Berkeley 17 in Auriga

Dear Group,

The oldest (or second oldest) open star cluster in our galaxy is
Berkeley 17 in Auriga with an estimated age of 10.06 billion years.
Lying at a distance of 8,800 light-years away, the cluster is quite dim
with a magnitude of only 14.0.

NGC 6791 in Lyra has produced conflicting age estimates including a
figure of 10.20 billion years. As a result, there is some ambiguity as
to whether NGC 6791 or Berkeley 17 is the oldest cluster.

Further details and a photo based on two hours total exposure is
available at http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-DSO-Cluster-Berkeley-17.htm .
Clicking on the image will yield an image with better image scale for
viewing.

In checking for other photos of Berkeley 17, I could only find one
example taken using film emulsion. If anyone is aware of other sample
images, I would be most interested.

Clear skies!

Anthony.

On Mar 14, 7:38 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
Dear Group,

The oldest (or second oldest) open star cluster in our galaxy is
Berkeley 17 in Auriga with an estimated age of 10.06 billion years.

Anthony,

An exquisite image to say the least with round sharp points
all across the field. Isn't it a real challenge to separate the
true cluster members from the background star points?

Your header declares that the brightest stars are only
16th magnitude. I think that is shortchanging this old fellow
a bit and that figure ought to be revised upward to about
13th. Anyway I don't have any trouble seeing about 15 - 20
members with my 10 in.

Great Work!

Ben, 90.126 n 35.539

Your header declares that the brightest stars are only
16th magnitude. I think that is shortchanging this old fellow
a bit and that figure ought to be revised upward to about
13th. Anyway I don't have any trouble seeing about 15 - 20
members with my 10 in.

Great Work!

Ben, 90.126 n 35.539

Oops!

I just checked Uranometria's DSFG and they are in total
agreement with you. This means I must have been looking at
something else.

Still a great image even if it is as difficult as 6791.

Regards,
Ben

Ben wrote:

Your header declares that the brightest stars are only
16th magnitude. I think that is shortchanging this old fellow
a bit and that figure ought to be revised upward to about
13th. Anyway I don't have any trouble seeing about 15 - 20
members with my 10 in.

Great Work!

Ben, 90.126 n 35.539


Oops!

I am glad to see that my reference seems to be correct then.


I just checked Uranometria's DSFG and they are in total
agreement with you. This means I must have been looking at
something else.

I am already expecting the DSFG in the mail which will also help me in
the future with such matters.


Still a great image even if it is as difficult as 6791.

Just a little patience for Lyra to get higher in the sky and we will
have this one bagged as well.

Anthony.


Regards,
Ben

Ben wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:38 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Dear Group,

The oldest (or second oldest) open star cluster in our galaxy is
Berkeley 17 in Auriga with an estimated age of 10.06 billion years.


Anthony,

Hi Ben,


An exquisite image to say the least with round sharp points
all across the field. Isn't it a real challenge to separate the
true cluster members from the background star points?

The cluster and its minute member stars are much better visible with the
larger image (when you click on the initial itself).

Your header declares that the brightest stars are only
16th magnitude. I think that is shortchanging this old fellow
a bit and that figure ought to be revised upward to about
13th.

Not that I doubt you but can I please trouble you for a reference so
that I can get a precise estimate and which I can also use in the future
for forthcoming Berkeley clusters?

My source ( http://messier45.com/cgi-bin/dsdb/ds...tr=berkeley+17 )
mentions mag 16.0 and in spite of the fact the cluster itself is stated
as 14.0.

Anyway I don't have any trouble seeing about 15 - 20
members with my 10 in.

It is a real treat "seeing" so far into the past with this old cluster.
We have predictions for good weather and high humidity this evening
which should translate to good seeing. I will be going after M81, the
stunning spiral in UMa, with six hours total exposure.


Great Work!

Glad you like the result!

Anthony.


Ben, 90.126 n 35.539

Not that I doubt you but can I please trouble you for a reference so
that I can get a precise estimate and which I can also use in the future
for forthcoming Berkeley clusters?

Anthony,

My source is Deep Sky Field Guide to Uranometria 2000.0
where on plate 97 it plainly saith:

05 20.6 + 30 36 Be 17 13'diam 100* 16mag photographic
moderately rich, small brightness range, fairly even
distribution,
detached

Which is a little disconcerting because it should have appeared
as a proper little smudge like Tombaugh 5. But it didn't.
That means I was seeing something else and Be 17 is going
to be another tough object and I may not be able to see it at all.

Ben

"Ben" wrote
...

First point: Anthony has a great picture here!!

Which is a little disconcerting because it should have appeared
as a proper little smudge like Tombaugh 5. But it didn't.
That means I was seeing something else and Be 17 is going
to be another tough object and I may not be able to see it at all.

It looks to me like the brighter stars in the image are evenly spread over
the field, while the cluster is made up of only dimmer stars. It would
probably be a very difficult visual target.

George N

On Mar 20, 8:07 pm, "George Normandin"
wrote:
"Ben" wrote
..

First point: Anthony has a great picture here!!

Concurred.

It looks to me like the brighter stars in the image are evenly spread over
the field, while the cluster is made up of only dimmer stars. It would
probably be a very difficult visual target.

George N

Yes, 6791 is marginal at my location. I'm thinking that
I will have to drive into the cotton fields to get Be 17. (If
it's possible to see at all with a 10")

Ben

On Mar 14, 9:38 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
Dear Group,

The oldest (or second oldest) open star cluster in our galaxy is
Berkeley 17 in Auriga with an estimated age of 10.06 billion years.
Lying at a distance of 8,800 light-years away, the cluster is quite dim
with a magnitude of only 14.0.

NGC 6791 in Lyra has produced conflicting age estimates including a
figure of 10.20 billion years. As a result, there is some ambiguity as
to whether NGC 6791 or Berkeley 17 is the oldest cluster.

Further details and a photo based on two hours total exposure is
available athttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-DSO-Cluster-Berkeley-17.htm.
Clicking on the image will yield an image with better image scale for
viewing.

In checking for other photos of Berkeley 17, I could only find one
example taken using film emulsion. If anyone is aware of other sample
images, I would be most interested.

Clear skies!

Anthony.

Thanks for the beautiful Pic very professional.

incredible when you think what went into discovering that mixed in with the
other stars.
It's images like that that really force you to ponder the absurdity and
wonder of it all.



"Anthony Ayiomamitis" wrote in message
...
Dear Group,

The oldest (or second oldest) open star cluster in our galaxy is Berkeley
17 in Auriga with an estimated age of 10.06 billion years. Lying at a
distance of 8,800 light-years away, the cluster is quite dim with a
magnitude of only 14.0.

NGC 6791 in Lyra has produced conflicting age estimates including a figure
of 10.20 billion years. As a result, there is some ambiguity as to whether
NGC 6791 or Berkeley 17 is the oldest cluster.

Further details and a photo based on two hours total exposure is available
at http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-DSO-Cluster-Berkeley-17.htm . Clicking on
the image will yield an image with better image scale for viewing.

In checking for other photos of Berkeley 17, I could only find one example
taken using film emulsion. If anyone is aware of other sample images, I
would be most interested.

Clear skies!

Anthony.