,
4 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
@asborlaff @mireiamontesq @PeterYoachim @astro_delgado Absolutely! I have tremendous respect for the amateur community. They use different techniques though, and there's (understandable) variation among their images - these are all deep ones I could find. That's why we only compared to published (prof or amateur) images in the paper. 
@asborlaff @mireiamontesq @PeterYoachim @astro_delgado Several clearly agree with the one from @astro_delgado . One exotic explanation is that the 2nd loop is 100% 3727 emission, and some of the detectors are UV sensitive. That doesn't explain why features in the first loop are at a different location though (see Fig 5 in our paper).
@asborlaff @mireiamontesq @PeterYoachim @astro_delgado And to @asborlaff's point: the fact that amateurs are in the same ballpark as Subaru, a 64 hr integration with the BAO Schmidt, etc, is of course amazing. They, through @astro_delgado , have blazed a trail & beautifully demonstrated the power of small telescopes for deep imaging.
@asborlaff @mireiamontesq @PeterYoachim @astro_delgado Just noticed a small math error on @mireiamontesq's nice overview slide: Dragonfly is effectively a 1.0m telescope, so if it the two mounts are listed separately it would be 0.71m+0.71m, not 0.5m+0.5m. (or, more to the point, 48 x 0.14m!).
