Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

IC 1470

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
7 replies to this topic

#1 Paula E

Paula E

    Non-standard Title

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,247
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2007

Posted 05 October 2010 - 05:20 PM

Does anyone have any information about this nebula? I'd never looked at it before last night. It's quite small, but not a bad little object at all. (Emphasis on little though!)
It's small and conical shaped - kind of like a badminton shuttlecock. To really see it well, I had to use higher power (13mm on my 20" f6.8 - 266x), although it's visible without a filter and obviously not stellar at 111x.

What I wondered is what nebula filters people found useful for this object? I did some searches, and found somewhat contradictory information Some of the (few) observations I could find online about this object listed viewing it through an OIII filter. Which surprised me, because I thought the OIII filter was really poor on this object.

So I found this article online about it: An Optical Study of IC 1470
It is an emission nebula, apparently much like M8.

What I observed last night:
CLS Filter 20mm - Definitely improves contrast
OIII Filter 20mm & 13mm - Really poor, nebula still visible, but smaller and dimmer
UHC Filter 20mm & 13mm - much improved contrast, nebula is much more visible, (Particularly with the 13mm where it's magnified enough to be more easily visible.)
HBeta Filter - I think this may actually be the best filter - but not on my scope. I get ~4-5mm exit pupil with either a 31mm or 26mm eyepiece. The contrast seemed much better, but the nebula is quite small, so it wasn't easy to tell. With a 13mm eyepiece IC 1470 is a reasonable size, but the <2mm exit pupil is just too small for the HBeta filter.

Anyway, it seemed to me that the UHC was the best choice, and that the OIII was not terribly good. Anyone else see it this way?

#2 magic612

magic612

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2008

Posted 05 October 2010 - 05:38 PM

Well, a google search turned up these:

Prior Cloudy Nights thread - some confusion about some of the characteristics from his reference

http://adsabs.harvar...ApJ...265..803L - offers some better insight, but is from 1983, so not exactly the newest info

http://www.ne.jp/asa...ct_e/ic1470.htm - this link references some of the confusion surrounding the object

http://adsabs.harvar...ApJ...265..803L - more detail about the Harvard entry

http://spider.seds.o.../ngc.cgi?IC1470 - references the uncertainty around the object too.

Hmmm... seems you've stumbled on something that's not been looked at very much. Intriguing....

#3 Paula E

Paula E

    Non-standard Title

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,247
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2007

Posted 05 October 2010 - 05:56 PM

The Lynds article you linked was the same one I linked. :)

I was kind of surprised there was an article about it at all, to be honest.

I'm not sure why I spent so much time on it last night. It really is quite small. It seems somewhat neglected. It's nice in the photo from the CCD Forum thread you linked (I missed that - thanks!), but it's not a spectacular visual object, but you know, it wasn't bad, either.

#4 magic612

magic612

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2008

Posted 05 October 2010 - 06:40 PM

The Lynds article you linked was the same one I linked. :)


Whoops! Sorry about that - I was just googling away and posting links to anything that had remotely useful information. :o

I'm not sure why I spent so much time on it last night. It really is quite small. It seems somewhat neglected. It's nice in the photo from the CCD Forum thread you linked (I missed that - thanks!), but it's not a spectacular visual object, but you know, it wasn't bad, either.


Happens to me sometimes too - I'll just get somewhat fixated on a particular object for one reason or another. It is strange though when there's so little information available, given how much study of various objects has been done. At the same time, it also demonstrates how much can get overlooked in the realm of professional astronomy due to budget, time and other constraints.

Cepheus is well-placed right now for viewing that - I'll see if I can find it under my skies with one of my scopes here in the next few weeks.

#5 sgottlieb

sgottlieb

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,766
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2007

Posted 05 October 2010 - 10:36 PM

As far as nebula filters, here's my last observation --

18" (9/24/05): small, high surface brightness elongated glow extending from an 11th magnitude star. At 115x, the nebulosity was not noticeably enhanced with an OIII filter but the UHC filter improved the contrast. Easily takes 225x and the oval nebula appears to hang to the SSE of the bright star. A faint, close, equal mag double (STI 1138 = 12.7/12.7 at 4.6") lies 2' west. A fairly striking, uncatalogued 5'x4' ring of stars follows by 9'. The NW star in the ring (QT Cep) is encased in a faint glow (BFS 17).

The BFS 17 glow encompasses a wide pair of mag 13 stars and extends a little bit to the west, ~30" diameter. Very weak (if any) contrast gain using a NPB filter. Slightly easier to view at 285x unfiltered. This pair of stars is at the NW corner of a striking 5'x3.5' oval loop of stars centered 8' following IC 1470. BFS 17 is probably a detached piece of the same HII region/Molecular cloud.

#6 David Knisely

David Knisely

    James Webb Space Telescope

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,526
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

Posted 06 October 2010 - 02:20 AM

I picked it up tonight in my 14 inch f/4.6 Newtonian. At 117x, it appeared as a small faint slightly oval fuzzy patch, maybe close to an arc minute across, with a very faint star somewhat off-center. It was fairly easily seen without a filter (ZLM 6.6), but filters did improve the contrast somewhat. It was helped most by a narrow-band nebula filter (DGM Optics NPB), although both the Lumicon OIII and the Orion Skyglow Broadband filter improved the contrast over non-filter use. The H-Beta also helped a little, but not as much as the other filters. Clear skies to you.

#7 Paula E

Paula E

    Non-standard Title

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,247
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2007

Posted 06 October 2010 - 11:02 AM

Thanks Steve! I looked back over it again last night, and noticed BFS 17. I agree, none of the filters I tried improved that object. Interesting area though.

Do you know of an online / digital listing of the Blitz Fitch & Stark catalog objects? I found the original paper where they enumerate the objects they studied, but it's a scanned PDF, and typing in all those coordinates seems tedious and error-prone, particularly if someone else has done it.

#8 Paula E

Paula E

    Non-standard Title

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,247
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2007

Posted 06 October 2010 - 01:11 PM

Thanks for feedback David. I thought the outlying parts of the nebula were less visible with the OIII, so perhaps that's why I thought it was worse. I dunno, I just looked at several times with the OIII and didn't like the view.

Always good to get feedback from folks who really know what they are doing! Thanks again! :)


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics