Talk:Luyten's Star

Coordinates

The majority of websites say Luyten's Star is in Monoceros, while some, such as the one linked at the bottom, say Canis Minor, which appears to be correct. The coordinates listed in all major sources, which are 07h 27m 25s, +05° 13′ 33″, are clearly within Canis Minor in the Cambridge Star Atlas, on Wikipedia maps or other sources. These coordinates place the star almost due west of Procyon and due south of Beta Canis Minoris, forming a triangle clearly within Canis Minor. If the declination was actually -05° instead of +05° it would be in Monoceros, but all major references say +05°.

Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope website: [1]

Lyuten catalog designation?

I'm really surprised that a star named "Luyten's Star" doesn't have a Luyten catalog designation, like Luyten 726-8 does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermw (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those designations are now obsolete and replaced by LHS, LFT and LTT. --Yigor (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent magnitude of Procyon from Luyten's Star.

By my arithmetic Procyon's apparent magnitude as seen from Luyten's star would be about -4.5.

If the difference in magnitudes from the absolute magnitude is n, then for a position 1.2 light years away,

n*log(100^0.2)=log((1.2/32)^2) which gives n as -7.12 magnitudes from the absolute magnitude (at 10 parsecs, about 32 light years distant). Wikipedia gives Procyon's absolute magnitude as 2.65, so the apparent magnitude of Procyon from Luyten's star would be 2.65+(-7.12) = -4.47. Still impressively bright.

I suspect the author forgot to take Procyon's absolute magnitude into account.

132.3.33.68 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Steven K. Smith[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luyten's Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6630AbtJZ?url=http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.html to http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Luyten's Star

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Luyten's Star's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SolStation":

From Tau Ceti: "Tau Ceti". Sol Company. Retrieved 2007-09-25.
From Lacaille 9352: "Solstation and ChView". Retrieved 2010-04-20.
From Struve 2398: "Struve 2398 AB". Retrieved 2010-10-22.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]