Talk:SGR 1806−20

message: In the NASA-credited pix, the location of 1806 -20 is wrong.  The correct location can be mapped using the wiki page for Sagittarius at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_%28constellation%29
where 1806 -20 is just below and to the left of M23. On that image,
the horizontal white line below M23 is at -20 degrees declination; 
the vertical white RA line to the left of M23 is the 18:00 hour line.
Also, NASA has the correct pix at:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/watchtheskies/swift_nsu_0205.html
Sorry for not editing the article myself, but I'm a newbie at wiki, and I didn't want to mess up this nice article.
--Solspot 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I got it, substituting a figure that was in the Gallery with the correct position. Wwheaton (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position in figure 

message: There doesn't seem to be any..(Later edit) Removed it 82.169.255.79 (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point of the gallery? 

message: Without reference to a magnitude system this number is fairly meaningless, but I decided to do a bit of search to see if I could determine the origin of this value.  It could be absolute bolometric magnitude which from the rest of the articles on it seems likely.  However, I was unable to find any reference to any determination of the absolute magnitude of the Dec 27, 2004 flare.  If nobody provides a response, I will probably remove the actual reference to a specific magnitude. Autkm (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: actually I'm shocked at the general lack of citations. Going hunting… --Smkolins (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  SOHO saw it GCN GRB OBSERVATION REPORT, SGR1806: Optical Transient Candidates in SOHO/LASCO Images, DATE:    05/01/08 02:54:09 GMT, FROM:    AAVSO GRB Network at AAVSO  <aavso@aavso.org>, P. Schnoor and A. Price, on behalf of the AAVSO International High Energy
Network (there is a whole series of articles at )
Radio observers picked it up - Detection of Gamma Ray Bursts and X-ray transient SGR1806-20 with VLF Radio Telescopes, By Rodney Howe, … --Smkolins (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

text: might be plumbed for details where the info was gathered from? --Smkolins (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute Magnitude -29 

message: most things I know don't use their own to convey a science comparison, .. you can't physically say those words, .. 216.210.69.108 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: here is the proof:  and  ESAD-Hooker (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Close enough, well within any margin of error. Of course if there were a citation giving an actual distance, we could actually argue about some real numbers instead of made-up ones ... Lithopsian (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

text: If you think 6% is "well within any margin of error" then I will accept your response. Why not say , at least the "made-up ones" actually  correctly ESAD-Hooker (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I looked around a bit as I suspected that 14.5 kpc had a few too many significant figures.  There may be a more recent paper, but the most recent one looking at distance to SGR1806-20 appears to be SVIRSKI G.; NAKAR E.; OFEK E.O. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2485-2494 (SGR 1806-20 distance and dust properties in molecular clouds by analysis of flare X-ray echoes)  They suggest the distance with a 90% confidence level is between 9.4kpc and 18.6kpc.I am not sure where the 14.5 kpc number came from, but didn't delve too much into the early literature. Autkm (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  14.5 kiloparsecs is NOT 50,000 light-years according to CONVERT 

message: This star is ~8.7 kpc away, see: https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0815
In addition, 1E 1048.1-5937 is not the closest magnetar, there are a number closer, including SGR J0418 + 5729 which is estimated to be 1.6 kpc away: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1034.pdf
Finally, there's a good resource for magnetar information here, from McGill University http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~pulsar/magnetar/main.html
67.171.246.19 (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Have at it.  Looks like you've got a reliable source for that distance, which is more than the article has right now.  A quick literature search suggests that 8.7kpc is still widely accepted, although you might want to check Svirski et al (2011) just for context.  Lithopsian (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance info is outdated