[AZ-Observing] Re: Different Astronomy

Hi Jeff,
I don't know what the worse case is for a heliocentric correction. With 
respect to my graph the uncorrected location of H-Alpha is 6563.47A. The 
heliocentric correction I need to apply is to subtract 0.537A. When I do 
this I get 6562.93A which is very close to the non-doppler shifted value 
of 6562.85. The difference may just reflect inaccuracies in my 
estimations in constructing the profile.

I was going to get the Na region back in April, but I was have guiding 
problems, which I hope is resolved now, and back in April Epsilon 
Aurigae was getting too low in the horizon over Prescott to be able to 
get good data.
Stan

Jeff Hopkins wrote:

>Hi Stan,
>
>Very nice!
>
>I see you have compensated for the black body roll off or whatever it 
>is called. This image looks better than the one you sent me before. 
>I'm curious, how much of a Doppler shift is due to the Earth's motion 
>around the Sun (worse case)?
>
>Talking to Bob Stencel recently, it seems the Na D lines are also of 
>interest for epsilon Aurigae. They have been reported a 1,000 more 
>intense than Solar D lines.
>
>I still hope you will help when my Lhires III comes.
>
>Keep up the good work.
>
>Jeff
>
>At 15:54 -0700 05/28/2008, Stan Gorodenski wrote:
>  
>
>>Along with the different kinds of astronomy, photometry etc., is
>>spectroscopy. The following link is my first feeble attempts at
>>spectroscopy. It is a 10 minute exposure of Epsilon Aurigae taken on the
>>evening of April 6-7, 2008. The large drop near the center of the line
>>graph is the absorption line of H-Alpha. The spectra has not been
>>heliocentric corrected, and it does make a difference not doing so.
>>http://users.commspeed.net/stanlep/EA_600sec.jpg
>>Stan
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please 
send personal replies to the author, not the list.

Other related posts: