Stupid newbie question : What is the fuss about splitting doubles ?

[Catanonia]

Total newbie question so I apologise if offends.

I have heard and read lots of comments about the excitement of splitting doubles etc...

My basic common sense tells me this is looking at 2 stars close together and using magnification and focus, seeing the 2 stars independently and hence splitting them.

So what is the excitement on this or am I totally missing the point ?

Does anyone have any pictures or animations to show a newbie what he is mising ?

[GazOC]

Splitting close doubles is good test of eyesight, condititions, telescope optics, oberserving skills etc but for me the real attraction with double stars is, if you know where to look, you can take what looks like an uninteresting area of sky at low power, zoom to a particular part of that field at high power, find what looks like a faint single star, increase the magnification again and be looking at a 3 or 4 star system where you'd seen nothing a moment before. It gives a real sense of just how many different stars and star systems are up there and the massive distances that isolate them from us and each other.

[Whippy]

Another reason is some doubles have colour contrasting stars which are very purty .

Tony..

[Talitha]

For me, it's just plain old fun.

I know what you mean, though.. certain aspects of being an Amateur don't flip everyones' switch.. For me it's variables. They don't do a thing for me, yet i know people who are exclusive variable observers.

That's what's so great about astronomy.. there's something for everyone. Well, as long as you're interested in the first place, that is.

[James]

Doubles don't really do it for me either... except for when there's a pronounced colour contrast, or they're extremely close or faint and I really have to bump up the power/recheck my collimation etc, or there's more than two...

Actually I guess doubles do do it for me

James

[Macavity]

I think, for me, double stars and clusters... "feed MY imagination"?

Although doubtless we are very LUCKY to orbit our solitary, and rather un-remarkable, G-type star... What would the VIEW be like, from orbit, around a component of say Mizar... of Castor etc. Aside: I suspect "astronomy" would be lousy, with e.g. a Magnitude -16 (whatever) star lodged permanently in the night sky! LOL. But with double star separations, one begins to get a HUMAN scale to all these mind-boggling astronomical distances. The colours can be pretty (and informative) too...

I remember the first time I looked at Epsilon Lyrae (the "double double") with a small scope - "nothing much". <sigh> Next night... WOW - All FOUR components! I had to sketch it to check that this was really what I was seeing! (It was). Everyone else says Astronomy was their "First Saturn" - For me, probably my "First Double". I never tire of (even) the Mizar-Alcor pairing...

[Kai]

If you have a look in this section http://stargazerslounge.com/observing-imaging-double-variable-stars/ you can see some of the "stuff" that Ian (Lunator) does , i know that as he lives in London he has a very light polluted back garden and Double stars gives him a astronomy option

[Psychobilly]

Stellar and visual don't do it for me either perhaps if I had come into this astro malarkey when my eyesight was a lot better and before digital technology made imaging of faint objects a reality for the amateur then i might have been more interested in it...

But as has already been said .. plenty up there to provide some interest to everyone I suppose...

[661-pete]

In the 'old' days - when I were a wee nipper - there was no such thing as amateur astroimaging. CCDs were (outside of the universities) a distant dream, ditto digital cameras. The only option for the imaging amateur was film and all the hassle that entails (I'm well aware that some imagers still use film but it's digital that has brought imaging to so many of us, and enabled it to really take hold).

So the question in those days for many keen amateurs, having procured a reasonably good telescope and tired of showing the old favourites to a few friends - was - what do I do now?

Indeed that very question is posed in a book I have of that period (late 1950s - early 1960s). A book written by - who else? - Sir PM himself of course. He devotes an appendix to 'useful work for the amateur'.

Basically there are two suggestions: doubles and variables. In those days many binaries were poorly recorded and documented, their orbital details were not known, and there was scope for the amateur to fill in the gaps, merely by measuring position angles and separations and doing a few calculations. For the amateur able to go down to magnitude 9 or 10 there was of course a myriad of binaries to choose from! And the big observatories weren't geared up to this sort of work, they were too busy with the origins of the Universe etc. Similarly the amateur could contribute usefully by recording irregular variables.

Perhaps what Sir Patrick said then (I wonder if he remembers writing that book?) doesn't hold good nowadays. Most of the familiar binaries are pretty well nailed what with modern high-precision astrometry like that from Hipparcos.

But there is still the tradition of observing binaries for the fun of it, the thrill of splitting a really close, difficult one (another cause of difficulty is if the stars differ greatly in magnitude: witness Sirius A and . If your eyes are good enough (mine often aren't). And if the seeing is good enough. Astronomy should be fun as well as a science and an art!

[brianb]

certain aspects of being an Amateur don't flip everyones' switch.. For me it's variables. They don't do a thing for me

I'm deeply sorry for you.

Personally doubles are just a test of scope - especially following recollimation - plus something to do whilst waiting for the sky to get dark enough to do some real observing. Whenever there isn't a decent planet to look at. OTOH I never get tired of variables ... it's the synthesis of many nights observations, not the "wow" factor of a single observation, that is the draw, after all a variable star looks just like any other if you only look at it for a minute or two. (Well most of them do ... a few do "flicker" bu a few tenths of a magnitude in seconds or minutes). But when you catch U Gem at mag 9 when it was mag 14 the previous night, and you realise that you may be the first person in the world to detect the outburst....

[Doc]

For me it's the satisfaction you receive when one star becomes two, or three when you change eyepieces.

In larger scopes you notice alot more colour variations as well.

It's a buzz but then all people like different things.

[ashenlight]

Catanonia, I do know what you mean. When I first got interested in astronomy and acquired my scope, all I could think about was looking at the Moon, planetary observing and perhaps some famous DSOs, like M42.

But when I turned my scope to Mizar and Alcor and managed to split Mizar into its components A and B, I felt so proud and amazed... the colour was fantastic, and they just looked so beautiful up there, so far apart, but so intimately connected too.

Another beauty is Albeiro in Cygnus - through the scope it's like two perfectly placed jewels - one orange and one blue - and some have even said it is equally satisfying through humble 10x50 binos. Macavity said earlier "Everyone else says Astronomy was their "First Saturn" - For me, probably my "First Double"." - this hits the nail on the head for me. I felt like I was doing something extraordinary when I split my first double

I can definitely understand what you mean - it's just two points of light, what's the big deal... although I challenge you to maintain this position once you've split your own doubles Of course, it may not be your cup of tea, whatever floats your boat. Hopefully you'll find your own astronomy related passion whilst here at SGL

Amanda

[Vega]

I agree.. its best to feed your eyes on the likes of Alberio, Almaak and Algieba to have a better experience of doubles. (Oh I'll add a few more in there.. Gamma Leonis, Iota Cancri, Cygni 61. lol). All are uniquely different and beautiful in their own way with colour usually being the main factor. Epsilon Lyrae (The double double) should have a special mention. Although the colour isn't anything to write home about, the sheer tightness of two pair that are in turn so close together makes it a real freak of nature.

Matt

[Macavity]

P.S. Gives me hope "Newtonian Mechanics" works...

At least up until a few tens/hundreds years ago?

[JamesK]

I thought it was nothing special, untill I tried looking at one, and the sheer frustration of getting the right night, right magnification, right focus, for the split made it a huge achievement when I did. And then some like Albeiro, Cor Coreli, Iota Cancri are just pretty...

James.

[lulu57]

For me, it's just the wonder of it: double stars are like looking at a mis-shapen vase and realising that's it's the shape of two faces in profile. It makes me have 'big-picture' thoughts. I like any train of thought that takes me beyond myself into something exotic and unfamiliar.

I do astronomy because nature astounds me, not because of the maths/skill/gadget appeal. My atoms came from a star and they'll end up in a star - how marvellous is that?

And I love to learn. If I see something I haven't seen before, I'm really made up. If I can find out about it, I'm doubly-made up.

I suppose that's why I don't take part in techy-type discussions on this forum. Most of my astronomy-talk would be very emotional and impressionistic, and I'd probably just embarrass you all!

So that's why I like double stars.

(Did that almost make sense?)

[ashenlight]

I do astronomy because nature astounds me, not because of the maths/skill/gadget appeal. My atoms came from a star and they'll end up in a star - how marvellous is that?

I nodded quite a lot when you said that, my reasons down to a t

[aderyn]

(Did that almost make sense?)

Yep - lots of sense there!

[ChrisEdu]

D'oh! Not a thread about double gin and vodkas!

Personally, I like planets, the Moon and nubulae.

[John]

Yep - lots of sense there!

Made sense to me as well. I always describe my approach to astronomy as a "sky tourist" - I like to take in the sights and marvel at them and that includes double stars - splitting gamma in Leo was an early "win" for me with my 60mm refractor nearly 30 years ago

That said, I'm always interested in reading the posts of more specialised observers and imagers and hearing about their latest trials and triumphs - it's a broad hobby with plenty for all thats for sure

John

[albedo0.39]

My atoms came from a star and they'll end up in a star - how marvellous is that?

Wow ! - and I thought it was only me who had those trippy thoughts staring through a few pieces of glass pointed a couple of pieces of mirror stuck in a tube resting on the ground in my garden.

Profound isn't it. One question about "why doubles" and next minute we realise that no matter whether doubles do it for you or not, this hobby is unlike all others out there.

Coming to the original question, I think Macavity got it right. Every time I see a true double star (not an optical) I wonder what it must be like waking up one Sunday morning, opening the curtains and seeing how that looked. Of course, there is the element of testing your eyes / light pollution / 'scope collimation but who can fail to be moved by Albireo ?

[Talitha]

I'm deeply sorry for you.

Nah, don't feel sorry for me, Brian.. i'm in good health and am in possession of all my faculties. When i can't use a scope anymore, then you can feel sorry for me.

[vlebo]

I nodded quite a lot when you said that, my reasons down to a t

Me too

Vlebo

[barkis]

It's rather strange that double stars don't "Do it" for the majority it appears. Yet most of the stars in our galaxy, and others too I imagine, are double or multiple systems.

Trying to separate a close pair can be satisfying, and a vindication of ones Instruments pedigree, providing the conditions are conducive to that activity. Conditions are not always good enough, so one should never decry their scope if it fails. Keep trying.

Doubles are one area where the amateur can contribute. A lot of the Info on binary systems is in need of updating. Position angles and separations and such.

As mentioned, Ian (Lunator), has been successful in having such corrections officially updated via his work. A very tangible contribition to astronomy, so great credit to him.

Also, let's not forget the giants of yesteryear, who dedicated most of their time charting the skies with instruments quite primitive by todays standards. on the whole they were pretty accurate too.

Of course some were commissioned to do it, others did it simply because they wanted to.

Todays equipment available to the amateur, has given the hobby great impetus, especially in the Imaging areas. Deep Sky, Planetary and Lunar, Solar, Widefield. Astonishing images coming from all over the planet. Not a lot of double star pics though. I suppose they are not WoW enough.

Ron.

[Sam]

Before I split the Lyra double double I was also a bit hoo hum about doubles. But now realising what they are and having split a few of the more popular ones now and seen the variance of colour I am quite taken by them.

Sam