That's 1.6 to 2.4 L band. It's very rich in infrared. Probably much dimmer in visual bands.
You can read all about it at http://www.aavso.org/vsx/index.php?view=detail.top&oid=62923 Referenced in this paper http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1983ApJS...53..413G&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf Jim Jones crite40 wrote: > --- In [email protected], William Hamblen <wrhamb...@...> > wrote: > >> On 9/2/2010 6:43 PM, crite40 wrote: >> >>> Good day all! >>> I have recently noticed that I seem to get some VERY odd information on >>> some variable stars. An occasional star looks wildly out of place, it is >>> ALWAYS a variable and it has a very high max magnitude, often mag 1 or 2 >>> where no such star exists. I suspect that a variable star may well exist in >>> that position, but some thing is messing up the information displayed. >>> It ONLY applies to variables and everything else seems fine. >>> It is also present in both versions of Cartes du Ciel, 2.7x and 3. >>> Anyone got any ideas? >>> Suggestions gratefully received as it frequently "mucks up" my finder >>> charts. >>> Cliff Wright New Zealand. >>> >> This is caused by the catalog data. It would be easier if you could >> quote a particular star. The GCVS number would be OK. >> >> Bud >> >> > thanks Bud. > Here's an example. I have looking around Scutum, which is well placed here in > NZ. The charts give me a star cataloged as 24488 NSV with a magnitude range > of 1.6 to 2.4 at RA 18h 31 and DEC -08 35'. > I am an old astronomer and I am VERY sure that there ain't no such star!!!. > Does that help? > Regards Cliff Wright. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
