Jump to content


Photo

IC 2149

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8416
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:52 AM

While chasing down A 1724, a very dim double in Auriga, I ran across IC 2149 so stopped in for a look. It's quite bright with an easy central star. It was apparent right away. In fact, there were two bright spots in the nebula one just east of the central star was pretty apparent. It almost looked like it had two central stars. At 380x, I caught a brief glimpse of a brighter western edge. It was elongated pretty much E-W, best I could tell. Only a faint hint of some outlaying nebulous extension (spreading south?) Nice planetary, even without a filter in yellow zone skies.

Attached Files



#2 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10465
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 30 November 2013 - 12:38 PM

Wow - brings back memories. Haven't seen that since 93? Pinatubo had just blown, sulphur dioxides turned m sky's to ____t and my 8" was akin to a 4". M51 lost its arms as did M33 - tough times to love deepsky. When I did pick this one up at over 300x - it was merely a smear. Lol it looked like an astigmatic planetary. I didn't even BEGIN to see what you've got here . Wow - been 20 years virtually.

Well now I HAVE to revisit this!!! Double lobed aspect, nice central star - this is a NICE object Norme. I NEVER would've guessed these details were approachable. I left the object soon after seeing it and never returned.
Very impressive observation Norme. I'm adding this to my deepsky sketch folder which holds 7662. I have to have another look - and from that better site I told you about.

Very very impressive detail in such a very small object! And not that bright!

Pete

#3 Ptarmigan

Ptarmigan

    Lagopus lagopus

  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Arctic

Posted 30 November 2013 - 02:57 PM

Nice sketch. IC 2149 looks easy to find on a star chart. I tried to find and see it with no success. It is a small object from what I have read.

#4 Feidb

Feidb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1790
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Nevada

Posted 30 November 2013 - 03:25 PM

I'll have to add that to my list!

#5 Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Virginia, USA

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:21 PM

Nice sketch. IC 2149 looks easy to find on a star chart. I tried to find and see it with no success. It is a small object from what I have read.


You are correct. In my XT8, I didn't see it as non-stellar until I upped the power to 192x. It's also one of the very few planetaries I've received any response from a H-Beta filter.

-Nick Anderson

#6 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10465
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:56 PM

I recal it need some serious enlarging to become seen well. 300x is not excessive. Its roughly 12" on a side and approx 10.5v. That it packs those contrasts on a tiny area like that is striking.

Pete

#7 blb

blb

    Aurora

  • -----
  • Posts: 4529
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Piedmont NC

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:13 PM

Yes this PN needs high power and a larger telescope to be seen well but check out this site to see an account of it being visible in a 4-inch refractor. Using a 4-inch TV102 refractor at 220x to 293x he could clearly see IC2149 as a PN with a brighter central star. At lower magnification it was only visible as a stelar object. So if you are not close to a magnification of 300x, you will probably only see it as a faint star too.

#8 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8416
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 30 November 2013 - 09:57 PM

Pete, Pinatubo had that much affect? I think I was in Iceland at the time and didn't really do any observing. Yea, you gotta see it again, then.

I found it to be somewhat bright and easily non stellar at 320x as Buddy says - small, fairly bright, and definitely unmistakable as non stellar. This is a perfect object to really crank up the magnification.

Star hopping was pretty easy being so near to 35 A. Sweeping to it it was obvious once in the FOV. In fact, at 320x it gave the impression of having two central stars - that brighter knot to the east (left in the sketch.)

It's a beautiful planetary, check it out next chance you get. It is supposed to be a real blinker, but I did not notice it outside of the normal 'blinking' caused by changes in averted vision. I guess it did blink, then.

Color was elusive for me.

#9 kfiscus

kfiscus

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Albert Lea, MN, USA

Posted 30 November 2013 - 10:30 PM

Question: The sketch is labeled IC 2140, not 2149. Which is correct?

#10 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10465
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 30 November 2013 - 10:31 PM

Pinatubo was devastating and took years to really go away. In both the 10" and 8" aperture effectiveness on galaxies and the like was halved.

Pete

#11 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8416
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 30 November 2013 - 10:43 PM

Question: The sketch is labeled IC 2140, not 2149. Which is correct?


Gaaa! Good catch, IC 2149 is correct. The sketch label is wrong. I apologize on behalf of my fat fingers.

Pete, yea, I remember the dust cloud animations. I began observing again in Panama (8 degrees north) in 1994. Not sure how much that was affected having forgotten about Pinatubo by then. Man, if my views were dimmed, I'm gonna be *BLEEP* for missing something that far south. Gotta go back and repeat them all. :)

#12 kfiscus

kfiscus

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Albert Lea, MN, USA

Posted 30 November 2013 - 10:58 PM

Thank you.

This talk of Pinatubo reminds me of its effects here in the upper Midwest (US). It's blamed for shifting the pressure systems/jet stream so that we got massive flooding in the upper Mississippi in the summer of '93. It rained here about every day. Bad ol' days.

#13 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8416
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 01 December 2013 - 12:00 AM

Ken, et al, here's a sketch Thomas did a while back. I'm stunned how similar we viewed it. He grabbed it in a 4" refractor. Amazing work.

Often when we observe something, at least new objects that rarely show in images of popular magazines, we really have little idea of what they look like. It's amazing to see what other's see. Images of the object are often over exposed and sketches others have done vary widely from blank discs with a central star to some surface brightness.

#14 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10465
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 01 December 2013 - 07:56 PM

Here's a link to one of the best images I've seen out of the amateur community: http://www.cloudynig...41-IC2149_5.jpg

You drawings are right on the heels of what's here.

Pete

#15 CelestronDaddy

CelestronDaddy

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 891
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Central Texas

Posted 01 December 2013 - 08:04 PM

Wow ... That's nice :grin:

#16 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8416
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 01 December 2013 - 09:17 PM

Holy cow, Pete. First, yea, that is a nice image. Second, there are bright spots on either side of the central star. That's amazing. The one bright knot was easy, but the other was fleeting. YEA! Great image, not over exposed. I suspected some very faint nebula extending south, but it's not apparent in the image. (Good thing I didn't sketch it, even though I tried to hint at it. :lol:)

Tony, go for it. It's nicer than expected for an IC object.

#17 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10465
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 01 December 2013 - 09:37 PM

Apparently this is quite the peculiar planetary in that it doesn't follow form commonly understood about most other s.

Pete

#18 tnakazon

tnakazon

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 345
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 19 January 2014 - 05:02 AM

Saw this easily with my C90 Mak at a suburban (orange-zone) sky site. Even using "only" 100X, it doesn't quite look like a star. A narrowband filter really makes it stand out from the surrounding stars.

#19 Kraus

Kraus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Georgia.

Posted 19 January 2014 - 09:47 PM


I declare it the tiniest object in the whole wide world.

Nick,

An H-Beta filter? I wished I read that earlier today. My best view was with an OIII at 508. I'll revisit the object Tuesday evening.

I love them thar planetaries.

#20 Ptarmigan

Ptarmigan

    Lagopus lagopus

  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Arctic

Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:48 PM

Gaaa! Good catch, IC 2149 is correct. The sketch label is wrong. I apologize on behalf of my fat fingers.

Pete, yea, I remember the dust cloud animations. I began observing again in Panama (8 degrees north) in 1994. Not sure how much that was affected having forgotten about Pinatubo by then. Man, if my views were dimmed, I'm gonna be *BLEEP* for missing something that far south. Gotta go back and repeat them all. :)


The dust from Pinatubo affected the July 11, 1991 total solar eclipse view. I am not surprised it had an impact on starwatching for a year.

I have read that Pinatubo may have been a factor in 1993 Midwest Flood. Prior to the flood, the Winter of 1992-93 had heavy snowfall on top of super saturated grounds from Fall rains. Pinatubo produced the most dust since Krakatoa did in 1883.

I declare it the tiniest object in the whole wide world.

Nick,

An H-Beta filter? I wished I read that earlier today. My best view was with an OIII at 508. I'll revisit the object Tuesday evening.

I love them thar planetaries.


I probably saw IC 2149 unknowingly multiple times.

#21 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:13 PM

I declare it the tiniest object in the whole wide world.



Meh. There are much smaller planetaries out there. Hubble 2, for example.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#22 Kraus

Kraus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Georgia.

Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:12 AM


You shouldn't have mentioned it. Now I got to look for it. Ich danke Ihnen.

#23 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 21 January 2014 - 02:34 PM

You shouldn't have mentioned it. Now I got to look for it. Ich danke Ihnen.



No problem. Here's something to chew on:

http://www.hs.uni-ha...2/text2/inde...

:grin:


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#24 Kraus

Kraus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Georgia.

Posted 22 January 2014 - 08:48 PM

Nice sketch. IC 2149 looks easy to find on a star chart. I tried to find and see it with no success. It is a small object from what I have read.


You are correct. In my XT8, I didn't see it as non-stellar until I upped the power to 192x. It's also one of the very few planetaries I've received any response from a H-Beta filter.

-Nick Anderson


Yup. The h-Beta let even the central star shine through. Maybe not really shine but it was most prevalent through it than my OIII or UHC filters.

Thanks Nick.

I'm on the Raspberry nebula right now. I'm warming up with some hot chocolate and Henry is licking my face. Cats give humans baths as well as each other.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics