Talk:N. R. Pogson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I would love to find out more about Norman Pogson. I am his great great grand daughter, and I have lots of photos of him and his family, but know very little about them.

Asteroid discoveries[edit]

The records I checked showed that NRP discovered 9 asteroids, rather than 8. So I believe that one is missing from the table. — RJH 16:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Minor Planet Center credits him with 8 [1], and they are authoritative on the matter since they are the official keepers of asteroid data as per the IAU. Credit for asteroid discoveries was sometimes disputed in the 19th century, and in some cases was reassigned later. -- Curps 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pogson's career and family[edit]

I have done a good deal of research on Pogson's career and family. It seems that he named his daughters as he named his asteroid discoveries, at least this was the case with Elizabeth Isis and Hestia. I have only seen one drawing of Pogson (while he was a young man at Hartwell House) and one photo (taken near the end of his life). It would be exciting to see more photos of him and his family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snedegke (talkcontribs)

Well, if the information is verifiable and you can provide references, it could go into the article. -- Curps 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, are you the author of "Norman Pogson (1829–­1891): A Neglected Victorian Astronomer" ? By the way, you can sign your contributions to a talk page by adding ~~~~ at the end. -- Curps 05:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am his great-great-great-grandaughter. I know that he had thirteen children in one marriage, and a further two in another marriage. Many of his children also worked in Madras as astronomers. I have created a very short article on one of his sons - George Ambrose Pogson. I too am eager to find out more. --Vanhyde 16:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Pogson's family[edit]

It would be interesting to trace the history of the Pogsons in South India and beyond. I have the impression that they had much greater opportunity for advancement out in the Empire than at home in the Midlands. I welcome any exchange with great-great granddaughters or any other relatives! Snedegke 04:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Direction of magnitude scale is wrong[edit]

The main page article asserts "His suggestion in 1856 was to make this a standard, so each decrease in magnitude represented a decrease in brightness equal to the fifth-root of 100 (or about 2.512)."

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Each _increase_ in magnitude represents a decrease in brightness ... .

This is quite a hard thing to get into the minds of non-science majors, as I know from having introduced and taught a popular course for them for some 30 years. "Homer nodded" when compiling this part of the entry. (We all do it sometimes, through sheer over-familiarity with a subject.) --Spock2 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, but I have deleted the second half of the quoted sentence to harmonize with the cited stellar magnitude article. ---Glenn L (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The size of the ratio[edit]

Intro says:

His most notable contribution was to note that in the stellar magnitude system introduced by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus, stars of the first magnitude were a hundred times as bright as stars of the sixth magnitude.

Quite correct but maybe a little misdirecting. By my original research at the very least Tycho Brahe used a power ratio of about 1.9-2.1. I think Pogson used later catalogues for establishing his ratio, f.ex. the Palermo Catalogue produced by Giuseppe Piazzi and published by Johann Elert Bode. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

wrong magnitude definition[edit]

The statement: “The magnitude relation is given as follows: m1 - m2 = -2.5 log10 (L1 / L2) where m is the stellar magnitude and L is the luminosity, for stars 1 and 2.” Is not correct. The (apparent) magnitude definition in Astronomy is given in terms of FLUX (in Astronomy: Energy over time over surface, J/s.m2 in mks system) that we can measure directly, and not of LUMINOSITY (in Astronomy: Energy over time or Power, Watt in mks system) that is an intrinsic parameter of a star, usually NOT directly measurable. Furthermore, Luminosity are comparable only if the stars are at the same Distance. The correct magnitude relation is: m1-m2 = -2.5 log10 (F1/F2) where m is the stellar magnitude and F the Flux, for stars 1 and 2. Ebernieri (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)