8 Lacertae

[NGC 1502]

Hi all. When I read any new edition of Astronomy Now mag, I always check out 'double star of the month'.

In October's edition, page 79, Bob Argyle tells us about 8 Lacertae.  I'd never looked at this multiple star, so last night ( 25th Sept ) looking clear, thought I'd hunt it down with my 6" Dob.  Being in a large town and with a bright moon washing the sky out it took several tries to star hop to my target, but when I found it there was no doubt, as what I could see matched the pic in the magazine.  Lovely sight !

For double/multiple star fans, definitely worth a look. Link here - http://www.perezmedia.net/beltofvenus/archives/000595.html

Have fun finding it, Ed.

[laudropb]

Noticed this myself and like you I had never tried it. Unfortunately it was total cloud cover last night. Hope to have a go tonight.

[NGC 1502]

Noticed this myself and like you I had never tried it. Unfortunately it was total cloud cover last night. Hope to have a go tonight.

Good luck with that. In the link I posted, 240x was used for the sketch.  Using my 6" Dob, I star hopped at 40x, but was happy with 100x for a nice view.

Looking clear again in Essex, will it hold for the eclipse ?   Fingers crossed !

Regards, Ed.

[chiltonstar]

I had a look at 8 Lac last night as the Moon really ruled out everything apart from multiple stars. Doesn't really look like a double, does it? More like a small asterism - although that may have been emphasised by the silvery haze from the Moon.

Chris

[NGC 1502]

I had a look at 8 Lac last night as the Moon really ruled out everything apart from multiple stars. Doesn't really look like a double, does it? More like a small asterism - although that may have been emphasised by the silvery haze from the Moon.

Chris

Hi Chris. Indeed, the magazine article mentions 8 Lac could be classed as a small cluster rather than a multiple star, and William Herschell recorded " they form an arch".

The distinctive "arch of stars" leaves no doubt that you have found the correct object.  ( See link in post # 1 ).  Great fun chasing down these lesser known sights.

Regards, Ed.

[Perseus_m45]

In the beginning of October of this year I myself had a good long look at 8 Lacertae . At which time i found a discrepancy with one of the listed magnitudes of a star in this system . Then I observed it again the next night and came up with the same conclusion . At which time I contacted my good friends John Nanson from Star-Splitters Blog and Chris Thuemen from the Double Star Imaging group on yahoo groups . I asked them to confirm my findings . At which time they did , and both were in agreement with my data . A letter was sent to the WDS with the findings . Below witten by John . 

8 Lacertae (WDS 22359+3938)

This star has multiple components.  The one that caught our eye is the "I"
component, which is listed at a magnitude of 11.0.  Mike Hyrczyk looked at
8 Lac several nights ago with a six inch refractor and was unable to see the
"I" component.  He had no problem seeing the "C" component, which is listed
at a magnitude of 10.38.  I took a look with my six inch refractor and
confirmed it wasn't visible, as did Chris Thuemen, who looked at it with a
9.25 inch SCT and couldn't see it either.  I thought I could detect an
elongation where "I" was supposed to be, and Chris thought he might have had
an averted vision glimpse of it, but neither of us were confident enough to
be sure of confirmation.

NOMAD-1 doesn't have any data on "I", but UCAC4 shows an f.mag of 13.828.  I
ran the J & K magnitudes through a spreadsheet that converts the two
magnitudes to a visual equivalent and came up with 13.598.  If the star was
brighter than a magnitude of 13.0, all three of us should have been able to
see it.  Based on my experience with both six inch refractors and a 9.25
SCT, if Chris and I actually did detect "I", that would put it in the range
of about 13.0 to 13.2.  At any rate, "I" is considerably fainter than the
current 11.0 listing.

Also, if you look at the WDS magnitude listing for GJ and compare it with
the Aladin image I attached, it looks like the magnitudes for the two stars
has been reversed since G is definitely the brighter of the two.

**  I agree that 11 is too bright. It looks like that was an old visual
estimate that was never updated. I'll look at a couple other sources, but
about 13.5 looks like a reasonable estimate. 

With things like this Team work is always best so you folk's might want to update your data on 8 Lac . 

mike h

[chiltonstar]

An interesting one Mike. I was going to have a go at imaging this group at some point, although the weather this side of the pond has prevented me from getting outside much for the last 6 weeks or so.

Chris

[Perseus_m45]

An interesting one Mike. I was going to have a go at imaging this group at some point, although the weather this side of the pond has prevented me from getting outside much for the last 6 weeks or so.

Chris

Chris, Its been hit or miss here lately, but not as bad as I have seen it in the past . I've been messing around with my C11 trying to set it up for imaging . There is a lot to do like tweaking the Atlas mount . I have the polar alignment perfect, but now I have to get the tracking much better . I'm using an Orion G3 mono ccd . I've talked to the techs at Orion and they informed me that using the G3 is like using a 6mm eyepiece . So with the C11 I'm imaging at 411X and a very narrow afov . The tracking needs to be dead nuts or the image will look like Rubbish at that power . I've just ordered a focal reducer and maybe that will help a bit . If that doesn't work I have a video type unit I can try .

mike

[Perseus_m45]

Correction ......Actually its imaging at 466 X with a  5.7 ' afov . To much in my humble opinion .

mike h