Stars less than magnitude 4?

I'd like to get a list of stars below mag 4 at a specific time of night.
I need the az/el for them. The Sky 6 seems befuddled by this attempt
with their Data Wizard. Maybe there's a freebie program that does this.

P.S. I think there's a modestly price program that is something like a
night sky planner for something like $50. I've forgotten the name.
SkyPlanner?

On 9/15/12 6:57 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
I'd like to get a list of stars below mag 4 at a specific time of night.

Wen you say "below" mag 4, do you mean brighter than 4.0?
See: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/stars.html

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:57:42 -0700, "W. eWatson"
wrote:
I'd like to get a list of stars below mag 4 at a specific time of
night.
I need the az/el for them. The Sky 6 seems befuddled by this
attempt
with their Data Wizard. Maybe there's a freebie program that does
this.

P.S. I think there's a modestly price program that is something
like a
night sky planner for something like $50. I've forgotten the name.
SkyPlanner?

Why not write such a program yourself? It's not particularly
difficult.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:36:33 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:
On 9/15/12 6:57 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
I'd like to get a list of stars below mag 4 at a specific time of
night.

Wen you say "below" mag 4, do you mean brighter than 4.0?
See: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/stars.html

His list would be extremely long if he meant all stars fainter than
mag 4.0 ....

W. eWatson:
wrote:
I'd like to get a list of stars below mag 4 at a specific time of
night.
I need the az/el for them. The Sky 6 seems befuddled by this
attempt
with their Data Wizard. Maybe there's a freebie program that does
this.

P.S. I think there's a modestly price program that is something
like a
night sky planner for something like $50. I've forgotten the name.
SkyPlanner?

Paul Schlyter:
Why not write such a program yourself? It's not particularly
difficult.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read here in a long
time, including /anything/ I have read about flat Earths, 6000 y.o.
Universes, non-orbiting planets, a Poughkeepsie-centric Universe, and
the Earth's 27-3/4 hour rotation period.

"I think I'll go out and buy a Rolex." "They're very small and it can't
be difficult for the average person to build one from scratch. Why not
make such a watch yourself?"

"I need a new car." "Why buy one when you can mine some ores, cast and
bore an engine block, machine, mold, or extrude, or otherwise fabricate
a few thousand other metal parts, make some plastics and safety glass,
manufacture some fibers and weave them for upholstery, refine some raw
latex from Malaysia to make the tires, cobble together some light bulbs
and a few other parts, and just make such a car yourself? It's not
particularly difficult?"

"I'm hungry for a steak and baked potato, maybe with some sour cream."
"You should buy a cattle ranch, which you can do just about anywhere.
You ought to go to Idaho or Maine to get your potato farm. I would
recommend buying your dairy farm in Wisconsin. So why not produce your
own steak and potato with sour cream? It's not particularly difficult.
You can easily enough make yourself a porcelain plate and some
flatware. I assume you know how to harvest wood and make charcoal or
build a stove and oven."

The answer to your utterly ridiculous question and my brilliant and
mildly hyperbolic analogues is that it makes no sense for a consumer to
reinvent what someone else has already made very well. Uncountable
planetarium programs, including the obsolete TheSky6 and a number of
free applications that can be downloaded in moments can do this.
Suppose W. eWatson decides at 1900 hours that he wants his software at
1930 hours the same day? Or wants his Rolex or his car or his steak in
less than 10 or 20 years?

Now, why don't you set about writing yourself a Usenet client that can
quote without garbling? It's not particularly difficult and you should
be able to finish it by lunchtime.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 9/16/2012 11:11 AM, Davoud wrote:
W. eWatson:
wrote:
I'd like to get a list of stars below mag 4 at a specific time of
night.
I need the az/el for them. The Sky 6 seems befuddled by this
attempt
with their Data Wizard. Maybe there's a freebie program that does
this.

P.S. I think there's a modestly price program that is something
like a
night sky planner for something like $50. I've forgotten the name.
SkyPlanner?

Paul Schlyter:
Why not write such a program yourself? It's not particularly
difficult.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read here in a long
time, including /anything/ I have read about flat Earths, 6000 y.o.
Universes, non-orbiting planets, a Poughkeepsie-centric Universe, and
the Earth's 27-3/4 hour rotation period.

"I think I'll go out and buy a Rolex." "They're very small and it can't
be difficult for the average person to build one from scratch. Why not
make such a watch yourself?"

"I need a new car." "Why buy one when you can mine some ores, cast and
bore an engine block, machine, mold, or extrude, or otherwise fabricate
a few thousand other metal parts, make some plastics and safety glass,
manufacture some fibers and weave them for upholstery, refine some raw
latex from Malaysia to make the tires, cobble together some light bulbs
and a few other parts, and just make such a car yourself? It's not
particularly difficult?"

"I'm hungry for a steak and baked potato, maybe with some sour cream."
"You should buy a cattle ranch, which you can do just about anywhere.
You ought to go to Idaho or Maine to get your potato farm. I would
recommend buying your dairy farm in Wisconsin. So why not produce your
own steak and potato with sour cream? It's not particularly difficult.
You can easily enough make yourself a porcelain plate and some
flatware. I assume you know how to harvest wood and make charcoal or
build a stove and oven."

One has to admire your commitment.

-Steve
(I mean that in a good way)

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:11:23 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Paul Schlyter:
Why not write such a program yourself? It's not particularly
difficult.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read here in a long
time...

It's not a bad suggestion, and it requires very little in the way of
programming skills. It is trivial to download a stellar database in
spreadsheet format (I came up with a bunch of good ones on the first
page by Googling "star catalog excel"). There are also many sites that
provide canned Excel functions for performing astronomical
calculations, including converting equatorial coordinates to horizon
coordinates (Google "excel astronomy"). It doesn't take much more than
a little copy-and-paste to put together a spreadsheet for a given
location that will display the horizon based coordinates for all the
bright stars every time the sheet is refreshed.

On Sep 16, 4:11*pm, Davoud wrote:
W. eWatson:

wrote:
I'd like to get a list of stars below mag 4 at a specific time of
night.
I need the az/el for them. The Sky 6 seems befuddled by this
attempt
with their Data Wizard. Maybe there's a freebie program that does
this.

P.S. I think there's a modestly price program that is something
like a
night sky planner for something like $50. I've forgotten the name.
SkyPlanner?

Paul Schlyter:

Why not write such a program yourself? It's not particularly
difficult.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read here in a long
time, including /anything/ I have read about flat Earths, 6000 y.o.
Universes, non-orbiting planets, a Poughkeepsie-centric Universe, and
the Earth's 27-3/4 hour rotation period.


Seeing you and your buddies have severe difficulty with the rotation
period of the Earth once in 24 hours,why didn't you include it as one
of your 'ridiculous things" ?.

Don't any of you know that all these software programs are based on a
steady progression of days within the calendar system or rather the
moving relationship between celestial objects to each other within a
celestial sphere geometry otherwise known as the Ra/Dec extension of
the AM/PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long system ?.It takes real
astronomical talent to distinguish the 365/366 day calendar format
from the raw cycle of 365 1/4 days for each orbital cycle but with
time and familiarity,this distinction becomes not only light and easy
but exceptionally beautiful in the way it developed historically.

There is no other human endeavor or institution that has suffered a
denigration than astronomy has,there is no comparable instance where
there is outright hostility to the basic facts even without knowing
the technical ins and outs of why these facts present themselves to
students and researchers.I would dearly love to know if it is a total
and utter lack of responsibility and even cowardice,these two two
things are acceptable but after a decade it looks more and more like a
disorder and then everything becomes unmanageable in any meaningful
collective way.

There is that 'too big to fail' situation that every one engaged in
science faces as their reputations and jobs,at least at a level where
astronomy meshes with terrestrial sciences,are founded on a
particularly poor judgement of using stellar circumpolar motion to
model the motions of the Earth and from there to solar system
structure and the wider arena.Astronomy has been so resilient that it
has survived this horrible error and the people who promote it,people
who imagine their software reflects the motion of the Earth.

Paul Schlyter:
Why not write such a program yourself? It's not particularly
difficult.

Davoud:
That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read here in a long
time...

Chris L Peterson:
It's not a bad suggestion, and it requires very little in the way of
programming skills...

Dear Mr. east is west, up is down, black is white, sky is green and
grass is blue contrarian: It's a terrible suggestion because such
applications are a dime a dozen and because the overwhelming majority
of computer users (that's users, meaning people who have work to do,
not geeks, not nerds, not experimenters) have /no/ programming skills
whatsoever, and, not coincidentally, do not require any programming
skills whatsoever. And they don't build their own wris****ches or cars
or grow their own potatoes.

Now I know you well enough to know what comes next: everyone you know
makes wris****ches, builds cars from piles of metals ores and and
organic chemicals, and grows their own potatoes, and you are sticking
to that assertion.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Davoud wrote:
Paul Schlyter:
Why not write such a program yourself? It's not particularly
difficult.

Davoud:
That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read here in a long
time...

Chris L Peterson:
It's not a bad suggestion, and it requires very little in the way of
programming skills...

Dear Mr. east is west, up is down, black is white, sky is green and
grass is blue contrarian: It's a terrible suggestion because such
applications are a dime a dozen and because the overwhelming majority
of computer users (that's users, meaning people who have work to do,
not geeks, not nerds, not experimenters) have /no/ programming skills
whatsoever, and, not coincidentally, do not require any programming
skills whatsoever. And they don't build their own wris****ches or cars
or grow their own potatoes.

Now I know you well enough to know what comes next: everyone you know
makes wris****ches, builds cars from piles of metals ores and and
organic chemicals, and grows their own potatoes, and you are sticking
to that assertion.


Davoud
You are right to point out that there is so much free software available
(and very cheap apps for smartphones and tablet PCs) that writing software
is not necessary. However it's not difficult. I'm no mathematician but I
wrote software in the 1980s for both the ZX81 and BBC micro to plot the
positions of the planets on star maps and print rising and setting times,
RA dec etc.
It was not difficult when books like Astronomical Formulae for Calculators
and Practical Astronomy for Calculators were available.
But it's no longer a cheap option since my time writing software costs a
lot more than the couple of quid for an iPhone app.
I do grow my own vegetables but I have to admit that I bought my car and
wris****ch.