Posted 08 January 2012 - 07:36 AM
Posted 25 January 2012 - 06:39 AM
Posted 25 January 2012 - 07:18 AM
Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:16 AM
Side note: I put in the 12mm UO HD Ortho + 2x shorty barlow for the same 200x and noted that companion was brighter and easier to see. Not a surprise to most, I'm sure, but to me it was.
Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:24 PM
Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:16 AM
Didn't expect much with all the glare from a full Moon and a milky sky, but it was a noticeable split at x87 and really clear at x122 (Kson102ED).
Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:37 PM
Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:41 PM
Checked 3 other references that indicate Rigel has only one visual companion. Recent observations seem to discount the early on observations of "B" being viewed as a tight .1" double.
From Wiki: Rigel B is itself a spectroscopic binary system, consisting of two main sequence stars that orbit their center of gravity every 9.8 days. The stars both belong to the spectral class B9V; Rigel B is the more massive of the pair, at 2.5 versus 1.9 solar masses.
There was long-running controversy in the late 19th and early 20th century over the possible visible binarity of Rigel B. A number of experienced observers claimed to see it as a double, while others were unable to confirm it; indeed, the proponents themselves were sometimes unable to duplicate their results. Observations since have ruled out the likelihood of a visible companion to Rigel B.
The scoop from the WDS:
05145-0812STF 668A,BC 1822 2011 117 201 204 8.9 9.3 0.3 6.8
05145-0812BU 555AD 1878 2008 6 2 1 44.5 44.6 0.3 15.4
05145-0812BU 555BC 1878 2005 25 55 30 0.3 0.1 7.5 7.6
Contradictory, it seems.... A spectroscopic binary with an orbital period of 9.8 days at the distance of Rigel (hundreds of light years) would not have a separation of 0.1" - more like 0.0001" or even closer...... I wonder what the WDS BC pair refers to or if it is an erroneous listing......
Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:32 PM
Curious, given as you say that a visible companion to Rigel B is unlikely. Agreed, it can't be the spectroscopic pair. Perhaps the 2005 measure might be evidence for the reality of Rigel B as a visual double after all.
Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:02 AM
Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:53 PM
Posted 15 February 2013 - 10:54 PM