Somebody give this star a speeding ticket.

Wow what a find dg. I wonder would the difference in proper motion due to the fact that the dss image was taken in April and yours in August thus adding the Earths orbital movement to you calculation?.

I mean as it is a nearby star could it be the stars paralax you are measuring rather then its true proper motion. Means you need to take another image in 6 months to be sure:)

Nice result DG. Nice research Vagelis (say hi to Kiriakee for me, and of course all the gang - missing you all - hope to see you next June).
DeeBee - Parallax would affect all stars in the field thereby negating any differentiation. Think of it this way - there are many stars in the field, incl. galaxies with widely different distances from earth, yet they show no apparent movement. Unless the star in question is very close we should see no discrepancy

You are correct. But I understand that this star is very close to us.

Dave Grennan wrote:

I carried out an astrometric analysis and discovered the following
DeltaA (Diff in RA) = .73"
DeltaD (Diff in Dec) = 3.68"

This thus corresponds to;

PMRA = 38.42 mas/yr
PMDEC = 193.68 mas/yr

Are you sure you did your calculations correctly? It looks to me as if the star is moving more in RA than it is in DEC. Did you remember to multiply your RA seconds by 15 to convert to arc seconds? That would have given you 576.3 mas/yr - 38% more than what simbad gives, but at least the right order of magnitude.

The parallax of the star is given in SIMBAD as 44.4 mas plus-or-minus 3.3 mas.

So it's distance from us is 1.0 / 0.0444 = 22.5 parsecs = 73.4 light years (plus-or-minus 5.5 light years).

You are spot on Chris. Thats exactly what I did.

I had forgotten to convert it to angular degrees. The correct value should be therefore;

.73 * (15 * cos(41)) = .73 *11.3206 = 8.2641" which equates to a PMRA of 435mas/yr. This is much closer to the published value.