I use my Fuji XT2 camera to take short 5 second exposures of star
fields well away from the galactic plane. I am looking for high
latitude novae. I just can’t be bothered to go below magnitude 9.0,
there are too many stars to check.
John Flamsteed 1646-1719 produced a catalogue of naked eye stars in
the various constellations that were visible to him. I keep coming
across anomalies with stars that have Flamsteed numbers (Fl). I
sometimes come across stars that are much brighter than the stars
around them yet they don’t have a Fl number, they are clearly
visible to the naked eye, but were not recorded by Flamsteed. On the
other hand there are some Fl stars that are below naked eye
visibility yet still have a Fl number!
Either
the stars have changed over the past 300 years or were misidentified
by him, or his charts were changed by someone after his death. I run
all the usual checks through various catalogues to see if there is
any data on them. There usually isn’t. This is one example:-
In-between
Fl 32 Uma and Fl 35 UMa is an unmarked star which is brighter than
both of these stars.
The star is actually now known as ET Uma, it is
an alpha2 Canum Venaticorum type variable. These are magnetic
variables whose amplitude is very tiny, usually no more than 0.1 of a
magnitude. This is a white A class star. It is listed with a
magnitude of 4.9.
This
is much brighter than FL32 at magnitude 5.7, also an A class star and
Fl 35 at magnitude 6.3 which is of course below naked eye visibility
and in theory would not have been seen by Flamsteed yet has a FL
number. Fl 35 is an orange K class star.
Does
anyone else come across these discrepancies when they check their
photographs.