I’m currently enrolled in an astronomical research seminar at the local community college supervised by Dr. Russ Genet. Tonight, I made my first observations toward published results in the Journal of Double Star Observations, which will ultimately end up in the Washington Double Star Catalog. I have five targets lined up, one of which is the double star Lambda Arietis (WDS 01579+2336, SAO 75051) . This is a fairly easy double to spot, visible with the naked eye. It consists of two stars, the primary is a magnitude 4.9, and the secondary is a 7.4, with around 37.6 arc-seconds of separation, making them an ideal candidate for my first attempt at measuring doubles.
I used my manual alt-az 10-inch Orion XT10 Dobsonian from my front porch. Dr. Genet let me borrow a Celestron Micro Guide illuminated eyepiece. Based on my theoretical calculations from my focal length, I had calculated the z value (distance between scale divisions on the linear scale) using the formula from the manual for the Micro Guide:
z = 20626 / f
z = 16.5008 arc-seconds
where f is the focal length of the telescope in millimeters. My focal length is 1250mm, so my z values was theoretically 16.5 arc-seconds per tick on the linear scale. Due to manufacturing imperfections, it’s recommended that you measure the time it takes a known bright star to travel parallel down the linear scale and calculate the z value yourself, since the focal lengths of the telescope and Micro Guide might be slightly different than what they are advertised as. To do this, I positioned my scope on the star Aldebaran and measured 68.32 seconds for it to travel from one end of the linear scale to the other. The declination of Aldebaran is +16° 30′ 33.49 which works out to 16.5055816667°. Also, there are 60 tick marks along the linear scale on the Micro Guide. With these three pieces of information, I could calculate the actual z value:
z = 15.0411 * (time) * cos(declination) / ticks
z = 15.0411 * 68.32 * cos(16.5055816667°) / 60
z = 16.421039 arc-seconds
My measured value was close to the theoretical, but different enough that I’m glad I decided to measure it. This is the value that I used for the rest of my calculations.
Since I was using a manual scope, I quickly discovered that it was a bit tricky to measure the separation of my target double star. The technique I ended up using successfully was putting the double star somewhere above the linear scale and letting it slowly drift across the scale as the earth rotates. This way, I could focus on trying to read the number of tick marks between the primary and secondary stars. I measured the separation four times, after the first two measurements, I rotated the Micro Guide 180° so that if I had introduced any error in my alignment for these first two data points, my second two would reflect that. In the end, it appeared that my data was accurate to the best of my ability. I took my recorded “tick mark” distances and multiplied it by my z value from above to get a separation distance.
The second measurement that I took was the position angle. I did this by positioning the stars above the linear axis and waiting for them to drift through it. If either the primary or the secondary drifted past and were aligned with the center mark on the linear scale, I would let the drift complete and record where on the protractor that same star passed. If they drifted past the linear scale and neither was aligned with the central mark, then I would reposition and try again. I repeated this measurement four times using the same method as above, rotating the Micro Guide 180° after the first two measurements to reduce error. The position angle is measured from the north position (90° on a normal protractor), so I subtracted my recorded value from 90° to obtain the PA.
|Observation||Position Angle (degrees)|
To prepare for my measurements of my five target double stars throughout the duration of this research seminar, I contacted Dr. Brian Mason at the United States Naval Observatory. He maintains the Washington Double Star Catalog and provided me with all of the past observations and data for my five target double stars. Using this data for Lambda Arietis, I was able to confirm that my results we indeed accurate and in line with previous measurements.
|My data||Last WDS||Last WDS Diff||Last 10 WDS Avg||Last 10 WDS Avg Diff|
The reason I included an average of the last 10 WDS observations was since I was unsure of their accuracy since quite a few recent observations seemed to jump around a bit. The above table also shows the difference between my numbers and the past WDS observations.
My numbers seemed right in line with what I would extrapolate from the past WDS observational data, so I feel pretty good about my accuracy, especially since this was my first observation session. I tried to be as meticulous as possible and was pleasantly surprised that I was able to obtain accurate results with a manual telescope. It takes a little bit of practice, but it’s accurate and fairly easy to accomplish. I look forward to tackling the rest of my target double stars in the near future!