Not really a double ...

[Demonperformer]

but a triple containing my first white dwarf ( and my first red dwarf © ... yes, it is omicron2 eridani

first image is of entire field (20% original size), stretched to bring out a couple of local stars to help put it in perspective

second image is full size of the triple itself with the components labelled

6SE with canon 1000, 40x10s exposures + 20 darks

reasonably happy, especially with the colour of 'C' (no 'colour' processing done)

[Ags]

That is actually an awesome photo!

[toml42]

that's really cool!

[DarkerSky]

That is brilliant! I don't think I have knowingly ever seen a white dwarf or a red dwarf. I really like that.

[Moonshane]

really lovely. is this observable visually? I think I have the right star - Keid?

[RogerTheDodger]

Sweet picture that

[Demonperformer]

Keid it is.

There should be no difficulty in seeing all three stars. The faintest is 11m7 and the BC separation is over 7". However, I doubt you will the colours visually.

[John]

Great photo DP !

That one's just gone on my "must observe" list

[kniclander]

to many, that photo would be unremarkable. but to us, it's awesome. well done. love it.

[Moonshane]

great stuff - on my list too!

[4lefts]

that photo is the business. the more i read about doubles and things, the more i think it's something i want to get in to.

did i read somewhere that refractors tend to be better for this than reflectors? or did i make that up? (decisions...)

sorry to jack the thread.

[lunator]

Good pic

This is always a good target and the white dwarf is the easiest on to see.

Cheers

Ian

[Demonperformer]

did i read somewhere that refractors tend to be better for this than reflectors? or did i make that up?

sorry to jack the thread.

I'm sure I've heard the same thing ... something to do with them generally having longer focal ratios and that producing darker skies making the bit between the stars easier to see. Unless I imagined that bit ... sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

And it's all about seeing multiple stars, so no hijack as far as I'm concerned.

[lunator]

This comment is a bit of a myth.

A well collimated newt with perform on a par with a refractor and the larger aperture will let you split tighter doubles when the seeing allows.

Refractors are prefered as they are easier to look after and don't suffer the same mechanical issues as Newts.

Cheers

Ian

[Demonperformer]

I stand corrected

[4lefts]

thanks for the info. more reasons to get a dob and learn to collimate.

[Paxo]

awesome image DP.

Steve

[lunator]

I stand corrected

DP always willing to share my experience

If you want a technical explanation I would recommend Bob Argyles book Observing & measuring visual doubles. (Springer)

Chris Taylor has a complete chapter on splitting tight doubles with a Newt.

Cheers

Ian

[Moonshane]

having used both (although I sold my refractor) I tend to feel that a good quality refractor will provide tighter star images and therefore some doubles will be easier to split BUT where more resolution is required then the larger aperture of a newt will be more successful.

eg Sigma Orionis is a beautifully well split and easily obvious four star system even at low mags in my 12" newt and was sometimes a little tricky in my 120mm achro. the view was generally 'nicer' through the frac.