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

Darn small Planetary Nebula

This topic has been archived.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

#1 Fuzzyguy

Fuzzyguy

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 605
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2011

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:22 AM

Some dry stable air moved into my backyard this evening after being pretty humid. I looked at a couple of objects including Saturn, M53 and NGC 5053. I moved to Lyra and checked out Vega, Epsilon Lyr and the Ring. Then to the always stunning double Alberio, Beta1 Cyg.

That's when I notice on SkySafari that there was an 11.4 mag planetary nebula just over a degree north of the star 9 Cyg. I've been collecting PNs for about 9 months, so I had to try for this one. I started looking for it before I read the description and when I got to the right area, everything looked stellar. There were a couple of stars that stood out, but nothing looked looked like a PN in the 40mm Plossl. I upped the power to 127X with the 16mm ES and still everything looked stellar. I got my bearings though, and started following patterns and it seemed like the brightest star in the FoV was in the position where PK 064+05.1 should be located.

The air was very stable tonight and seeing had improved to at least 4/5 or better, so I tried the AT 6mm. Finally, the PN looked non stellar. That's when I looked up the information on this Planetary. SkySafari labeled it ARO 11 and lists it's apparent size as 0.2 x 0.2 arcminutes. Isn't that about 12x12 arcseconds? Distance 7800 LY and a diameter of 0.5 LY.

It was bright, and I've read that planetary nebulas can often stand high magnification, so I put the AT 9mm in a 2x barlow and at 444X, it looked more like a PN. I could see a slight blue or cool cast to it. The central star was just a little brighter than the surrounding nebula, but even at 444X, it was pretty small.

Anyway, bagged a new PN tonight! :jump: It's very easy to find but if you look for this one, it helps to know exactly where you are so you can follow the stars in your foV to the right object and then up the mag as much as seeing will allow. Happy hunting!

#2 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12040
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:32 AM

That's Cambell's Hydrogen Star. It's extremely small. I think the 12" figure given is with some ultrafaint outer halo nobody can see! A more common figure, and in line with my own observations, is 5" - 6". The central star is mag 11, but the magnitude of the star and nebula combined is something like 9, so it's visible in the smallest of telescopes.

In my C8 at 800x, I could see a small fuzz, surrounding a bright central star. I've seen the object easily in my 63mm Zeiss, but I couldn't resolve the disk and at the time I thought I could only see the central star, but what I was seeing, was the combined light. I used too low magnification, obviously, but I didn't know at the time how small it is. I need to reobserve it again. Forecast looks good for tonight, so I keep my fingers crossed.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#3 Sasa

Sasa

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2010

Posted 06 June 2013 - 04:31 AM

Larry,

I saw this small planetary only once in my former 10in Newton. At 314x, it was visibly non-stellar. It was fun to play with UHC filter. Without the filter, the central star was more pronounced and the nebula looked just like a faint halo. With UHC filter, the star was hardly visible but the nebula looked like a very nice rounded disc.

BTW, that very night I saw another nearby planetary nebula: Minkowski 92 (Footprint nebula). It is also quite bright (magnitude of 10.7) and small. And it also requires very high magnifications to see at least some of its features. At magnification of 620x I could see some hints of its bipolar character (prior to the observation I did not know what to expect, the nebula just caught my eye in Pocket Sky Atlas). And there is a third quite unknown planetary in Cygnus with nickname (Egg nebula). It was also quite interesting in my 110mm refractor at magnifications above 300x.

There must be more of them in that area. Just yeasterday I put on my to-do list four other relatively bright small planetaries NGC6833, NGC 6884, IC5117 and IC5217. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Cheers,

Alexander

#4 Rich (RLTYS)

Rich (RLTYS)

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6735
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2004

Posted 06 June 2013 - 06:35 AM

Here's a recent image I took of Cambells Hydrogen Star with the Slooh Remote Observatory.

Rich (RLTYS)

Attached Thumbnails

  • 5905351-BD 30 3639 T2hm 6-1-13r.png


#5 Kraus

Kraus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012

Posted 06 June 2013 - 08:32 AM


I shall examine it next clear sky. Thanks.

#6 Darren Drake

Darren Drake

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2002

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:52 AM

This one stands out because it is distinctly red in color as opposed to the usual blue green tint we are accustomed to for pns. You probably need about a 12 inch to start to really notice the red color.

#7 Darren Drake

Darren Drake

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2002

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:56 AM

One trick to find it is to get M56 in the scope then point about 3/4 of a degree north then wait 18 minutes and it will drift into the fov.

#8 nytecam

nytecam

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 12692
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005

Posted 06 June 2013 - 01:30 PM

Darren - this is a pretty PN - my shot below from last August includes my colour spectrum showing strong emission in red, yellow and blue on a background continuum - overall it closely mimics the electric pink of the sun's chromoshpere during a total eclipse :o

Attached Thumbnails

  • 5906166-campbellsg120815x10spmg.jpg


#9 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12040
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:00 PM

That looks almost exactly like I saw it in my C8 at 800x, except for the color, which I didn't see. I also couldn't really see the nebula as a ring, but the central star was as obvious as in the picture and the planetary had a rather sharp edge and a fine, little disk. It's a really nice object, but it requires exceptional seeing to be seen well.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#10 Fuzzyguy

Fuzzyguy

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 605
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2011

Posted 06 June 2013 - 08:46 PM

Thanks for the reports guys. I didn't know about the name and I'm not sure why it looked cool to me, but it did. Maybe not enough aperture? I'd expect it to look warmer with all that hydrogen! It could be the Astro Tech EP too. After looking at Rich's Slooh photo, I think I agree with you Thomas that what I saw was quit a bit smaller than it's listed 12" diameter. I'm pretty sure I didn't see the outer red ring or it would have looked a lot warmer.

I didn't see any separation between the nebula and the central star as in nytecam's image, but the star was easy to see.

I looked for the footprint nebula just east of 9 Cyg, but SkySafari had it listed as a "bright nebula" and when I couldn't find it right off, I went looking for this one. I don't know why I didn't try it with the 6mm barlowed to 667X, but I kind of hit a wall about 2:30 AM Local after spending over an hour earlier getting NGC 5053 to reveal itself! I also didn't filter it as it looked pretty good without one, but I may look for it again tonight if the clouds hold off and the seeing holds up. I'll spend a little more time and magnification looking for the footprint too now that I know what I'm looking for.

Darren, I found it was pretty easy just to go to 9 Cygni and then north about a degree and a half or so. Nice tip though! And thanks for the other targets Alexander! I've put them on my to do list!

#11 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13657
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009

Posted 06 June 2013 - 11:15 PM

That's Cambell's Hydrogen Star. It's extremely small. I think the 12" figure given is with some ultrafaint outer halo nobody can see! A more common figure, and in line with my own observations, is 5" - 6". The central star is mag 11, but the magnitude of the star and nebula combined is something like 9, so it's visible in the smallest of telescopes.

In my C8 at 800x, I could see a small fuzz, surrounding a bright central star. I've seen the object easily in my 63mm Zeiss, but I couldn't resolve the disk and at the time I thought I could only see the central star, but what I was seeing, was the combined light. I used too low magnification, obviously, but I didn't know at the time how small it is. I need to reobserve it again. Forecast looks good for tonight, so I keep my fingers crossed.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


I love this object Thomas. The most Ive observed any extension beyond a diffraction pattern was at 550x - and nothing so big as 12". I understand some can see a nice red in this . For those nice still nights this is a really terrific challenging object and one of my all time favs if only because its so marginal.

Pete

#12 kfiscus

kfiscus

    Baltic Birch Dob Bases

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 6564
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2012

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:02 AM

Thank you for starting this thread. I'm going to try to find this PN now.

#13 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16955
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:30 AM

Campbell's Hydrogen Star responds best to an H-Beta filter. Indeed, the one way I find the object in my 10 inch is to look for a faint fuzzy dim reddish star that isn't quite stellar (about ten arc seconds in diameter). It is that reddish coloration that makes it a dead-giveaway in that rich starfield. The planetary responds only marginally to a narrow-band "UHC-like" nebula filter and not well at all to the OIII filter. Clear skies to you.

#14 Fuzzyguy

Fuzzyguy

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 605
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2011

Posted 07 June 2013 - 01:41 AM

You see way more in the red part of the spectrum than I do on this object David. I found this PN again tonight and the seeing was not quite as good as last night, but still above average and so was transparency here.

In my 40mm Celestron Plossl, it appeared to me on the cool side of pure white and stellar at 51X. It again became apparent at 333X it was the PN and it was still grey and mostly the central star. I put on a UHC filter and it did look to be a warmer uniform grey disc without the star, but I don't know if this is attributed to the filter or not. It was pretty dim with the filter.

Tonight I went up to 667X or maybe even a little more, because my Barlow lacks a little over a cm of fitting all the way down into my diagonal. Everything was darker, but the star was a little easier to make out against the nebula at times of clarity.

Have fun Ken and let us know what you think! Pretty neat little PN this Campbell's Hydrogen Star.

I looked for the Footprint Nebula also, but I couldn't see it. Or if I did, I didn't recognize it. I went up to 333X and it should have been in the FoV. I'll try again under darker skies next chance I get.

#15 Sasa

Sasa

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2010

Posted 07 June 2013 - 02:17 AM

Hello Fuzzyguy,

yesterday I checked NGC6884 in my 63mm refractor. It is quite bright, my estimate is about V=10.8. No problem to identify it with a proper map. But it was essentially stellar up to magnification of 330x. Seeing was good that night but there was quite strong haze and humidity and there was slight misty haze around every star. Maybe, there is a chance to glimpse its non-stellar character under better conditions.

Cheers,

Alexander

#16 Kraus

Kraus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012

Posted 07 June 2013 - 09:04 AM

One trick to find it is to get M56 in the scope then point about 3/4 of a degree north then wait 18 minutes and it will drift into the fov.


Your method is the closest I've come to finding the coordinates. The nebula isn't in the wiki thingy. But this fast computer at work is...

#17 blb

blb

    Aurora

  • -----
  • Posts: 4929
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted 07 June 2013 - 10:34 AM

Your method is the closest I've come to finding the coordinates.

The coordinates and information for this planetary nebula are:

Campbell’s Hydrogen Star (PK 64+5.1, PN G 64.7+05.0, Hen 2-438, BD +30 3639)"Red“ Planetary Nebula in Cygnus
Size: 6“
Mag: 11,3 (CS)
RA 19 34 45
DEC +30 30 59

Hope this helps.
P.S. the PK designation for the nebula is the galactic longitude and latitude for the nebula. The galactic long. is 064 deg. and the lat. is +05.1 deg.( + is north of the galactic equator). I know that that does not help us with R.A. and Dec., but.

#18 Kraus

Kraus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012

Posted 07 June 2013 - 02:40 PM


Thanks BLB.

Silly me. After I signed off here, I used Google to search for Cambell's Hydrogen star. Three results down had the coordinates.

The PK designation system is interesting however. What made those two guys use galactic coordinates versus celestial coordinates like everyone else.

My Saturday sky looks promising. I shall report.

#19 Laurent Ferrero

Laurent Ferrero

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2012

Posted 08 June 2013 - 10:05 AM

I made a sketch of this object with my old 203 mm Lightbridge at 348x :

http://ekladata.com/...essins ciel%...

It's really a small object that requires a very high magnification to be detailed.

#20 sgottlieb

sgottlieb

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1368
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2007

Posted 08 June 2013 - 01:03 PM

P.S. the PK designation for the nebula is the galactic longitude and latitude for the nebula. The galactic long. is 064 deg. and the lat. is +05.1 deg.( + is north of the galactic equator). I know that that does not help us with R.A. and Dec., but.


Just a minor correction. In the original PK format (from 1967, I believe), the galactic latitude is only accurate to the nearest degree. So the galactic latitude for Campbell’s Hydrogen Star is +5°. The ".1" indicates this is the first planetary having galactic coordinates of "64+5". The next planetary (if one existed) would be 64+5.2. The later "PN G" coordinates are accurate to the nearest tenth of a degree. Hope that makes sense.

#21 HellsKitchen

HellsKitchen

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1921
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2008

Posted 09 June 2013 - 12:38 AM

Some dry stable air moved into my backyard this evening after being pretty humid. I looked at a couple of objects including Saturn, M53 and NGC 5053. I moved to Lyra and checked out Vega, Epsilon Lyr and the Ring. Then to the always stunning double Alberio, Beta1 Cyg.

That's when I notice on SkySafari that there was an 11.4 mag planetary nebula just over a degree north of the star 9 Cyg. I've been collecting PNs for about 9 months, so I had to try for this one. I started looking for it before I read the description and when I got to the right area, everything looked stellar. There were a couple of stars that stood out, but nothing looked looked like a PN in the 40mm Plossl. I upped the power to 127X with the 16mm ES and still everything looked stellar. I got my bearings though, and started following patterns and it seemed like the brightest star in the FoV was in the position where PK 064+05.1 should be located.

The air was very stable tonight and seeing had improved to at least 4/5 or better, so I tried the AT 6mm. Finally, the PN looked non stellar. That's when I looked up the information on this Planetary. SkySafari labeled it ARO 11 and lists it's apparent size as 0.2 x 0.2 arcminutes. Isn't that about 12x12 arcseconds? Distance 7800 LY and a diameter of 0.5 LY.

It was bright, and I've read that planetary nebulas can often stand high magnification, so I put the AT 9mm in a 2x barlow and at 444X, it looked more like a PN. I could see a slight blue or cool cast to it. The central star was just a little brighter than the surrounding nebula, but even at 444X, it was pretty small.

Anyway, bagged a new PN tonight! :jump: It's very easy to find but if you look for this one, it helps to know exactly where you are so you can follow the stars in your foV to the right object and then up the mag as much as seeing will allow. Happy hunting!


Nice observation! Isn't it fun hunting planetaries when the seeing cooperates! These are among my favourite objects to observe.

I remember one night of perfect seeing, I resolved the 2" diameter IC 2501 in Carina into a disk at 857x in my 8" dob. Here's the report:

Jan 28, 2012
IC 2501
Carina, PNe, RA 09 38 48, Dec -60 05 28, Size= 2" , Mag 11.3

Being a painfully tiny planetary of only 2" in diameter, it was stellar at 150x, but is very high surface brightness. Increasing power to 342x, the PN still appeared stellar, but owing to the exceptional seeing, the true nature of the object was betrayed by its fuzziness relative to the undisturbed and therefore unusually crisp star field. A bluish colour was apparent. A magnification of 600x revealed it to be clearly non stellar and I could even start to make out its tiny, round disk. At 857x, the nebula exhibited a definate round shape along with a blue colour. With almost no seeing blur, the size/shape of the nebula could easily be differentiated from surrounding stars. A row of three ~mag 13.5 stars are aligned immediately to the south/west of the nebula.

#22 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13657
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009

Posted 09 June 2013 - 03:02 AM

That's a very nice sketch and represents the field vey well. Its the *odd* third star of similar magnitude in a chain. Even where the envelope might not show due to lower magnification or transparency/darkness, the diffraction pattern is curiously flat or extended compared to its neighbors which is the extended nature of the nebula just beginning to become apparent - my experinces anyway.

This is a great object that is glossed over far too often - nice to see folks giving it its due attention.

Steve thanks for the clarification.

Pete

#23 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12040
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008

Posted 09 June 2013 - 04:48 AM

Laurent's sketch shows it more or less just like I saw it last night in my 6" refractor, stopped down to 4.5" f/10.7, using a 8.8mm ES82 and a 4x barlow, giving 546x. It was clearly nonstellar, quite bright, and the central star was easily seen. It was completely stellar at 40x and 133x, but 273x began to show it as a small fuzz. Since it's quite bright, I think it's possible to see the central star and surrounding nebula resolved in a 63mm Zeiss at ~400x or so. I'll try it, when I get the chance. It was certainly quite easy in the 4.5". I'll add that the seeing was very good, with stable airy disks and only moderately vibrating diffraction rings at 546x. M13 was resolved into a huge ball of hundreds of tiny stars at 273x, despite a NELM of only 2.5.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#24 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12040
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008

Posted 09 June 2013 - 04:58 AM

This is a great object that is glossed over far too often



There's about a gazillion interesting objects out there that almost nobody observes, certainly not in small telescopes, because they think them too faint or have never heard of them because - ta daa - nobody observes them... :tonofbricks:

Have any of you observed the Egg Nebula, PK 80-6.1, recently? No? I thought so. Under a dark sky, it is visible in a 60mm and shows structure in a 5", yet is extremely overlooked. It plainly showed its double lobed nature last night in the 4.5" at 273x (8.8mm ES82 + 2x barlow) despite a NELM of 2.5.

How about Minkowski 1-92, the Footprint Nebula? Visible in a 60mm under dark skies as a faint glow. Plainly visible last night in the 4.5" at 273x, showing its assymetric elongated shape.

The sky was bright enough last night, with the Sun barely 12° below the horizon, that I could almost read my Uranometria without a flashlight and I still managed to observe interesting details in these obscure objects without much trouble. There are hundreds of similar objects.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#25 Fuzzyguy

Fuzzyguy

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 605
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2011

Posted 10 June 2013 - 10:30 AM

Seeing here last night was not very good, but I did locate Minkowski 1-92. It was tiny compared to Campbell's Hydrogen star and didn't show anything but stellar to me until I went to 333X. Seeing didn't allow me to see any better at higher magnification, and even 333X was pushing the envelope for me. I think what I saw was only half of the object as it appeared more round than elongated.

I logged it along with NGC 6884 which looked almost stellar to me even at 333X. I could tell it wasn't stellar, but with the seeing, it looked about the same size as the sizzling star next to it. No diffraction rings tonight! Thanks for the heads up Alexander, it's easy to locate and I'll check on it again throughout the summer.

Thomas, I had to go to Uranometia to find a position on the Egg Nebula! Not in SkySafari3+. Wiki lists it as MagV 14.0 so it must have a high surface brightness to be visible in a 60mm? The size is listed as 30"X15" in Wiki. I'll put it on the list for next time I have good seeing and transparency and see if I can log it. Thanks for the new challenging target.

While I was waiting for Cygnus to rotate above my tree, I checked out the Box Nebula in Ophiuchus. I'd looked for this one last year, but didn't see it. Now with a little experience, it was pretty easy to see. Unfiltered, it looked like an "i" in the sky with the little star dotting it. The UHC didn't help much, but the OIII showed some detail at 222X and 333X once I had some dark adaption. Again, seeing last night didn't allow good higher mag views.

Yep, I'm having fun with these little buggers! I've got more fun on my list for upcoming nights!


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