AJames
08-05-2007, 12:57 AM
In the times before the significant brightening of the star Eta Carina in the early to mid 19th Century no one seems to have actually described its naked-eye visibility - at least as we see it today. We could readily assume that the nebulosity should have been seen by many people and observers before this time, but no observational records exist.
Two distinct possibilities are;
1) Either the brightness of eta Car hid the nebulosity from view
2) That the nebulosity was different than it was today.
All observations, and even Nicolas LacaIlle, do not describe naked-eye visibility in this region. It was after about 1815, when eta Car had risen above 3rd or 4th magnitude, that the nebulosity possibly was extinguished by its light. By 1822, around the time when Sir Thomas Brisbane, James Dunlop and Charles Rumker had arrived in Sydney, Australia, and had moved inland to constructed the Paramatta Observatory, the star had risen to somewhere around 2nd magnitude.
No doubt, it was the brilliancy of the eta Car that made the nebulosity not as seen visually to the eye but only as a telescopic target.
Naked-eye visibility of the nebulosity only could occur once ? Car had dropped in brightness. One of the first to record fact that I have found was by Sir John Herschel own son - the Lieutenant J. Herschel observations on the 23rd November 1868 from Bangalore. He says (Lt. J. Herschel, J.W.F. Herschel; "The Great Nebula round Eta Argus", MNRAS, 29, 82 (1868)) that;
"The nebulae is easily seen with the naked-eye. the eye selects the object as naturally as it would choose the Pleiades at that altitude... Compared [the nebula] directly with Nebecula Major (preceding by six hours...) that the Nebula Eta Argus was intrinsically brighter"
What do others think of this proposittion??
Two distinct possibilities are;
1) Either the brightness of eta Car hid the nebulosity from view
2) That the nebulosity was different than it was today.
All observations, and even Nicolas LacaIlle, do not describe naked-eye visibility in this region. It was after about 1815, when eta Car had risen above 3rd or 4th magnitude, that the nebulosity possibly was extinguished by its light. By 1822, around the time when Sir Thomas Brisbane, James Dunlop and Charles Rumker had arrived in Sydney, Australia, and had moved inland to constructed the Paramatta Observatory, the star had risen to somewhere around 2nd magnitude.
No doubt, it was the brilliancy of the eta Car that made the nebulosity not as seen visually to the eye but only as a telescopic target.
Naked-eye visibility of the nebulosity only could occur once ? Car had dropped in brightness. One of the first to record fact that I have found was by Sir John Herschel own son - the Lieutenant J. Herschel observations on the 23rd November 1868 from Bangalore. He says (Lt. J. Herschel, J.W.F. Herschel; "The Great Nebula round Eta Argus", MNRAS, 29, 82 (1868)) that;
"The nebulae is easily seen with the naked-eye. the eye selects the object as naturally as it would choose the Pleiades at that altitude... Compared [the nebula] directly with Nebecula Major (preceding by six hours...) that the Nebula Eta Argus was intrinsically brighter"
What do others think of this proposittion??