|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing)
Hi all
In the astro-weblog I started a new series of articles called "My favourite binocular objects". In this column I will regularly post interesting binocular objects with finder charts, sketches, images etc. I started with Kemble's Cascade, an asterism in Camelopardalis. http://www.backyard-astro.com/weblog.php Enjoy! Math http://www.backyard-astro.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing)
In the astro-weblog I started a new series of articles called "My
favourite binocular objects". In this column I will regularly post interesting binocular objects with finder charts, sketches, images etc. I started with Kemble's Cascade, an asterism in Camelopardalis. Nice site! As soon as it gets dark, I'll be outside with my Oberwerk 22 x 100. One question: You say on the website that the brightest star in the Giraffe is Beta. What happened to Alfa, or how come Beta is brighter than Alfa??????? Keep up the good work! /Stefan Ahlgren, Sweden |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing)
In the astro-weblog I started a new series of articles called "My
favourite binocular objects". In this column I will regularly post interesting binocular objects with finder charts, sketches, images etc. I started with Kemble's Cascade, an asterism in Camelopardalis. Nice site! As soon as it gets dark, I'll be outside with my Oberwerk 22 x 100. One question: You say on the website that the brightest star in the Giraffe is Beta. What happened to Alfa, or how come Beta is brighter than Alfa??????? Keep up the good work! /Stefan Ahlgren, Sweden |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing)
"Stefan Ahlgren" wrote in message ... One question: You say on the website that the brightest star in the Giraffe is Beta. What happened to Alfa, or how come Beta is brighter than Alfa??????? Keep up the good work! /Stefan Ahlgren, Sweden in the Bayer system, alpha should be the brightest. it is based on visual observations, and when the magnitudes are close, the designation is not always accurate. peace, jon |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing)
"Stefan Ahlgren" wrote in message ... One question: You say on the website that the brightest star in the Giraffe is Beta. What happened to Alfa, or how come Beta is brighter than Alfa??????? Keep up the good work! /Stefan Ahlgren, Sweden in the Bayer system, alpha should be the brightest. it is based on visual observations, and when the magnitudes are close, the designation is not always accurate. peace, jon |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing)
Hi Stefan,
I just checked my star atlas. Alpha has a magnitude of 4.29 while beta has a magnitude of 4.03 (both visual magnitudes). So beta is the brightest! Clear skies Math http://www.backyard-astro.com Stefan Ahlgren wrote: One question: You say on the website that the brightest star in the Giraffe is Beta. What happened to Alfa, or how come Beta is brighter than Alfa??????? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing)
Hi Stefan,
I just checked my star atlas. Alpha has a magnitude of 4.29 while beta has a magnitude of 4.03 (both visual magnitudes). So beta is the brightest! Clear skies Math http://www.backyard-astro.com Stefan Ahlgren wrote: One question: You say on the website that the brightest star in the Giraffe is Beta. What happened to Alfa, or how come Beta is brighter than Alfa??????? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing) AND RINGS!
I just checked my star atlas. Alpha has a magnitude of 4.29 while beta
has a magnitude of 4.03 (both visual magnitudes). So beta is the brightest! I'm a little amazed that they are able to descide the visual magnitude down to 0.01. What is the human eye able to register? Do we see the difference between 4.29 and 4.28? Or 4.3 and 4.2? /Stefan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing) AND RINGS!
I just checked my star atlas. Alpha has a magnitude of 4.29 while beta
has a magnitude of 4.03 (both visual magnitudes). So beta is the brightest! I'm a little amazed that they are able to descide the visual magnitude down to 0.01. What is the human eye able to register? Do we see the difference between 4.29 and 4.28? Or 4.3 and 4.2? /Stefan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kemble's Cascade (binocular observing) AND RINGS!
Regarding the subject: The rings are the topic of my 21:19 posting.
Sorry about the confusion. /Stefan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Practical Aspects of Observing in Chile | Tony Flanders | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | November 14th 03 08:05 PM |
Observing Report - October 18, 2003 (long) | Ben Kolstad | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 21st 03 09:04 PM |
Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars | edz | Amateur Astronomy | 52 | October 9th 03 09:59 PM |
CalStar Ver. 4.0 An observing report. ( Long ) | Rashad Al-Mansour | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 4th 03 01:53 AM |
Lunar Observing, or All Observing for that Matter | George Dingwall | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | July 11th 03 03:23 PM |