All observations for 2017.06.18 and later can be found at http://www.brucegary.net/ts/ 
 

Kepler Star KIC 8462852 Amateur Photometry Monitoring Project

B. L. Gary, last update: 2017.07.11, 03 UT
 
"A ... prediction is that future dimming events should occur roughly every 750 days, with one in 2015 April and another in 2017 May." Boyajian et al, 2016 (Section 5.2) link

Final result for Jun 17 (7.6 hours of data), showing recovery of latest dip. 


Normalized flux vs. UT during the Jun 17 observing session, showing a dip recovery in progress.

Links on this Web Page

    KIC846 basic info
    Speculation for one theory for cause of fade events
    Yearly Timescale Fade Observations (C-band and V-band)
    List of Observing Sessions (with links to them) for V- and r'-band
    2015 Clear Filter Observations 
    Goals for these observations
    Finder chart with calibrated star B-mag and V-mag table
    References
    All-sky photometry B- and V-band calibration of KIC846 star field (linked to another web page) 
    Related links 

Basic Info for KIC846  

RA/DE = 20:06:15.5, +44:27:25
All-sky photometry: B = 12.493 0.025, V = 11.912 0.025 (B-V = +0.581 0.035)
APASS Mag's: B = 12.360, V = 11.852 (B-V = +0.51), g' = 12.046, r' = 11.697, i' = 11.554
There's a 0.11 mag discrepancy between BV mag's in Boyajian et al (Table 3) and APASS (article is brighter).
There's a 0.23 & 0.21 mag discrepancy between BV mag's in Boyajian et al (Table 3) and my all-sky V-mag (article is brighter).  

Speculation About Collisions

In the 2016 discovery paper Boyajian et al describe a "giant collision" scenario that prompted them to predict a dimming in 2017 May. Their model  for what happened to cause KIC846 to undergo dips (just one of many models that they described as candidates for consideration) is a collision between a planet and a smaller planetesimal. For example, if the brown dwarf that's now at least 900 AU away (1.95 "arc to the east) gravitationally disrupted a Pluto-size object at some time centuries ago, that was originally located in an analogue of our solar system's Oort cloud or Kuiper Belt, and if this Pluto-sized object's new trajectory was pointed inward toward KIC846, it might have collided with a planet before reaching the star. If this collision happened sometime within a few months of the start of Kepler data taking, and if the inclination of the planet was close to "edge-on," the appearance of the first big dip (16% depth, ~ 9 days long, Dip#5, Kepler Day 792.74) might be explained (smooth ingress and smooth but longer egress). If the planet was at ~ 1.6 AU (i.e., period of 750 days), then one orbit later, on Kepler (Day#1519.60), the debris and associated cloud would orbit through our line of sight to KIC846 again. This second passage through our line-of-sight could account for both the greater depth (21%) and width (~ 2 months), as well as the many smaller dips preceding and following the main dip (due to debris fragments spreading out along the orbit during the intervening 750 days). Two orbits later would be 2017 May! This "model" also provides a ready explanation for the fading that's occurring, and the acceleration of that fading. The dust from the collision is spreading out along the orbit and causing a general blocking of light. If this is the case, then the fading will cause the star's apparent brightness to arrive at some minimum level and slowly return to normal. One possible problem for this model is that the star may have been fading at 0.14 %/year from 1890 to 1989. I don't know how reliable that data is, but I mention it as a possible problem for this model. If the model is true, then I would predict that "the show is over," and we won't see any more dips with dramatic depths (> 2%). Sampling theory suggests that Tabby's Star is not unique in being the site for such dramatic events. This is because of the requirement that for any observer to view these brightness changes the tilt of the star's planetary system has to be just right, very close to edge-on. This is analogous to the exoplanet transit situation, where for every star whose brightness is observed to undergo fades when the exoplanet orbits in front of the star there are hundreds of stars producing fades for observers in different parts of the galactic neighborhood.

Yearly Timescale Fade Observations 

My observations began in 2015 October with a month of clear filter observations. On 2016 Sep 25 I resumed observations using a V-filter, and observed for 3 months. A third group of observations began 2016 May 02, using a V filter. Comparing "clear filter" magnitudes with "V filter" requires an empirical offset adjustment based on near-simultaneous measurements with both filters (obtained during the 2016 May observations). The results of this adjustment are shown in the next graph. There's "a hint" of a non-linear fade during the 610-day interval from 2015 October 16 to the present, as first pointed out to me by Fredric Parker (private comm., 2017.06.09). This fade has been modeled using a Gaussian function with a long 1/e half-width in the date dimension (640 days). The Gaussian is centered on DOY_2016 = 1080, where the depth is 0.030 mag. The use of a Gaussian function was guided by the notion that the fade is caused by a dust cloud that is expanding along an orbit (at ~ 1.6 A.U, in the HZ, by the way) in response to a "giant collision" (as described in the Speculation paragraph above, link).


Figure 2.1. Magnitudes on the V-mag scale vs. date (2.3-year interval). C-mag's were adjusted empirically to afford agreement in 2016 May, when both V- and C-filter observations were made. Only OOT (out-of-transit) measurements are shown. A "Gaussian Fade Model" has been fitted to the measurements. Fade rate changes throughout this date region, and is currently ~ 1.4 %/year.

Such a dust cloud will eventually disperse and lead to a complete recovery of KIC846 brightness. The early phase of this recovery can be seen in the next figure. 


Figure 2.2. Same as above, but showing a 3.8-year interval. The "Gaussian fade model" reaches a maximum fade of 0.030 magnitude at the end of 2018, after which a slow recovery occurs (according to the model). Maximum fade rate, according to this model, occurs in late 2017.

The next graph shows all 2016 V-band measurements, including those identified as occurring during dips.      



Figure 2.3. All 2016 V-band measurements to date, including those made during dips, with OOT data fitted by the Gaussian fade model. 


Observing Sessions (Most Recent at Top)  Note: Only data above elevation 24 degrees (air mass < 2.5) should be considered for scientific use.

    2017.06.17 V  
    2017.06.16 V  
    2017.06.15 V  
    2017.06.14 V  
    2017.06.13 V  
    2017.06.11 V  
    2017.06.11 r'  
    2017.06.10 V  
    2017.06.10 r'  
    2017.06.09 V  
    2017.06.09 r'  
    2017.06.07 r'  
    2017.06.06 r'  
    2017.06.06 V  
    2017.06.05 r' 
    2017.06.05 V 
    2017.06.04 V  
    2017.06.03 V  
    2017.06.02 V
    2017.05.29 V 
    2017.05.28 V 
    2017.05.26 V  
    2017.05.24 V 
    2017.05.23 V
    2017.05.22 V 
    2017.05.21 V
    2017.05.20 V
    2017.05.19 V
    2017.05.14 V
    2017.05.03 V
    2014.05.02 V  

2017.06.17, V-band, 7.8 hr, DataExchangeFile

This will be my last publicly-posted data for KIC846. Boring!











2017.06.16, V-band, 7.6 hours, DataExchangeFile 




Notice that the trend in "egative," consistent with a new fade in progress.


 


2017.06.15, V-bnad, 7.2 hrs DataExchangeFile  




Notice the positive slope; the fade is in recovery!





2017.06.14, V-band, 6.2 hrs   DataExchangeFile


Final result for Jun 14, showing hourly averages for V-band.


The lack of slope suggests that this dip is "near the bottom" and we might actually be "in recovery."


Good observing conditions.



2017.06.13, V-band, 4.9 hrs  DataExchangeFile  


Figure 1. Normalized flux vs. date in V-band (green filled-circles, green color filter). Another dip has started; now at 1.0%.







2017.06.11, V-band, 4.2 hrs   DataExchangeFile 

High winds caused poor "seeing," leading to bloated point-spread-functions and noisy measurements.







2017.06.11, r'-band, 3.9 hrs  DataExchangefile   


The r'-band measurements appear to be less "well behaved" than the V-band measurements. I still don't have a good inter-calibration.







2017.06.10 V-band, 4.7 hrs   DataExchangeFile  







2017.06.10 r'-band, 2.3 hrs - DataExchangeFile  

Comment about r'-mags: My attempt to determine an offset conversion for "r' to V" is being thwarted by an apparent inconstancy of the offset conversion value. In other wards, r'-mag appears to vary in a slightly different way than V-mag, on a daily timescale. This is shown in the following two graphs. The first and last observing sessions (Jun 05 & 10) share the same r'/V offset value of +0.124 mag. The in-between observing sessions (Jun 06, 07, 09) require a different r'/V offset conversion (~ +0.131). This 0.007 mag (i.e., 7 mmag) difference may seem small, but it translates to a 0.7% difference in normalized flux, and I'm trying to achieve a precision of 0.1%. As usual, we need more data! (where have I heard that before?)











2017.06.09, V-band, 4.6 hrs  DataExchangeFile  







2017.06.09, r'-band, 2.3 hrs 

Note: I'm still working on establishing a r'-mag for OOT condition. Until that's complete my plots of "r'-band normalized flux" will be subject to an undetermined offset correction.







2017.06.08, cloudy, no observations 


2017.06.07, r'-band, 5.0 hrs - DataExchangeFile  

Note: I'm still working on establishing a r'-mag for OOT condition. Until that's complete my plots of "r'-band normalized flux" will be subject to an undetermined offset correction.









2017.06.06 r'-band, 3.0 hrs - DataExchangeFile  

Note: I'm still working on establishing a r'-mag for OOT condition. Until that's complete my plots of "r'-band normalized flux" will be subject to an undetermined offset correction. 







2017.06.06 V-band, 4.7 hrs - DataExchangeFile 







2017.06.05 r'-band, 4.1 hrs -  DataExchangeFile   

Note: I'm still working on establishing a r'-mag for OOT condition. Until that's complete my plots of "r'-band normalized flux" will be subject to an undetermined offset correction. 


This graph replaces an earlier version.


This is a corrected light curve (my 1st version showed a sinusoidal variation, but I determined that that was due to one of the reference stars saturating when "atmospheric seeing" was especially good).


r'-mags for reference stars is provisional

2017.06.05, V-band, 1.5 hrs  DataExchangefile  







2017.06.04
V-band, 6.1 hrs  DataExchangeFile    







2017.06.03 V-band, 7.1 hrs  DataExchangeFile  







2017.06.02 V-band, 7.6 hrs   DataExchangeFile  







2017.05.29 V-band, 1.6 hrs

I only spent a short time observing KIC846 (at high air mass) because of a higher priority target. I think this is enough data for a useful estimate of brightness (i.e., no fade in progress). 







2017.05.28 V-band, 6.7 hrs


Notice that I had to adopt a slightly fainter mag to represent 100% (11.907) because there's a slow fade of 0.8% that has been present for the past 1.5 years.





2017.05.26 V-band, 5.4 hrs (observing through holes in clouds)




Lots of clouds.



2017.05.25  Winds and forecast clouds led to an abort of observations for this night. Fellow-amateur Joao Gregorio (Portugal) won't be observing either due to rain and lightning.


2017.05.24 V-band, 6.3 hrs







2017.05.23 V-band, 6.7 hrs   DataExchangeFile  







2017.05.22 V-band, 6.7 hrs   DataExchangeFile  







2017.05.21 V-band, 6.7 hrs   DataExchangeFile   







2017.05.20 V-band, 6.1 hrs  DataExchangeFile  








2017.05.19 V-band, 7.1 hrs.  DataExchangeFile  







2017.05.14 V-band, 4.1 hrs.  DataExchangeFile  







2017.05.13 C-band, 6.2 hrs.


Will use only data above 30 deg elevation (air mass < 2.0).



2017.05.05: C-band, 5.7 hrs. 






2017.05.03:  V-band, 3.55 hrs. DataExchangeFile 







2017.05.02: V-band, 3.1 hrs. DataExchangeFile







2017.01.08: C-band, 1.3 hrs.





2017.01.06: C-band, 0.9 hrs. 





2017.01.05: C-band, 1.0 hrs. 





2017.01.02





2016.12.26


Revised LC showing only data for air mass < 2.





2016.12.24







2016.12.20  





2016.12.18 


Revised LC showing only data for air mass < 2





2016.12.15





2016.12.12 







2016.12.09 







2016.12.05







2016.12.04







2016.12.02





2016.12.01





2016.11.30





2016.11.25  





2016.11.18





2016.11.15





2016.11.14





2016.11.12





2016.11.10






2016.11.07 





2016.11.06  






2016.11.02  

All-sky session, for V-band. Same V-mag as previous ones: V-mag = 11.895.






2016.10.31







2016.10.30 

Using Meade 14" with ST-10XME CCD, V-band. Finally, a reliable system! Data quality is better due to large FOV with smooth flat field and V filter (small Star Color Sensitivity slope).






2016.10.27





2016.10.24

Switched back to no filter (bec V filter had bubbled surface, causing bad flat field).





2016.10.20

I began using a V-band filter with the Lodestar.


The variations are undoubtedly due to flat field imperfections!




2016.10.19





2016.10.18





2016.10.17


The wiggles near the end must be due to flat field imperfections.



2016.10.16


The wiggles near the end must be due to flat field imperfections.



2016.10.15





2016.10.12


CCD failure occurred at 3:30 UT!



2016.10.11





2016.10.10





2016.10.09






2016.10.08






2016.10.06

Fifth C11 observing session.





2016.10.05

Fourth C11 observing session.





2016.10.04

Third C11 observing session.






2016.10.03

Second C11 observation; a slight increase in brightness.





2016.10.02

First observation with the Celestron 11" telescope (C11).






Note: On 2016.10.01 the Meade 14"failed to turn on, so I moved the SBIG ST-10XME to my Celestron 11" telescope (also in a dome), and have continued observations with this "back-up" telescope system.

2016.09.25

This observing session had 4 goals, or questions to answer: 1) Does the "star color sensitivity" diagram exhibit the same small MRS scatter about a slope predicted by the all-sky measurements of the previous week?, 2) What's the "air mass curvature" coefficient of the blue target star when calibrated by mostly red stars?, 3) Is there evidence for smal amplitude, short-period variations during a long observing session? and 4) How accurately can a 1-hour observing session measure V_mag?


Supercedes the next graph.


Based on cal using V mags adjusted on 2016.11.15.


Supercedes the next few graphs.


Uses the adjusted V-mags of 2016.11.15 (based on 2016 Nov 10, 12, 14 & 15).



After minor adjustments of 11 stars for persistent departures from Star Color Sensitivity plots (based on 3 observing sessions, Sep 25, Oct 02, Oct 03).


Star color sensitivity relationship for all-sky calibrated nearby stars, with an offset solution used for setting the calibration for this date's observing session.

The star color sensitivity relationship has a small slope, as expected (same as before), and the scatter of 13 mmag about a slope fit is what I expected, based on the all-sky measurements. This scatter is ~ 1/2 of what was present when APASS mag's were used.


This 6.6-hr LC employs an AMC of only 3.0 mmag/airmass. Even using zero produces a LC that is almost indistinguishable to the eye. When airmass < 2 it doesn't matter whether AMC is zero or 3.5.

Averaging mag's from groups of 5-images yields a RMS scatter of 1.3 mmag. The formal sinusoid solution is amplitude = 1.3 +/- 0.4 mmag, P = 1.0 hr. This is below my empirical threshold for being real, so I conclude that during this 6.6-hr observing session there were no detectable variations (above ~ 2 mmag). For future reference, a 1-hour data segment (above EL 30 deg) should be sufficient to determine V-mag with a precision (and repeatability?) of ~ 3 mmag. This SE is dominated by the use of 23 cal stars and their "star color sensitivity" solution. The best AMC' = +0.003 mag/airmass. The effect of AMC' departing from zero is not apparent in the LC, visually, until airmass > 2.

To investigate how long a data chunk must be in order for its stochastic SE to be smaller than estimated systematic error (~ 3 mmag), I divided the data into 1-hour chunks of data. The SE per hourly median is 0.9 mmag, so hour-long observations provide an average V-mag with a stochastic SE that is several times smaller than estimated systematic uncertainty. Here's a plot of the hourly medians and 5-image averages.


LC for 5-image averages (blue diamonds) and hourly averages (red circles).

I conclude that 20-minute observations should be adequate for monitoring KIC846 on a weekly basis in search of a secular fade.

2016.09.15

B-band all-sky observations for calibrating the target star field, involving 8 Landolt star field (25 stars). The observing sequence was L1-t-L2-t-L3 ... t-L8, where Ln = Landolt star field #n and t = target (KIC846).









2016.09.05

V-band all-sky observations for calibrating the target star field, involving 7 star fields. 








 


Clear filter observations from 2015 October/November

    2015.11.12, B. Gary, C filter LC, V-mag = 11.929, r'-mag = 11.703 0.005
    2015.10.24, B. Gary, C filter LC, V-mag = 11.929, r'-mag = 11.689 0.003

    2015.10.23, B. Gary, C filter LC, V-mag = 11.932, r'-mag = ??.??? ?.??? (dew problem)
    2015.10.20, B. Gary, C filter LC, V-mag = 11.933, r'-mag = 11.691
0.005
    2015.10.16, B. Gary, C filter LC, V-mag = 11.930, r'-mag = 11.697 0.005
    2015.10.15, B. Gary, C filter LC, V-mag = ??.???, r'-mag = 11.689
0.010 (too short for use)



2015.11.12: Clear filter, 1.3 hrs.

The following two graphs are calibrated using my revised B & V mags for 18 nearby reference stars, and my processing procedure yielding approximate V-mags (with later-determined bias of ~ 0.038 mag).





The following graph, calibrated using APASS r'-mags, may be ignored because the preceding two graphs replace it.




2015.10.24
: Clear filter,  5.8 hr.

The following two graphs are calibrated using my revised B & V mags for 18 nearby reference stars, and my processing procedure yielding approximate V-mags (with later-determined bias of ~ 0.039 mag).





The following graph, calibrated using APASS r'-mags, may be ignored because the preceding two graphs replace it.


Faint gray trace is a predicted variation based on previous observing sessions (which doesn't allow for air mass curvature).


2015.10.23: Clear filter observations, 3.0 hr. Dew on corrector plate created a growing systematic error.

The following two graphs are calibrated using my revised B & V mags for 18 nearby reference stars, and my processing procedure yielding approximate V-mags (with later-determined bias of ~ 0.039 mag).  The last 40 minutes was ruined by the autoguider not keeping the star field fixed to the pixel field (that data was ignored in the analysis).


Worsening dew on corrector plate means later data can be ignored.



The following LC was calibrated using APASS r'-mags to yield r'-mags. You may disregard this graph, which is superseded by the previous two.




2015.10.20: Clear filter,  0.7 hr.

The following two graphs are calibrated using my revised B & V mags for 18 nearby reference stars, and my processing procedure yielding approximate V-mags (with later-determined bias of ~ 0.039 mag).





The following LC was calibrated using APASS r'-mags to yield r'-mags. You may disregard this graph, which is superseded by the previous two.


The small-amplitude sinusoidal variation, with P = 0.8 hr, appears to be statistically significant (same P as in previous LC).


2015.10.16: Clear filter, 4.2 hrs.

The following two graphs are calibrated using my revised B & V mags for 18 nearby reference stars, and my processing procedure yielding approximate V-mags (with later-determined bias of ~ 0.039 mag).





The above graphs replace the following two (calibrated using APASS r'-mags).


Best 5 ref stars chosen for color similarity to target & other behavior. The small-amplitude sinusoidal variation, with P = 0.8 hr, appears to be statistically significant.




Square root of "Power Spectrum" showing weird shape.

Observing Project Goals & Plan 

This web page records my observations of KIC 8462852 (hereafter KIC846) in an attempt to measure small amplitude variations on timescales of hours, days, weeks and years. In support of both goals 25 nearby stars have been calibrated using all-sky photometry.

My original goal was to detect the suggested fade rate of 0.34%/year during the 2016 observing season. The suggested fade rate corresponds to 3.4 mmag/year, or 1.0 mmag every 3.5 months, which is the length of my observing season (due to the summer monsoon ending in mid-September). However, I have determined that systematic errors are present at the level of ~ 3 mmag per observing session, and I do not know what systematic errors may exist during monthly timescales, so it is unreasonable to expect success in measuring a 1.0 mmag fade during a 3.5-month interval. Instead, I will attempt to measure the slow secular fade by comparing results during two observing seasons. 

My original secondary goal was to search for short timescale variability, and this has become a primary goal for the current observing season. A few observing sessions will be long enough to search for hourly variations, but most observing sessions will be limited to an hour. This should allow for a search of day-to-day changes, as well as weekly timescale changes. If none are found then the observations will be viewed as providing an observational upper-limit to such variability.


The observational strategy is to improve the calibration of nearby stars so that each observing session produces a better-calibrated V-mag for that date. The tighter the star color sensitivity scatter plot, which I use for establishing an observing session's calibration, the smaller are the systematic errors for that session's target V-mag. The APASS magnitudes for this star field appear to be flawed, in both average value and internal consistency (star-to-star ratios). I will use all-sky photometry, involving many Landolt stars, to accomplish this calibration.

In order to know how long each weekly observing session will have to be for the average target V-mag to have a stochastic SE smaller than the estimated systematic SE I will conduct a couple long observing sessions (> 6 hrs) and simulate having just limited time chunks of the data, with a sampling chunk lengths. KIC846 is bluer than all but one nearby star to be used for calibration. This means I have to worry about air mass effects that differ between the target (KIC846) and the set of nearby calibrator stars. In order to assess the usability of high air mass data I will determine a best value for my "air mass curvature correction," AMC', and demonstrate the stability of this parameter, and use simulations of long observing sessions to determine how safe it is to use only high air mass observations (made late in the observing season) for monitoring secular fade rate.

I will sue the same hardware configuration for all observations: Made 14" LX200 GPS telescope, in a dome, with a x2 focal reducer (designed for this Meade model, A CFW-10 with an Astrodon V-band filter and an SBIG ST-10XME CCD. All hardware control is performed using MaxIm DL, via 100-foot buried conduit cabling between my residence office and the dome observatory. The unbinned image scale for this system is 0.725 "arc/pixel, and the FOV is 28 x 18 'arc. I will use 2x2 binning for all observations, placing the target at the center of the image, and autoguiding with the 2nd chip of the ST-10XME CCD. This will remove drift of the star field with respect to the pixel field during an observing session, and if I place the target accurately at the same center location for each observing session this should reduce the effects of imperfect flat field calibration.    


Finder Image and Calibrated Star B-mag and V-mag Table 

This is a finder chart.


FOV = 26 x 18'arc, north up, east left. KIC846 is in the square.

Here's a smaller FOV finder chart showing 25 stars that have been calibrated using all-sky photometry.


FOV 14.0 x 9.4 'arc showing KIC846 (red square) and 25 calibrated reference stars. North up, east left.

The table below is a listing of my all-sky photometry B- and V- magnitudes.

  
All-sky photometry of KIC846 and 25 nearby stars. Left panel is based solely on all-sky calibrations; right panel includes small adjustments to V-mag based on 5 observing sessions and persistent departures from a Star Color Sensitivity fit. I recommend use of the right panel magnitudes.

Two stars are "dangerously" red for use with a slightly blue target.

Observing Start/Stop Local Times  

If an observation of at least 1/2 hour is needed for a usable measurement, and if measurements should be made when elevation (EL) is above 20 or 30 degrees, then the following graphs can serve as a guide for the season that KIC 846 can be monitored from the ground under dark sky conditions (for my HAO observing site). 


Local time for observing start and end, for the HAO observing site (Latitude +31 deg, Longitude 110 E) for the requirement that EL > 30 deg. Times for sunset + 1 hour and sunrise - 1 hour are shown as dashed traces. Local midnight is 12:21 AM due to the observing site's longitude being -110 deg (vs the standard -105 deg for the HAO time zone).

The number of hours that are potentially available for observing is plotted in the next graph.


Number of hours when KIC846 is above specified elevation (EL), and when the sky is dark (more than 1 hour past sunset and 1 hour before sunrise) versus month number, for an observing site at latitude +31 deg (Hereford Arizona Observatory).

From this graph it can be seen that January is the only month when KIC846 can't be observed from ground observing sites for monitoring purposes. December is marginal, since KIC846 is above EL = 30 deg during darkness for only 0.6 hour (Dec 15). For observing sites at more northerly latitudes the observing times will be longer.

References

    Boyajian et al, 2015, MNRAS, "Planet Hunters X. KIC 8462852 - Where's the flux?"
    Landolt, A., 2009, Astron. J., 137, #5
    Montet, Benjamin T. and Joshua D. Simon, 2016, "KIC 8462852 Faded Throughout the Kepler Mission," arXiv 1608.01316
    Smith et al, 2002, Astron. J., 123, 2121-2144.

Related Links

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5GDa9r4No Fredric Parker dimming rate analysis (Jun 09)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=risNfZxz6DQ Metzger & Stone (Columbia Univ.) YouTube discussion of the state of modeling fluxvariations
    Boyajian et al, 2015, MNRAS, "Planet Hunters X. KIC 8462852 - Where's the flux?" link 
    Ballesteros, F. J., P. Arnalte-Mur, A. Fernandez-Soto and V. J. Martinez, 2017, "KIC8462852: Will the Trojans Return in 2011?", arXiv
    Washington Post article, 2015.10.15: link 
    AAVSO Campaign Notice requesting KIC646 observations 
    AAVSO LC Generator https://www.aavso.org/data/lcg (enter KIC 8462852)
    Web page tutorial: Tips for amateurs observating faint asteroids (useful for any photometry observing)
    Book: Exoplanet Observing for Amateurs, Gary (2014): link (useful for any photometry observing)
    My web pages master list, resume

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

| When Roobs invade and overwhelm a discipline, and present their opinions as having the same legitimacy as an academic's, it's time for the academics to retreat somewhere and abandon public discussion of the subject, leaving it to the Roobs for eventual ruin. This matter was first described by Joe Ortega y Gassett (Revolt of the Masses, 1930), later by Roger Price (The Great Roob Revolution, 1970), and updated in a chapter by Bruce Gary (Genetic Enslavement, 2014). Every academic discipline is subjected to the corrupting influence of the hoi poloi, and during my 78-year lifetime I've seen two of my favorite disciplines (sociobiology and neuropsychology) lose vitality because of the influx of "know-nothing/know-it-all" Roobs. When this web page suddenly went from about one hit per month to a hit every 3 minutes (recently, once per minute), I braced myself for what might happen. For more information about Roobs, go to link.

By the way, the person who cultivates his garden is on a path to liberation from enslavement by "group think."

"Generally speaking, it is quite right if great things things of much sense for men of rare sense ‑ are expressed but briefly and (hence) darkly, so that barren minds will declare it to be nonsense, rather than translate it into a nonsense that they can comprehend. For mean, vulgar minds have an ugly facility for seeing in the profoundest and most pregnant utterance only their own everyday opinion." Jean Paul, as quoted by Friedrich Nietzsche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, 1872.

    B L G a r y at u m i c h dot e d u

WebMaster: B. GaryNothing on this web page is copyrighted. This site opened: 2015.10.15,  Ended: 2017.06.17