Talk:T Pyxidis

message: The exact year of the last nova seems unclear. Some sources claim 1966, others 1967. I've kept 1966 because of this source:
Webbink, Ronald F., Mario Livio, and James W. Truran and Marina Orio. "The Nature of Recurrent Novae", The Astrophysical Journal, 314, 653-672, March 15, 1987.
Page 658: Link.
Quote:
   ... It is known to have experienced outbursts in 1890, 1902, 1920, 1944, and 1966 ...
   ... The 1966 outburst required 32 days to reach maximum light, exhibited a relatively flat maximum, and then declined ...
~Styck 82.95.107.93 (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1966 or 1967?

message: The distance to stars like this is very difficult to determine.  The value 3260 light years is actually 1 kiloparsec (1000 parsecs).  The implied precision in light years is misleading.  The actual value could range significantly from that value.  However, I think changing to a different unit or even correcting the number of significant figures would not accomplish enough to make it worth doing. Autkm (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Distance

message: Are AAVSO Light Curves free to use?  I used them to verify maximum magnitude, but if I can use it to show overall light curve, I will do so. Autkm (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAVSO Light Curves 

message: Many paragraphs are in flagrant contradictions with one another, and some just don't work well in their chronology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.52.221 (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a rewrite 

message: "Mankind survived when the Crab Nebula went off at a distance of about 6500 light-years in the year 1054."
There is a contradiction in this sentence. If the Crab Nebula is at 6500 light-years, it will take at least 6500 years for its materials to reach Earth. So rendez-vous in year 5446?
: Obviously that is referring to earth-time. It won't be ambiguous for another 2.5 millenia. Hopefully the English wording won't be relevant by then. See also Crab nebula. Aij (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? The previous response is non-sensical. SN 1054 became apparent to us in - guess when? That's right - 1054 (AD/CE)! That means that that's when it's electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, X-rays and gamma rays, reached us on earth and allowed us to see it, meaning that this radiation had already traveled the noted 6,500 years by then.
Reworded to remove ambiguity Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mankind survived or will survive? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on T Pyxidis. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070306114344/http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt to http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990824013405/http://ftp.aavso.org/ql/ to http://ftp.aavso.org/ql
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130415203226/http://www.slackerastronomy.org/wordpress/2009/03/podcast-simo-slacker-interviews-pt-i/ to http://www.slackerastronomy.org/wordpress/2009/03/podcast-simo-slacker-interviews-pt-i/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)