<p>I want to know any open clusters which we don't know a lot about.</p>
<p>Open clusters of which we don't know  about the:</p>
<ul>
<li>chemical composition</li>
<li>ratio of no. of stars in front vs back tidal trail</li>
<li></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-24T07:26:57.940Z
If the number of objects is nearly infinite, lists work only for the complement: you can only compile lists of what is known - but not of what is not known as such lists would be infinitely large.
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-24T07:29:03.783Z
I am not talking about listing all the objects that we don't know. I am talking about the objects that we know the existence of but have not enough information about.
thetrueembodimentofstupidity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-24T07:42:40.863Z
Is there any object we have enough information about? Who is the judge of this question? The answer obviously depends on the question(s) you want to ask your set of data
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-24T07:44:30.240Z
I don't feel like playing a game of semantics right now. You know that I mean "objects that we literally know little about compared to say the Sun or Orion Nebula". I know, language is a word game but sometimes we have to use our shared human intuition to understand each other when bringing up subjective terms like "little", "obscure" etc
thetrueembodimentofstupidity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-24T13:51:59.333Z
Lawrence, planetmaker has a very good point. This is entirely opinion-based. Every study group has their preferred ones that not enough is known about. I think you need to update your question with context and the assumptions you want to make. It's not semantics, it's trying to reduce from any answer, to one that is valuable to you.
Rory Alsop
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-25T22:28:50.627Z
I guess your best bet for "not well studied open clusters" (or associations) would be newly found structures with GAIA. E.g. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A%26A...608A..73K/abstract (and their figs. 5 and following), but those structures will by now have been studied in surveys and definetly have chemical abundances (not sure about tidal tails, but that should come from GAIA for free, except in very crowded clusters maybe where parallaxes fail)
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-25T23:26:06.477Z
so then for a noob, what possible research is there to  do with clusters using  remote California telescope? How do I measure the travel  speed of a light-emitting object if the telescope does not have a spectroscope?
thetrueembodimentofstupidity
<globular-clusters>
unstudied open clusters?
thetrueembodimentofstupidity
# unstudied open clusters?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-11-24)

I want to know any open clusters which we don't know a lot about.

Open clusters of which we don't know about the:

* chemical composition
* ratio of no. of stars in front vs back tidal trail

**Tags:** globular-clusters

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: If the number of objects is nearly infinite, lists work only for the complement: you can only compile lists of what is known - but not of what is not known as such lists would be infinitely large.  
> **username_0**: I am not talking about listing all the objects that we don't know. I am talking about the objects that we know the existence of but have not enough information about.  
> **username_1**: Is there any object we have enough information about? Who is the judge of this question? The answer obviously depends on the question(s) you want to ask your set of data  
> **username_0**: I don't feel like playing a game of semantics right now. You know that I mean "objects that we literally know little about compared to say the Sun or Orion Nebula". I know, language is a word game but sometimes we have to use our shared human intuition to understand each other when bringing up subjective terms like "little", "obscure" etc  
> **username_2**: Lawrence, username_1 has a very good point. This is entirely opinion-based. Every study group has their preferred ones that not enough is known about. I think you need to update your question with context and the assumptions you want to make. It's not semantics, it's trying to reduce from any answer, to one that is valuable to you.  
> **username_3**: I guess your best bet for "not well studied open clusters" (or associations) would be newly found structures with GAIA. E.g. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A%26A...608A..73K/abstract (and their figs. 5 and following), but those structures will by now have been studied in surveys and definetly have chemical abundances (not sure about tidal tails, but that should come from GAIA for free, except in very crowded clusters maybe where parallaxes fail)  
> **username_0**: so then for a noob, what possible research is there to  do with clusters using  remote California telescope? How do I measure the travel  speed of a light-emitting object if the telescope does not have a spectroscope?  

---

## 0 answers

