Another challenging galaxy

In previous threads, galaxies like NGC147, NGC185, NGC4236 and IC342 have been subject to discussion.

Last night I found another interesting galaxy where the integrated magnitude is 10.6, but still it is very difficult to see due to a very low surface brightness. (Another of those elusive face-on spirals).

The galaxy in question is NGC4395 in Canes Venatici. It lies very near the Coma border, 4 - 5 degrees east of the showpiece galaxies, NGC4631 and NGC4656.

I used my 12.5-inch, where it appeared as a faint round patch, say 20' in diameter. Some condensations could be suspected.

I guess that the galaxy can be seen in a good 8-inch scope. But is it possible with less?

Inge S

Inge,

There are no IAAC reports on NGC 4395, which apparently is the nearest Seyfert galaxy and which has the smallest black hole (only 300 to 400,000 solar masses) yet detected.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1993/19/image/a

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223152854.htm

There's a sketch of NGC 4395 that was done with the aid of a 6" f/6 Newtonian at http://www.bert.dekker65.freeler.nl/frset_gal.htm

Dave Mitsky

I just tracked down NGC 4395 last night in my 6 inch reflector. Conditions in southeast Michigan were better than average for transparency, seeing was mediocre, and I was observing from a mag 6-ish site. My notes:

"What a dim ghost of a galaxy! Certainly no edges to speak of, just a localized increase in background glow. Definite sighting, fairly easy to see it move around the field while scanning, but very, very indistinct."

However, here's another "bright" (mag 9.6 or 10.1, depedning on the source) but challenging galaxy I found last night: NGC 4236 in Draco. It's a really quite enormous, highly elongated galaxy (about 20' by 7'). It's a little easier than 4395, in part because it has a distinctive shape - a very long oval - rather than being an ill-defined symmetrical glow. It's not a showpiece, but impressive in its own way.

It's on the Caldwell list (#3), and Stephen O'Meara calls it "extremely ill-defined" and "supernaturally faint". This led me to believe that I wouldn't be able to find it (because if O'Meara says it's faint, you KNOW it's faint), but I was pleasantly suprised.