Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Observing >> Double Star Observing

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | (show all)
payner
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 03/22/07

Loc: Bluegrass Region, Kentucky
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Bill Boublitz]
      #6139589 - 10/15/13 06:40 PM

Quote:

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!




Bill: I estimate the separation to be near 1.1 seconds. I will look for the reference, but I seem to recall it stated the primary is variable, but with a magnitude difference of just several tenths of a magnitude. I don't know if that would make an appreciable difference in observing the secondary. I think steady skies and high magnification are requisites.

Best,
Randy

PS- I did a quick search and here is a note on variability https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equuleus_%28constellation%29&r... (click on the link Equuleus). It appears this information was posted June 2008 and realize this site may not contain reliable information.


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

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: payner]
      #6139975 - 10/15/13 10:51 PM

Transparency too Randy - Im guessing. This is still on my to-do list. Love the avatar.

Pete


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


Reged: 05/04/13

Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: azure1961p]
      #6140127 - 10/16/13 12:27 AM

Thanks for the additional info, Randy. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

I've also received an additional positive confirmation via personal message on this pair. It was quite detailed, however the observer requested to remain anonymous. I was not the only one on this thread who was sent the report, so some of you know what I'm referring to.

Once again truth suffers due to arrogance and the will of human ego.

Ever Onward, ~ Bill


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


Reged: 03/22/09

Loc: Australia
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: payner]
      #6140185 - 10/16/13 01:32 AM

Randy, there is also a Wikipedia item specifically on Gamma Equulei; and the references cited in that may be of interest to those wishing further information, particularly on the unusual primary star.

Jim Kaler also has a brief item on Gamma Equ available online. As one would expect, given the author, a useful summary, though again it's mainly about the primary star.


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


Reged: 05/04/13

Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: fred1871]
      #6140217 - 10/16/13 02:02 AM

Ah yes, down the well trodden path once again.... If you want truth; consult Wikipedia.

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]
      #6140224 - 10/16/13 02:20 AM

Bill, I obviously pointed to the references cited in the article, rather than the article itself. The references are to science papers. Those I thought might be of interest.

Those papers and the studies they represent won't always come to the same conclusions. Science is like that - finding a path through the forest, which can involve byways, and even paths that lead nowhere, on the way to reaching a clear view eventually. That's why science requires openly presenting evidence and discussing that evidence.


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: fred1871]
      #6140287 - 10/16/13 04:41 AM

Excellent seeing seems paramount for resolving such a close binary with delta_m of 4. Already minor side effects may make all efforts even with larger apertures futile it seems.
I have taken the liberty to include the observations of Mark (203mm for 1"), Bill (178mm for 1.13") and Randy (228mm for 1") in my data set of limit observations as they are reasonable given the advertised data and wait for professional measurement for confirmation.
Roberto mentioned earlier splits with 152mm - this seems with the current "evidence" a tad optimistic and would require a somewhat larger separation which may have been given in the past but probably not now.
The so far negative reports with ~400mm apertures and very small CO are still somewhat disturbing - should have been an easy resolution with the given data and the mentioned reasonable good seeing.
Wilfried


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

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: WRAK]
      #6140385 - 10/16/13 08:00 AM

I'm curious what Cotts comes up with in Florida. This is becoming quite the enigma . Bill apparently you have spearheaded the medium aperture success here (of which I still cower from) and the subsequent reports if others support your finds which is a good thing. If I luck out with a night off of great seeing with my 8" Ill give it a gander but I've kinda shelved till till be ct summers balmy excellent seeing bows in again.

Pete


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: WRAK]
      #6140386 - 10/16/13 08:00 AM

Wilfried

Note that my suspected split with a 6" over a couple of nights was last year in November. I have not been able (even to observe) this Autumn.

Roberto


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: R Botero]
      #6140440 - 10/16/13 08:51 AM

Roberto, hope for a perfect night within the next 2 weeks for you - Gam Equ is still about 48 high for your location but will soon decline below 45 demanding some tribute to extinction.
Wilfried


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


Reged: 05/04/13

Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: fred1871]
      #6141015 - 10/16/13 02:12 PM

Thank you Fred. I quite agree with you. That's exactly why I'm posting my observations in the face of everyone's puzzlement.

Last night, I was discouraged that an observer with enthusiasm for the subject, good equipment, etc., took the time and trouble to resolve the pair over several nights... and then sends me a PM saying he didn't want to post his findings.

Anyway, I received another PM from him today and he gave permission to quote from his observation. Which I will - later.

As far as variability, my intuition is that there may be something to it. I will read these articles when I can. What I have read states the primary is an unusual, highly magnetic variable, but no variability has been detected in the visible light spectrum. (We're talking professional measurements here) My feeling is, if changes are taking place in the system, might not some form of interaction between the pair cause the secondary to at least appear variable?

Yes, I know.... We need professional measurements.


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: azure1961p]
      #6141364 - 10/16/13 05:41 PM

Quote:

Transparency too Randy - Im guessing. This is still on my to-do list. Love the avatar.

Pete




Hi Pete: Yes, transparency was very good that evening, but steady skies are the "treat" with such doubles.

Thanks for the nice comment on the avatar. I purchased this handmade Russian Mak from a friend who purchased it new. I've had it about six years now; other telescopes have come and gone, but this one has remained.

Best,
Randy


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: R Botero]
      #6141751 - 10/16/13 08:37 PM

Roberto: It looks favorable here for observation on 10/18. I plan to use a 152 f/8 refractor on Gamma Equ. I am not expecting to get a split, but the observation will be interesting to me. I look forward to reading the results of your efforts with a 6" telescope.

Best,
Randy


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


Reged: 05/04/13

Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: payner]
      #6141917 - 10/16/13 10:04 PM

Following is the observation sent to me via PM by John, from Western France;

"I took a look at Gamma Equ a few weeks ago when the weather was warm, calm and still and the seeing very stable with good transparency. Given all the negative reports, I was very suprised to see the companion and it wasn't difficult at 320 - 400x. The view was almost exactly like the left hand one in the Pdf, which Bill posted on the 27th of September, except that the diffraction ring was visible most of the way round, save for a break where the companion was (the companion was slightly outside of the diffraction ring). I went back to the star the following day when conditions where the same with an identical result.
Now, here's the rub: the weather changed to slightly less stable skies and a gentle cool breeze and the next time that I tried I couldn't see the companion at all! I mean not even a hint... This suprised me so much that I even re-checked to see if I had the right star in the field. Anyway no luck that night at any power.

I have no Idea why people with larger (or similar) apertures and more experience are failing to see this one but I would guess it's something to do with the companion being so close to the diffraction ring and of just the right intensity to vanish into it in less that excellent seeing."

-John followed up with this, today;

"By the way, I'm happy for you to quote from my report if you like."

It should be evident this pair is achievable with medium apertures in the 6"- 10" range. Certainly larger apertures are capable of much finer resolution. Unfortunately, they achieve their theoretical potential less often due to atmosphere.


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


Reged: 05/04/13

Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Bill Boublitz]
      #6141928 - 10/16/13 10:08 PM

Forgot to include relevant information listed elsewhere in the letter;

"I use a very good Meade 178ed, .... eyepieces used were Zeiss jena orthos and 8mm Paradigm."


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

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: Bill Boublitz]
      #6142061 - 10/16/13 11:37 PM

Bill thanks for the clarification of accounts. Hats off.

Pete


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]
      #6142134 - 10/17/13 12:36 AM

Good to see that we have more observers trying this double. John's report, similar to Bill's as he points out, can be added to the database.

However his suggestion about why larger apertures have failed to see the companion doesn't explain that - because as the aperture changes, the position of the first and brightest diffraction ring changes while the position of the secondary star does not change. So with the companion at, say, 1.13" (Wilfried's estimate from Bill's drawing), a 16-inch or 24-inch telescope will have the first diffraction ring much closer to the disc of the primary than a 7-inch telescope, so the star image won't be near to or caught up in that ring.

And for 16-inch and 24-inch scopes, for which size telescopes we have reports, the position of the secondary star will lie outside the 2nd and 3rd (dimmer) diffraction rings as well.

So, the explanation will be found elsewhere. Atmospheric seeing will be more obviously detrimental to large apertures than smaller ones, but some of the reports from observers using larger telescopes address that issue, both by reporting on atmospheric steadiness, and giving examples of other difficult pairs successfully observed at the time, where more recent data can provide a benchmark.

The puzzle continues.


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: fred1871]
      #6142249 - 10/17/13 03:26 AM

Strictly personal comments to John's report: If the advertised data for Gam Equ is only near reality than it is certainly not "not difficult" at all with 178mm - gap in the first diffraction ring or not. That a slight change in conditions made the easy resolved companion disappear would then be very remarkable if it is not difficult.

One possible szenario for such a diversity of positive and negative observations reports was already mentioned elsewhere: The companion of Gam Equ is may be a very fast changing variable - easy for 178mm one day and invisible for 400mm the next day.
Wilfried


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

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Separation Gamma Equ new [Re: WRAK]
      #6142674 - 10/17/13 10:52 AM Attachment (5 downloads)

Concerning the variability of Gamma Equ A. Sky Safari gives this little tidbit.... No mention is made of the variablity of B.

interesting: The period of A's variability is 12.5 minutes!

I still feel my failure with 400mm of aperture is because the seeing was never good enough at OkieTex... I have some confidence that in the much better Florida seeing I will do better with my TEC 8"...

Dave

Edited by Cotts (10/17/13 10:57 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: Bill Boublitz]
      #6143055 - 10/17/13 02:14 PM

Quote:

... observation ... John ...

"...the companion was slightly outside of the diffraction ring..."




Tried to translate this into numbers regarding separation - and this made me aware of a miscalculation for Bill's observation - should be simple enough but I managed to do it wrong. Therefore again the calculation in detail:
Size Airy disk with 550nm for 178mm with zero CO = 1.55". Separation for a companion sitting directly on the first diffraction ring with ~0.3 CO is therefore 1.55/2/1.22*1.61=1.02" (and not 1.13" as calculated before).
Same calculation for John assuming the size of the spurious disk for a +9mag star being 30% of the Airy Disk:
1.55/2/1.22*1.635+0.3*1.55/2=1.04+0.23=1.27" plus some space for the term "outside" may be 0.1" giving in total 1.37".
Sorry for the miscalculation. Hope I did it this time better.
Wilfried


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | (show all)


Extra information
7 registered and 5 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: 7083

Jump to

CN Forums Home




Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics