Rigel B binocular challenge

[markclaire50]

Theoretically Rigel B should be visible with binoculars. But, has anyone ever seen it and what binoculars did you use? 

Theory: Rigel B separation 9". Resolution of 50 mm is about 3". Magnification 10x gives apparent separation of 90", so 1.5°. Human eye can perceive this separation. BUT, does the magnitude difference between Rigel and Rigel B mean in reality, it can't be seen? 

Mark 

[Peter Drew]

I think the magnitude difference is the "Achilles Heel" for this observation.   ?

[Peter Drew]

I think these might do it. 6" F5.    ?

[markclaire50]

2 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

I think the magnitude difference is the "Achilles Heel" for this observation.   ?

I will be trying out my 28mm eyepiece in my 80ed giving 21x80.not binos but principal should be same. 

[John]

I've split Rigel with my 70mm Tele Vue Ranger scope but I can't recall the minimum magnification that I needed. 

[Stu]

I couldn't split it in my 50mm spotting scope at x30 recently. Can't recall what the smallest kit is that I've seen it with.

[markclaire50]

25 minutes ago, Stu said:

I couldn't split it in my 50mm spotting scope at x30 recently. Can't recall what the smallest kit is that I've seen it with.

So 10x50 might be a tad awkward. ??

[John]

I suppose conventional binoculars might not be able to achieve the theoretical resolving power of their aperture because of their internal prisms and (sometimes) vignetting of the full aperture by undersized prisms ?

A straight through 9x50 finder might deliver better resolving power due to the simpler optical system.

 

[markclaire50]

20 minutes ago, John said:

I suppose conventional binoculars might not be able to achieve the theoretical resolving power of their aperture because of their internal prisms and (sometimes) vignetting of the full aperture by undersized prisms ?

A straight through 9x50 finder might deliver better resolving power due to the simpler optical system.

 

Mmm. I will have to look through my finder more carefully. I will try my baader zoom from 25x onwards to find minimum mag that I can see the split in my 80mm ed. 

[pregulla]

12 hours ago, John said:

I suppose conventional binoculars might not be able to achieve the theoretical resolving power of their aperture because of their internal prisms and (sometimes) vignetting of the full aperture by undersized prisms ?

A straight through 9x50 finder might deliver better resolving power due to the simpler optical system.

 

But could using both eyes be more beneficial even if each separate image is of a bit lower quality?

[John]

I had a go with my 70mm Tele Vue Ranger this evening. The lowest magnification that I could (reliably) split Rigel tonight was around 40x. It was quite a steady night I think because with the same scope I managed to split Eta Orionis which has a separation of around 1.8 arc seconds. I needed to use 150x to achieve this.

I didn't try but I feel that there would be no chance of me splitting Rigel with 10x50 binoculars based on this evenings observations.

 

[markclaire50]

1 hour ago, John said:

I had a go with my 70mm Tele Vue Ranger this evening. The lowest magnification that I could (reliably) split Rigel tonight was around 40x. It was quite a steady night I think because with the same scope I managed to split Eta Orionis which has a separation of around 1.8 arc seconds. I needed to use 150x to achieve this.

I didn't try but I feel that there would be no chance of me splitting Rigel with 10x50 binoculars based on this evenings observations.

 

Thanks for the interesting report John. I Suspect 10x50 has the aperture to resolve rigel b, but not the magnification to actually see it separately from Rigel.