Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Observing >> Double Star Observing

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)
Karl Fabian
super member
*****

Reged: 11/02/11

Loc: Illinois
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6123998 - 10/08/13 01:35 AM

Just got back inside after a futile attempt at Ganmma Eql with the 8 inch SCT. Seeing would not cooperate after spending 2 hours on it. It never got better than Pickering 5 with too many moving diffraction ring arcs and seeing artifacts. Simply too much light smeared around the ill defined airy disk to allow any hope of detecting a dim companion. The Clear Sky Clock good seeing prediction turned out to be a bummer. Hoping for decent seeing.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Karl Fabian]
      #6124791 - 10/08/13 12:11 PM

Sorry to hear it, Karl. Even with relatively calm rings the companion avoided detection in 6 inches aperture. One yes moment was quickly ruled out as seeing artifact. I'd love to observe this one, but Im loosing confidence in it. One more try, or two. Good luck to you on your next attempt.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Karl Fabian
super member
*****

Reged: 11/02/11

Loc: Illinois
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Asbytec]
      #6124955 - 10/08/13 01:33 PM

This is definitely a tough one Norme. Any hope of resolution will require excellent seeing, especially with larger central obstruction scopes that throw more light into the rings.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WRAK
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/18/12

Loc: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Karl Fabian]
      #6125418 - 10/08/13 04:51 PM

Bill, I basically take your positive report without any second thought as advertised data and reported aperture are within the realm of reason. What makes me curious are the described optical irregularities, especially the "broken" first ring with the (seemingly fainter than the ring) companion in the gap. I do not know any solid optical theory explaining this effect and I also miss empirical evidence - with good seeing I expect from a refractor and also a reflector without a spider for the mounting of the secondary a solid first ring and companions sitting on or in the ring do not "break" the ring at least as far as I remember. I will check this with my CO mask when I have the right conditions (good seeing and ~1.2" double with fainter companion in my field of view with reasonable altitude) - with zero CO the companion should sit within the ring and with increasing CO it should come into the ring and I expect eventually get "erased" by the then brighter ring. If the ring breaks and the fainter companion comes through then this would be the emperical evidence searched for - but I certainly do not expect such an effect.
Two negative reports from experienced observers with more than double the aperture you used also make a bit curious.
As far as I know this is your second positive report on Gam Equ - could you also provide your first one for comparison? The change of the parameters within one year would be minor even in a very fast orbit.
Wilfried


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: WRAK]
      #6125484 - 10/08/13 05:24 PM

Well Ive seen a fainter companion beside some doubles where the disruption of the rings momentarily uncovered it or provided more free space about it. On some doubles I would await for the disruption to occur so I could glimpse the companion before the ring fragments rejoined to form the complete ring again. Some times the rings appeared to be blown out of centricity . Of course they weren't blown away but the disruption seemed to give the effect. My guess here is that the the rings eminate from a seperate point source than the companion (however close) and this is how it is able to allow the rings to move about.

Even if every star in the field mimics the same ring disruption the star that happens to be where the rings have shifted or disappeared will shine through better because the effects from the primary diffraction pattern do not cancel out the light from neighboring diffraction patterns. Said another way, when the diffraction rings shift away or obliterate, the companion doesn't necessarily because its light is a seperate source altogether.

Sometimes in seeing as I stated earlier, less is more. My judgement isn't concrete here - Im open to other ideas but you can't expect one diffraction pattern to cancel out the light of another that isn't physically the same source.

Pete

Edited by azure1961p (10/08/13 05:25 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill Boublitz
super member


Reged: 05/04/13

Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6126213 - 10/09/13 12:46 AM Attachment (30 downloads)

Wilfried,

As you requested, attached are my two confirmations from 2012. The differences; I called the companion topaz-yellow. This year, it appeared distinct blue-white. However, if you note the date of observations, Gamma AB was much lower in altitude when observed 2012, and that has an effect on color. (Dispersion.) I have noted this effect when observing many other pairs through the years/seasons.

What I saw this year is well enough documented in the illustration above. There was a diffraction ring of the primary (same color and near same intensity), "split" into a trifid (as illustrated). The companion appeared in roughly P.A. 270, exactly where the third arc of the trifid would have been. Comparing the observed secondary to the two other parts of the arc; the secondary "seemed" dimmer than the diffraction arcs. It could be an effect of hue (optical illusion), or and effect of magnitude and how the light behaves in my instrument. I can't explain the phenomenon according to theory. I can, and did, faithfully record what I saw. Usually, diffraction rings (in my instrument) are complete; 360º of arc, unbroken. I have seen a primary ring broken on more than one occasion. I've never given it more thought than an artifact of my instrument, or seeing, or whatever. (I was always more interested in what was inside the ring...)

I read all the posts on Gamma with interest. I'm everything from amused to dumbfounded few are seeing this pair. Let's remember, Roberto and Mark logged positive splits last year. I believe this is one case where aperture does not help the situation. The challenge is the glare and something to do with the behavior of light in the particular optical path being used.

I wholeheartedly believe in science. However, I am not a fan of "Scientism" - the cult which believes there is a theoretical explanation for everything. (Maybe someday...) Theory is little more than hindsight; it describes where we have been - in this case, what we have seen. Theory can aid us when viewing something new, but taken as law often becomes dogma. I hope my logs encourage others in the pursuit. Take what you need and leave the rest.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill Boublitz
super member


Reged: 05/04/13

Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Bill Boublitz]
      #6126216 - 10/09/13 12:48 AM Attachment (30 downloads)

Apparently, the first entry from 2012 didn't make it. Attached here.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WRAK
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/18/12

Loc: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Bill Boublitz]
      #6126312 - 10/09/13 03:07 AM

Bill, thanks - consistent reports, especially as you noted in the first report the obviously smaller separation you noticed compared to the from Sissy Haas then advertised 1.5".
Wilfried


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: WRAK]
      #6126499 - 10/09/13 08:16 AM

Nice reports Bill - sounds like a nice Mak too so you had a high definition view. I've still not tried for this one yet - perhaps this weekend will be clear for me.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Gray
sage
*****

Reged: 08/06/12

Loc: Co. Durham UK
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6126574 - 10/09/13 09:06 AM Attachment (30 downloads)

Just to address this issue of glare with larger scopes and Gamma Equ B:

1). Going back to my first post on here I stated my use of an apodizer (a ‘neutral filter’: marked light reduction and diffraction rings minimized).

2). Uses of a binoviewer: i.e. >50% light-reduction and also in conjunction with the apodizer…..!

3). Use of an off-axis 6” mask.

4). I have since used a neutral density glass filter and also W#15 (light orange – poss. favour. B?) all of these separately and in various combinations – and no more certainty with B than I already reported in my first post.

Just recently a variable polarizer – always open to other ideas!

Also through thin cloud and also in twilight (easily swept up from Enif); if I thought standing on one leg would do it I’d give it a go.

I would also point out that B (reportedly) is not too different in magnitude to Titan: I have looked at this many thousands of times and Saturn has never managed to ‘glare it out’ in my scope. Even close-‘touching’ the globe (edge-on epochs) and low magnifications (down to x110 for the 16.3” D-K). In a good sky I can pick up Titan soon following half-hour after sunset; (summer twilight lingers long here at +54.7º lat.). As in recent apparitions: in pursuit of (with others) some colour effects. Also it is not that difficult to hold with part of the Moon in the field.

All this suggests to me I should be easily getting Gamma B at mag. 8.7 if it is c.1” or more distance in even moderate seeing.

I have yet to report – such as they are – my latest impressions, but I have put them on record with Fred during our PM exchanges and also an easy success with BU 730 (27 Psc.). With Gamma Equ I keep getting something in the ‘right’ place; but it simply does not come across as an undeniable star and that is my perplexity…… All I can guess is it is there shouting at/teasing me at some incipient level of detectability via the diffraction rings……….!!! If I got it I reckon it is pretty much fainter than Titan (similar colour tho’!). If it’s a variable then seems a strange one. I keep getting a faint smokey-orange hue with this ‘companion’/feature which seems to square somewhat with Kaler’s suggested late G/early K type; and have took care to eliminate atmospheric dispersion: B being in/near A’s red-zone.

Bill to be clear: I don’t say any of this with any sort of put-down/side-swipe. Neither did I come onto this thread with any such intention (bad timing maybe); merely putting my impressions/results. If you got it – then great job, in light of my struggles! But simply that I am experienced enough to anticipate and act upon the hazards that seasoned/veteran observers should be well aware of if they have properly developed their skills over years/decades! In short to report/represent, as you have done, what I truly feel I have seen in the eyepiece/s; with certain cautions/reservations as judged appropriate. This, in my view, separates the observers from the gazers.

For my part I await better than Pickering 7 – 8 in hope of certainty one way or the other.

With respect not sure about an occulter working near 1” separation as they can add effects that would possibly blur B out – not to say don’t try tho’!

Again an attachment with my best shots at possible orbits (with thanks to Fred for the data) and again including my impressions then (and still- last night).

With Respect,
David.

Edited by David Gray (10/09/13 11:10 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill Boublitz
super member


Reged: 05/04/13

Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: David Gray]
      #6126640 - 10/09/13 09:56 AM

No offense taken, David. I'm reading it with great interest. I hesitate to say anything except what's in my log entry, because it is little more than speculation on my part!

Interesting info on occulting bar. I've no experience with one, but note what you say. Thanks.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: David Gray]
      #6126643 - 10/09/13 09:59 AM

The best thing that could come along for all of us would be a 2013 measurement by a professional observatory.

The primary star is a peculiar magnetic variable (see all the citations here) and one would think that, for mass determination reasons, there would be a need for up-to-date observations of the pair to calculate an accurate orbit.

Poke-poke.... any professionals out there who could look into it? Only a minute to slew a big scope over there and grab some speckle imagery....

Dave

Edited by Cotts (10/09/13 10:02 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WRAK
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/18/12

Loc: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Cotts]
      #6128342 - 10/10/13 03:31 AM

May be this could be also a challenge for Ed Wiley with his C11 - despite the large CO he did successful video imaging of BU720 with a separation of 0.57". So a resolution of a double with advertised separation of 1" (or even 1.13" given Bills observation report) should then be possible even with larger delta_m.
Ed?
Wilfried


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
payner
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 03/22/07

Loc: Bluegrass Region, Kentucky
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: WRAK]
      #6137498 - 10/14/13 05:15 PM

I observed Gamma Equ on the night of 10/10/2013 with my Santel MK91 (228/3100) RuMak. Seeing was estimated at 4/5 with good transparency. It was cleanly split with a dark line between the primary and secondary using a Takahashi LE 7.5 mm for the best view. Both stars appeared cream with the secondary a bit darker. I estimated a PA at ~220.

Best,
Randy


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fred1871
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 03/22/09

Loc: Australia
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: payner]
      #6137666 - 10/14/13 07:01 PM

Curiouser and curiouser... the range of observations of Gamma Equ.

Randy, how bright or dim did the secondary star look compared to the primary? I'm continuing to wonder if the secondary star is variable in brightness.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
payner
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 03/22/07

Loc: Bluegrass Region, Kentucky
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: fred1871]
      #6137758 - 10/14/13 08:03 PM

Fred: I estimate it was near magnitude 8, much dimmer than the primary.

Randy


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: payner]
      #6137999 - 10/14/13 10:33 PM

Quote:

I observed Gamma Equ on the night of 10/10/2013 with my Santel MK91 (228/3100) RuMak. Seeing was estimated at 4/5 with good transparency. It was cleanly split with a dark line between the primary and secondary using a Takahashi LE 7.5 mm for the best view. Both stars appeared cream with the secondary a bit darker. I estimated a PA at ~220.

Best,
Randy




If you could, what estimate would you make of the separation?

This sighting encourages me to have a go with my 203mm/3100mm TEC MakCass at the Chiefland (FL) Fall Star Party. The legendary Florida seeing is calling me..........

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill Boublitz
super member


Reged: 05/04/13

Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: payner]
      #6138038 - 10/14/13 11:02 PM

Thank you, Randy. I was about to confine myself to the looney bin. So now it's what, down by seven or eight, going into the fourth quarter?

Yes, any separation estimate would be helpful. Even proximity to a diffraction ring.

Fred, as soon as you hear from Mason; do tell!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
R Botero
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 01/02/09

Loc: Kent, England
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Bill Boublitz]
      #6138595 - 10/15/13 09:12 AM

It has to be a variable companion! (I hope). I'm almost sure I've seen it last year but no luck this year (because of poor weather really) since it has become observable again.

Roberto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fred1871
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 03/22/09

Loc: Australia
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Bill Boublitz]
      #6138633 - 10/15/13 09:39 AM

Quote:


Fred, as soon as you hear from Mason; do tell!




I'll be very glad to let everyone know when data becomes available. I'm informed that a "request to observe" has been sent to several observers with access to suitable equipment (big scope plus adaptive optics).

Now it's a matter of waiting, and hope that at least one of the professional observers comes up with current numbers. That will settle whether the pair is closing or opening, where the separation has got to, and what the PA now is; those matters determined, we can look at possibilities for the secondary being variable etc. And I suspect this pair will repay measures being made more frequently from now for some years to come.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)


Extra information
1 registered and 4 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  PJ Anway, Rich (RLTYS), rflinn68 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 6880

Jump to

CN Forums Home




Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics