In article <349E1E80.17D4@lowell.edu>, "Brian A. Skiff"
> The description in the NGC is unambiguous in mentioning a mag. 10
Brian,
I took a look last night at the NGC 2195 field from a dark site in the
Sierra foothills east of Jackson and I fully agree with your comments. In
my 17.5" I immediately picked up the close double at 100x just south of
the mag 10 star. At 220x and 280x the double star was cleanly separated
but the space between the pair and the bright star appeared slightly hazy
due to the two very close faint stars just below resolvability. At 410x,
at least one very faint sparkle was resolved.
Also at 220x it was not difficult to pick up the patch of nebulosity about
6.5' NNE (not noticed at 100x). It appeared as a very small hazy spot
about 15" in diameter forming a small triangle (sides ~1') with two mag
10-11 stars following. I might have mistaken it for a small, faint galaxy
and could easily be passed over at lower power. At 280x and 410x, the mag
10.5 star 1.4' NE was noticed to have a faint, very close companion at its
NE edge.
> star 31" north of the object. As can be seen by looking at a DSS
> image of the field, this makes the ID certain as being the string
> of stars near: 6 14 34 +17 38.5 (2000) that Kenneth mentions. The
> "nebulosity" seen by Lohse and later by Bigourdan in several
> observations is simply a physiological effect from the closeness of the
> faint stars, just as you would see in faint stars in an open cluster.
>
> \Brian Skiff