Seven stars in one night (22nd October 2023)

A week last Sunday (the 22nd October) we had some clear weather late in the evening that allowed me to carry out a substantial bit of variable star observing. I think I am getting better at locating the stars in question and then estimating their brightness. One of the tricks of finding the targets is to be able to recognise star patterns and I have made things easier for myself by making some scribbled notes on my location charts. It is helpful to draw in lines between stars that make a shape or pattern. It becomes easier to recognise a shape when you return to it another time. Also, understanding how a chart relates to the wider constellation in which it is found is very helpful when pointing your binoculars in the right direction.

On that Sunday evening there was a bit of light cloud earlier on that was drifting over the sky. The moon was at first quarter and it was due to set at 22:40 UT. Astronomical twilight ended at approximately 18:40 UT.

I began with two variables in Draco on BAA chart 106.04. As usual I was using my 7x50 binoculars. At 22:12 UT TX Draconis (near the star Eta) was brighter than star N (=7.7 mag.). At 22:16 I determined that it was fainter than star K(=7.0) but not by much. My estimate was K(2)V(5)N which made it magnitude 7.2. This is in very good agreement with other observers from the BAA.

On the same chart we have AH Draconis. At 22:27 UT I saw that AH was fainter than star 1 (=7.0 mag.) but not by much. At 22:33 I thought it was equal in brightness to star 2 (=7.3), so my estimate was magnitude 7.3. Again this is in very good agreement with other observers.

Cygnus was still at a reasonable altitude at this time so I switched to observing CH Cygni on chart 089.04. By then most of the light cloud had dissipated. At 22:53 UT I could see that CH was much fainter than star A (=6.5 mag.) on that chart. At 22:56 I felt CH was fainter than star D (=8.0) but not by much. At 22:59 I thought it was brighter than star F (=8.5) and my estimate was D(1)V(4)F, that is magnitude 8.1. CH is an unusual variable star as I have described previously. At the moment it has faded quite a bit since it peaked in brightness between August last year and January this year (it reached about magnitude 6.5). Since June its luminosity does appear to be on the rise again.

I moved on to my next star which was pretty much overhead. This was RW Cephei on chart 312.02. At 23:16 UT RW was fainter than stars P (=6.2) and B (=6.5). At 23:18 I saw that it was brighter than star E (=7.3) but closer to B. My estimate was B(1)V(3)E or magnitude 6.7.

My fifth star to observe that night was GO Pegasi (chart 103.02). At 23:37 UT I found that GO was fainter than star B (=7.0) and brighter than E (=7.8) and my estimate was that it was mid-way between the two, i.e. B(1)V(1)E or magnitude 7.4.

My final two stars were in the constellation of the Great Bear. By midnight (1am BST!) this constellation is rising again in the north east. At 23:55 UT I saw that Z UMa is similar in brightness to star B (=7.3) on chart 217.02. At 23:57 I determined it was brighter than star D (=7.9) and at 23:59 roughly equal to star C (=7.5). So my estimate was magnitude 7.5.

Finally, on the same chart and just creeping into the 23rd October at 00:04 UT I noted that RY UMa was brighter than stars 4 (=7.7) and 5 (=8.3). At 00:06 I estimated that RY was between stars 2 (=7.4) and 1 (=6.7) but closer to 1. My estimate was 1(2)V(5)2 or magnitude 6.9.

All these estimates are in good agreement with other observers from the BAA.

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2023

Recent observations of some variable stars

Over the last week we have had a couple of occasions when the sky has been clear enough for a while for me to get out and observe some variable stars. Last Saturday (7th October) I had just long enough to observe GO Pegasi before the murk closed in. That night the moon was 1 day past last quarter and not due to rise until 22:39 UT. Darkness is now falling earlier in the evening and astronomical twilight ended at 19:20 UT on that day. At 21:55 UT there was some hazy cloud around and some parts of the sky were obscured, however, the constellation of Pegasus was pretty clear and I was able to determine that GO was fainter than star B (=7.0 mag.) on BAA chart 103.02 but brighter than star E (=7.8 mag.). It was closer in brightness to star E and my estimate was B(3)V(5)E which made it magnitude 7.3.

This star doesn't have much of a range in magnitude variation (just 0.77 according to the BAAVSS) and, probably because of this, it doesn't appear on the list of beginner's variable stars as described by them. But then there are no beginner binocular variable stars listed in Pegasus, which seems a shame, and this is why I think I picked this one out of the BAAVSS observation program for pulsating stars. I say a shame because Pegasus is well placed at this time of year and is a prominent constellation in the sky. After a recent run of being around magnitude 7.6 it has brightened recently to 7.2 or 7.3 (near the maximum of its range of brightness) and I am glad to say that I am not the only BAA observer to have recorded this! The last time it reached this magnitude was back at the beginning of the year over 280 days ago. This seems a bit odd for a star that supposedly has a period of 79 days! However, I have found a paper by Kate Blackham (pdf) where she can't find any periodicity in this star and has declared it to be an irregular.

Two days ago on the 9th October we had another evening when there was a brief period of clear weather. Again there was quite a bit of hazy cloud and one or two more thicker patches of accumulation. The variable star TX Draconis is now heading down towards the west in the evenings but it is still at a good altitude. At 21:12 UT TX was fainter than star K (=7.0 mag.) on BAA chart 106.04 but brighter than N (=7.7 mag.). My estimate was K(5)V(2)N which made it magnitude 7.5. Another observer at the BAA on the same night estimated it to be visual magnitude 7.3, so we are in reasonable agreement. I had been intending to look at AH Draconis as well but by then a bit of cloud was obscuring my view.

I went on to look at RW Cephei which I have described before. At 21:36 RW was fainter than star P (=6.2 mag.) on chart 312.02 but brighter than star E (=7.3 mag.). My estimate put it midway in brightness between the two, namely B(1)V(1)E making it magnitude 6.9. This star hasn't changed much in brightness by my reckoning since I last looked at it on September 12th. Then I estimated to be 6.8. I think these results are in pretty good agreement with other observations from the BAA and AAVSO.

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2023

The brightening of the yellow hypergiant RW Cephei (4th September 2023)

Last week (4th September) I was able to get out and observe the variable star RW Cephei. The conditions weren't that great as the waning gibbous moon (2 days from last quarter) was rising at 20:20 UT and the sky was hazy. Astronomical twilight ended at about 20:40 UT.

Using my 7x50 binoculars I was able to find RW using chart 312.02 from the BAA. At 20:43 UT RW was fainter than both nearby stars P (mag. 6.2) and B (mag. 6.5) on that chart. However, at 20:46 UT I determined it was brighter than star E (mag. 7.3). My estimate was that it was one "point" from B in brightness and two "points" from E, namely B(1)V(2)E which made it magnitude 6.8 (to 1 d.p.). This is in good agreement with other data from the BAA.

As noted before (in December 2022 and January 2023) this star has recently gone through a period of dimming similar to that which occurred to Betelgeuse in 2020. That dimming now seems to be over as its brightness has returned to its normal range of magnitudes as seen by the plot generated from the BAAVSS below:-

My latest data point is the black circle at the extreme right of this light curve (magnitude on the vertical axis, calendar date on the horizontal). In a recent paper in The Astronomical Journal the authors have presented some images of this star obtained through interferometry which show that during the period of dimming the star's surface brightness appeared asymmetric. They suggest that this has been caused by a mass ejection of material that has resulted in a dust cloud that is blocking the light from the stellar photosphere. This is similar to what happened to Betelgeuse.

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2023 (except for the image from the BAAVSS)

Variable stars TX and AH Draconis, AC Herculis and CH Cygni (19th August 2023)

I have had quite long spell of not being able to do much variable star observing (the last time was at the back end of May). The cause was the poor weather and the light evenings. This month (August) I had an opportunity to get something done on the 19th. The moon was 3 days past new and astronomical twilight ended at 21:40 UT. We had a nice clear sky but I had forgotten how hard it is sometimes to identify where a particular variable is in relation to other stars. It can take as long to refamiliarize myself with a star field as it takes to make the actual magnitude estimate.

I started with TX Draconis which I now know quite well and wasn't too difficult to find. The end two stars of Ursa Minor (Kochab and Pherkad) point to Eta Draconis and the pentangle of stars containing TX are nearby. At 22:03 UT, TX was definitely fainter than star K (at magnitude 7.0, see chart 106.04). At 22:08 UT I couldn't distinguish it in brightness from star N (magnitude 7.7). So that was my estimate. This was in good agreement with other observations by BAA members at this time.

Moving across to AH Draconis which is in the same 9 degree field, at 22:11 UT AH was fainter than star 1 (mag. 7.0) but brighter than star 6 (mag. 7.8). At 22:16 my estimate was that AH was midway between 2 and 6 in brightness, i.e. 2(1)V(1)6 or magnitude 7.6. This may be a little fainter (by 0.2 magnitudes) than other BAA estimates.

I now switched to looking at AC Herculis. This star is not so easy to find. It is located quite a way from the main asterism which forms the body of this greek hero - in fact it is better to draw a line between Delta and Beta Lyrae and continue this south and this will get you close to where AC is found. The nearest bright star is Flamsteed 109 and from there you can hop to the variable. At 22:46 I saw that AC was definitely brighter than star E (mag. 8.2 on chart 048.04) which is right next to it. At 22:48 UT I determined AC was midway in brightness between stars C (=6.9) and star D (=7.4), that is C(1)V(1)D or magnitude 7.2. This was in good agreement with other observations by BAA members.

Finally, I moved on to CH Cygni. This star has the advantage that it can be found near the outstretched wing tip of the swan asterism close to Iota and Kappa Cygni. At 23:10 CH was definitely fainter than star A (magnitude 6.5 on chart 089.04) which is very close by. It was also fainter than star W (=7.3) which is a bit further away. At 23:19 I estimated CH was similar in brightness to star D (=8.0).  Again, this was in good agreement with other observations by BAA members.

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2023

How many stars can you see in the Great Square of Pegasus?

The time for the Perseid meteor shower has been and gone (the peak was on the 12/13th August) and I missed out as it was cloudy that night here in Norfolk. The following night at 1.15am BST on the morning of the 14th August I did have a peep outside and was presented with a really clear dark sky that you just don't see that often. Jupiter is now up at this time and it won't be long before it is in our evening sky again. What interested me was just how good the sky transparency was. One of the ways of testing this is to try and see how many stars you can make out with the naked eye within the Great Square of Pegasus which was well placed at this time. This is a good test of your eyesight and a good test of how dark your sky really is. I could see quite a few stars so I decided to spend some time totting them up.

Bob King has described his attempts at doing this in his very good Sky and Telescope article. In the end I counted 9 or 10 and using his list of stars within this asterism I reckon that I was seeing down to magnitude 5.8 which is pretty good.

I used to think we had good dark skies where we are in Norfolk but over recent years I have had to admit that light pollution is getting worse where we are. We have Norwich just about 10 miles away and the lights from this city are getting worse as it expands further out towards the NDR. To the east is Great Yarmouth but that only shows up faintly. Nearby we have some intrusive lights from a local radar station to the north.

When I realistically place our night sky on the Bortle Scale I can see that we are actually approaching a suburban sky (class 5). On better nights we might just be classed as a 4 (rural/suburban transition) but I think that is pushing it as evidenced by the fact that I couldn't see stars fainter than 6th magnitude. I certainly have never seen the Zodiacal Light here and I did try to see M33 with the naked eye but didn't spot it. However, this may be something to try on another dark night. 

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2023

The General Catalogue of Variable Stars

An online version of this catalogue can be seen here. I wanted to use this catalogue to confirm that the stars I have referred to as X and Y in the field of the variable star Z Ursae Majoris aren't variables in themsleves. This would pose a problem to using them as comparison stars if they were.

Star X is HIP57820 and is also known as HD102956 or Aniara. If you click on the GCVS query form you can use the cross-identification to select the HIP (Hipparcos) catalogue and enter the number 57820. No record is found which I take to mean that this star is not a variable.

The same can be said of star Y which is HIP58302 also known as HD103810. Now Z Ursae Majoris is HIP58225 and this brings up the record for this variable star.

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2023

Z and RY Ursae Majoris and TX and AH Draconis (15/5/23)

We have had a more settled period of weather in the last couple of weeks giving some good clear skies. Monday before last (15th May) was one such night and the moon at 3 days past last quarter wasn't due to rise until 02:58 UT. Astronomical twilight was predicted to end at 23:00 UT. I thought I would get some more estimates for the semi-regular variables I monitor in Ursa Major and Draco.

Beginning with Z UMa and using BAA chart 217.02 at 22:15 UT I could see star H which is magnitude 8.7. This was a good indication of my limiting magnitude. I noted at 22:21 UT that Z was brighter than star D (=7.9) and star C (=7.5). In fact, on closer inspection, at 22:31 UT I thought it was pretty close to star B (=7.3) in brightness but perhaps one tenth brighter. This made it B+1 or magnitude 7.2.

Using the same chart I looked at RY UMa. RY was fainter than stars 1 (=6.7), 2 (=7.4) and 4 (=7.7) but not by much for the latter. At 22:50 UT my estimate for RY was one tenth fainter than star 4, i.e. 4-1 or magnitude 7.8.

Moving on to the stars in Draco. Beginning with chart 106.04 and TX Draconis. At 23:04 UT TX was brighter than star N (=7.7) but fainter than star K (=7.0) but not by much. My estimate was that it was 2 points from N and 1 from K, that is K(1)V(2)N or magnitude 7.2.

Finally AH Dra. At 23:11 I noted that AH was fainter than star 1 (=7.0) but at 23:25 I estimated it to be equal to star 2 (=7.3), that is magnitude 7.3.

I think all of these estimates are in reasonable agreement with other observers from the BAA.

All text and images © Duncan Hale-Sutton 2023