Post #100by t00fri » 17.06.2009, 16:43

granthutchison wrote:
t00fri wrote:All this "seriousness" is impossible with your specific claim that e.g. GX And was less popular than Groombridge 34 since barely any "Celestian" whom one might ask has ever heard about GX And or Groombridge 34 ;-) .
You missed out the bit where I defined my relevant sub-population: "near-space aficionados". It's a group with whom I have some small experience, stretching back thirty years. I made no claim for a larger population.

Perhaps you should just stick with your original response ("Great news!")?
I'm not going to get into a wrangle over a set of preferences I have anyway specifically abandoned for the sake of improved uniformity in the Celestia interface.

Grant

OK Grant, I shut up if you prefer.

But a last question: why are your "near-space aficionados" not willing to adopt a notation that is used by the global community of astronomers, as reflected in SIMBAD? I suppose the "near-space aficionados" have their own set of preferred data catalogs,and deeply dislike SIMBAD... But still, wouldn't it be some sort of progress if everybody subscribed to the same universal naming scheme??

Fridger
Last edited by t00fri on 17.06.2009, 16:54, edited 1 time in total.
Image


Return to “Development”