Telescope Reviews: how bright was M1 when cataloged?

· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt

· Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

You are not logged in. [Login]

Entrance · Main Index · Search · New user · Who's Online
FAQ · Calendar

Observing >> Deep Sky Observing

Pages: 1

Darren Drake
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 10/09/02

Loc: Chicagoland

how bright was M1 when cataloged?
#5611757 - 01/08/13 11:11 AM

M1 is the only ds object that has changed significantly since its discovery. Its less than a thousand years old. I'm wondering just how much smaller brighter and different it was when Messier cataloged it on sept 12, 1758. Thoughts???

Edited by Darren Drake (01/08/13 11:13 AM)

Post Extras:

Tony Flanders
Postmaster

Reged: 05/18/06

Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: Darren Drake]
#5611905 - 01/08/13 12:56 PM

Quote:

I'm wondering just how much smaller brighter and different it was when Messier cataloged it on sept 12, 1758.

The general assumption is that M1 has been expanding at a fairly constant rate since the light of its progenitor's explosion reached us in 1054. That would make it about 700/960 = 73% of its current size by linear measure.

I don't know about its absolute magnitude. My guess is that it's remained pretty constant since then.

Post Extras:

Laurent Ferrero
member

Reged: 12/28/12

Loc: Marseilles, France

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: Tony Flanders]
#5611917 - 01/08/13 01:09 PM

I think when M1 extends its contrast and magnitude declines because the nebula is more deluted in space.

But we have an advantage compared to Messier, we have OIII filters !

I have made a skech of M1 in the end of 2012 with my 15" Obsession:
http://splendeursducielprofond.over-blog.com/pages/Les_objets_Messier-2493429...

Edited by Laurent Ferrero (01/08/13 04:26 PM)

Post Extras:

MikeBOKC
Post Laureate

Reged: 05/10/10

Loc: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: Laurent Ferrero]
#5611924 - 01/08/13 01:12 PM

Here is an interesting graphic showing the very visible expansion of the crab's visible gas cloud between 1973 and 2000:

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys231/crab/crab.html

Post Extras:

dpwoos
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 10/18/06

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: Laurent Ferrero]
#5611926 - 01/08/13 01:12 PM

A (bona fide professional) astronomer told me that a lot of what we see when we observe supernova remnants is the shockwave heating and exciting stuff that it runs into. If that is so, then "dilution" is not a big factor and I would think the brightness could vary considerably one way or the other depending on the stuff in its path.

Edited by dpwoos (01/08/13 01:14 PM)

Post Extras:

drbyyz
sage

Reged: 11/04/12

Loc: Summerville, SC

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: MikeBOKC]
#5612219 - 01/08/13 03:59 PM

Quote:

Here is an interesting graphic showing the very visible expansion of the crab's visible gas cloud between 1973 and 2000:

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys231/crab/crab.html

Now that is freaking cool!

Post Extras:

GlennLeDrew
Postmaster

Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: drbyyz]
#5612707 - 01/08/13 09:01 PM

I suspect the *integrated* magnitude of the Crab's synchrotron radiation hasn't changed much in the interval, meaning the surface brightness would have decreased with the expansion. This is my supposition only.

Post Extras:

nytecam
Postmaster

Reged: 08/20/05

Loc: London UK

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: MikeBOKC]
#5613146 - 01/09/13 05:00 AM

Quote:

Here is an interesting graphic showing the very visible expansion of the crab's visible gas cloud between 1973 and 2000: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys231/crab/crab.html

Very interesting link - especially reference to the old 36" Crossley reflector may me think Mayall's spectra of the Crab expansion was old too eg in 1938? in Wikipeadia thus...

Using his newly built spectrograph, Mayall was the first to determine the radial velocities of many knots of gas in the Crab Nebula.[17] Using these data and the previously published angular rate of expansion of the nebula, he was able to estimate its distance. Consequently, he became the first person to recognize and demonstrate that the Crab Nebula was the remnant of a supernova observed and recorded in 1054 (SN 1054), rather than a classical nova.[30][31] Walter Baade was instrumental in stimulating and counseling Mayall after around 1939, taking on the role previously filled by Hubble

Incredible work

Post Extras:

Tom Polakis
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 12/20/04

Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: Tony Flanders]
#5613433 - 01/09/13 10:07 AM

Quote:

The general assumption is that M1 has been expanding at a fairly constant rate since the light of its progenitor's explosion reached us in 1054. That would make it about 700/960 = 73% of its current size by linear measure.

While the slope is very nearly linear, I have read in the journals that the filaments are accelerating. In other words, if you extrapolate the positions of the filaments measured over a number of decades, they will converge in something like the 14th century rather than in 1054.

This paper is some light reading on the subject.

As others have mentioned, it seems like the surface brightness would have diminished significantly since the time of its discovery.

Tom

Post Extras:

sgottlieb
scholastic sledgehammer

Reged: 07/22/07

Loc: SF Bay area

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: nytecam]
#5614331 - 01/09/13 07:21 PM

Quote:

Very interesting link - especially reference to the old 36" Crossley reflector may me think Mayall's spectra of the Crab expansion was old too eg in 1938? in Wikipeadia thus...

Using his newly built spectrograph, Mayall was the first to determine the radial velocities of many knots of gas in the Crab Nebula.[17] Using these data and the previously published angular rate of expansion of the nebula, he was able to estimate its distance. Consequently, he became the first person to recognize and demonstrate that the Crab Nebula was the remnant of a supernova observed and recorded in 1054 (SN 1054), rather than a classical nova.[30][31] Walter Baade was instrumental in stimulating and counseling Mayall after around 1939, taking on the role previously filled by Hubble

Speaking of Hubble, it's worth mentioning that before Mayall's work, Hubble published this in 1928:

"[the nebula] is expanding rapidly and at such a rate that it must have required about 900 years to reach its present dimensions. For, in the ancient accounts of celestial phenomena only one nova has been recorded in the region of the Crab Nebula. This account is found in the Chinese annals, the postion fits as closely as it can read, and the year was 1054!"

Edited by sgottlieb (01/09/13 07:24 PM)

Post Extras:

Scanning4Comets
Markus

Reged: 12/26/04

Loc: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: sgottlieb]
#5617516 - 01/11/13 04:06 PM

Quote:

I think when M1 extends its contrast and magnitude declines because the nebula is more deluted in space.

But we have an advantage compared to Messier, we have OIII filters !

I don't think an O-III filter is the filter of choice for M-1. I believe the UHC would be better, or none at all IIRC. I did check out your web page and you have some really nice drawings! Love the scopes too!

Cheers,

Post Extras:

sgottlieb
scholastic sledgehammer

Reged: 07/22/07

Loc: SF Bay area

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: Scanning4Comets]
#5618048 - 01/11/13 09:27 PM

Quote:

I don't think an O-III filter is the filter of choice for M-1. I believe the UHC would be better, or none at all IIRC. I did check out your web page and you have some really nice drawings! Love the scopes too!

You're right, the overall contrast and shape is not enhanced by an OIII filter. But it is the filter of choice to see filamentary detail within M1. With my 18", the filaments go from invisible or extremely muted, to obvious (in good conditions) with an OIII filter.

Post Extras:

azure1961p
Postmaster

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: sgottlieb]
#5618085 - 01/11/13 09:56 PM

This is very compelling Steve and others have concurred with your finds. I recall the one time I tried it and the filter killed it - but it's an 8". Still it'd be interesting to see what could come of it if I tried. At that aperture even mottling is a good find.

Pete

Post Extras:

Laurent Ferrero
member

Reged: 12/28/12

Loc: Marseilles, France

Re: how bright was M1 when cataloged? new

[Re: azure1961p]
#5623102 - 01/14/13 05:24 PM

Thank you Markus for the sketches.
I agree with Steve, the OIII is very good for filaments. Next time I will try to compare the vision of M1 with the UHC filter.

cheers,

Laurent

Post Extras:

Pages: 1

Extra information

6 registered and 5 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator: Dave Mitsky, okieav8r

Print Thread

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

Thread views: 740

Jump to

CN Forums

Home

Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics