|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ASTRO: Arp 189 reshoot
I wasn't going to process this old image from May 2011 as it didn't
appear any better than an old version with far less data. But before moving on to October 2011 images I decided to process it and see what the difference was. I go into more detail at the end. Some of the text below is a duplicate of my original post: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea...1/Main/4426271 Arp 189/NGC 4651, the Umbrella Galaxy, is a member of the Virgo Cluster of galaxies in the constellation of Coma Berenices. As such it is about 60 million light-years distant. So I'm a bit perplexed with its coverage by NASA's Astronomical Picture of the Day entry for it. They say it is 35 million light-years distant which removes it from the cluster. It's redshift distance is about 51 million light-years while NED lists many distance measurements by Tully-Fisher averaging about 85 million light-years and a Sosies measurement of 77 million light-years. Nothing that I found agrees to APOD's 35 million light-year distance. In other words does anyone really know its distance? Arp put it in his category of galaxies with narrow filaments. His comment reads: "Radio source near tail apparently not associated." We now know that its odd structure is due to it eating another galaxy in the recent past. The "narrow filament" is the remains of the galaxy showing its path around the galaxy as it was torn apart by gravitational tidal forces. I prepared an annotated image as there were some very distant galaxies on the east side of Arp 189. Probably on the other sides as well but for some reason the Sloan survey only took redshift data mostly on a very small area of my image. All of it on very distant galaxies and one quasar. The quasar is closer than many of the galaxies! While my image is poor in focus it did go deep anyway with galaxies down to 23rd magnitude recorded. You may need to blow up the image to find some of these very faint ones. When you do you will find the field jammed with tiny faint fuzzy spots. I had thought this just background noise but when I looked up the position of these 22nd magnitude and fainter galaxies at 5 and even 6 billion light-years there was one of these fuzzy blobs dead on the position. Most agreed to a few hundredths of a second of arc. If off by more than the error circle of the SDSS data I skipped it. Only happened once. In one 10" circle that I tested there were 5 and every one had an entry in the catalog though only 1 had redshift data. Thus, I'm quite sure these faint blobs (blow up the image 3x or more to see them) are distant galaxies. One galaxy with redshift data and out of the concentrated area is LEDA 140003 in the lower left corner. NED gives it two entries with no indication that they are duplicates. Both are listed in the 18th magnitude range with positions less than 1 second of arc (less than one pixel) different. The redshifts were slightly different as well. I've listed both on the annotated image. There does appear to be a second bright area that is below the core by three seconds of arc, far more than the separation NED shows and in the wrong direction. Both are listed with an position error circle of 1.25" of arc, more than the difference. But this doesn't explain the difference in the radial velocity measurement. I've listed a few of the brighter galaxies that had no redshift data by catalog name. This is followed by a question mark as the distances are completely unknown. This is a reshoot attempting to get more of the fainter plumes. While it is 160 minutes, over three times longer than the first attempt at 50 minutes it really doesn't go any deeper nor show the plumes much better. I don't begin to see the ~79% increase in signal to noise ratio the math says I should see. The problem is the first was taken under better average conditions. This nearly cancelled out the much greater time. Seems to happen every time I try for a lot more time. Just doesn't seem to help significantly so I stick to my standard 40 minutes of luminance most of the time. Every now and then I try much more time but usually with little improvement. Arp's image: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...ig_arp189.jpeg APOD image much deeper than any of the above or mine with overlay of the path of the doomed satellite galaxy: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100415.html 14" LX200R @ f/10, L=16x10' RB=6x10' G=5x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME Rick -- Prefix is correct. Domain is arvig dot net |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ASTRO: Arp 189 reshoot
Mighty image Rick. I put it on my list after seeing your old image, but
didn't manage to capture it yet. Stefan "Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag .com... I wasn't going to process this old image from May 2011 as it didn't appear any better than an old version with far less data. But before moving on to October 2011 images I decided to process it and see what the difference was. I go into more detail at the end. Some of the text below is a duplicate of my original post: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea...1/Main/4426271 Arp 189/NGC 4651, the Umbrella Galaxy, is a member of the Virgo Cluster of galaxies in the constellation of Coma Berenices. As such it is about 60 million light-years distant. So I'm a bit perplexed with its coverage by NASA's Astronomical Picture of the Day entry for it. They say it is 35 million light-years distant which removes it from the cluster. It's redshift distance is about 51 million light-years while NED lists many distance measurements by Tully-Fisher averaging about 85 million light-years and a Sosies measurement of 77 million light-years. Nothing that I found agrees to APOD's 35 million light-year distance. In other words does anyone really know its distance? Arp put it in his category of galaxies with narrow filaments. His comment reads: "Radio source near tail apparently not associated." We now know that its odd structure is due to it eating another galaxy in the recent past. The "narrow filament" is the remains of the galaxy showing its path around the galaxy as it was torn apart by gravitational tidal forces. I prepared an annotated image as there were some very distant galaxies on the east side of Arp 189. Probably on the other sides as well but for some reason the Sloan survey only took redshift data mostly on a very small area of my image. All of it on very distant galaxies and one quasar. The quasar is closer than many of the galaxies! While my image is poor in focus it did go deep anyway with galaxies down to 23rd magnitude recorded. You may need to blow up the image to find some of these very faint ones. When you do you will find the field jammed with tiny faint fuzzy spots. I had thought this just background noise but when I looked up the position of these 22nd magnitude and fainter galaxies at 5 and even 6 billion light-years there was one of these fuzzy blobs dead on the position. Most agreed to a few hundredths of a second of arc. If off by more than the error circle of the SDSS data I skipped it. Only happened once. In one 10" circle that I tested there were 5 and every one had an entry in the catalog though only 1 had redshift data. Thus, I'm quite sure these faint blobs (blow up the image 3x or more to see them) are distant galaxies. One galaxy with redshift data and out of the concentrated area is LEDA 140003 in the lower left corner. NED gives it two entries with no indication that they are duplicates. Both are listed in the 18th magnitude range with positions less than 1 second of arc (less than one pixel) different. The redshifts were slightly different as well. I've listed both on the annotated image. There does appear to be a second bright area that is below the core by three seconds of arc, far more than the separation NED shows and in the wrong direction. Both are listed with an position error circle of 1.25" of arc, more than the difference. But this doesn't explain the difference in the radial velocity measurement. I've listed a few of the brighter galaxies that had no redshift data by catalog name. This is followed by a question mark as the distances are completely unknown. This is a reshoot attempting to get more of the fainter plumes. While it is 160 minutes, over three times longer than the first attempt at 50 minutes it really doesn't go any deeper nor show the plumes much better. I don't begin to see the ~79% increase in signal to noise ratio the math says I should see. The problem is the first was taken under better average conditions. This nearly cancelled out the much greater time. Seems to happen every time I try for a lot more time. Just doesn't seem to help significantly so I stick to my standard 40 minutes of luminance most of the time. Every now and then I try much more time but usually with little improvement. Arp's image: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...ig_arp189.jpeg APOD image much deeper than any of the above or mine with overlay of the path of the doomed satellite galaxy: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100415.html 14" LX200R @ f/10, L=16x10' RB=6x10' G=5x10', STL-11000XM, Paramount ME Rick -- Prefix is correct. Domain is arvig dot net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[sci.astro,sci.astro.seti] Contents (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (0/9) | [email protected] | SETI | 0 | August 15th 07 09:36 PM |
[sci.astro,sci.astro.seti] Contents (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (0/9) | [email protected] | SETI | 0 | May 3rd 07 01:08 AM |
[sci.astro,sci.astro.seti] Contents (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (0/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 3rd 06 12:33 PM |
[sci.astro,sci.astro.seti] Contents (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (0/9) | [email protected] | SETI | 0 | May 3rd 06 12:33 PM |
[sci.astro,sci.astro.seti] Contents (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (0/9) | [email protected] | SETI | 0 | September 30th 04 02:23 AM |