This was a short night. Seeing was ok but did not support high powers. Transparency was the main issue, with a haze of both marine vapor and smoke from wildfires in the north causing problems. So I only observed a few stars. However, I did document KUI 79 short period, and re-observed curious HU 66.
STF 2163 AB: 508; 205x: White stars, nice split .1", near equal
17H 23M 21.04S +42° 09' 03.2" P.A. 73 SEP 1.4 MAG 10.25,10.49 SP F8
A 1880 AB: 508; 205x: At the end of an arc of three stars. B is blue and faint but easily seen, well separated ~3" from bright white A, ~2 delta mag.
17H 38M 11.57S +52° 36' 22.8" P.A. 114 SEP 2.7 MAG 9.20,11.20 SP K0
ES 1743 BC: 508; 205x: AB is obvious, bright A with the faint B well separated. BC is the tougher pair, faint blue stars ~3", ~1 delta mag.
17H 45M 34.09S +59° 14' 05.2" P.A. 76 SEP 2.5 MAG 11.40,12.40
MLB 1077 AB: 508; 205x: B seen faintly with direct vision, brightens with averted vision, ~5" separated & ~2 delta mag
17H 47M 57.47S +57° 06' 40.0" P.A. 213 SEP 4.5 MAG 9.24,11.10 SP G5
STT 351 AC: 508; 333x: Orange stars, noticeable magnitude difference ~0.5, separated just less than ~1". What's curious is the AB pair is HU 66 AB listed as 7.90/8.40 0.1" currently, with HU 66 BC as 8.40/8.25 0.9". So my question is, if AC is physical, and if BC are physical too, why is AC uncertain? It would seem they should all be sharing orbits? Perhaps it just cries out for additional measures -- AB is grade 4 and BC is grade 5, so they are confident of physicality but there's not enough data to nail it down.
18H 25M 18.20S +48° 45' 42.5" P.A. 29 SEP 0.8 MAG 7.90,8.25 SP G5 DIST. 144.72 PC (472.08 L.Y.)
KUI 79 AB: 508; 333x: Re-observed this pair in order to sketch its position after finding it is a short (13 year!) period. It should be very easy to track the progress of this one.
17H 12M 07.78S +45° 39' 57.6" P.A. 280.8 SEP 0.76 MAG 10.02,10.25 SP K5 DIST. 5.98 PC (19.51 L.Y.)
No comments:
Post a Comment