Jump to content


Photo

Bound and determined : Horsehead thru a ten..BUT..

  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#51 Carol L

Carol L

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7241
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2004
  • Loc: Tomahawk, WI 45N//89W

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:28 AM

Thanks for the explanations, Tony and Bill. :)
I'll definitely experiment with my ep's this winter to see which is best on the Horse Head.

#52 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 35041
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:31 PM

While I've seen B33 at small exit pupils, it has been much easier in my experience to make out its shape when using eyepieces producing exit pupils of 4 to 5 millimeters. Employing eyepieces with smaller apparent fields of view such as Plössls does seem to make the task easier.

Dave Mitsky

#53 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22578
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:45 PM

1) I searched for it for 11 years with an 8" but never saw it. That, from a high altitude site in a Blue LP Zone.
2) Saw it on first try, without filter, with a 12.5". I was surprised how large it was.
3) An H-Beta filter definitely helps, by accenting the nebula IC434 and suppressing star light.
4) My favorite view is at 140X (42' field, 2.3mm exit pupil) because the contrast is excellent. I was surprised by how LARGE the HH was--perhaps 1/5 the width of the entire FOV. I hadn't seen it before, I think, because I was looking for something much much smaller.
5) Carol's drawing is EXCELLENT.

#54 starrancher

starrancher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Northern Arizona

Posted 24 November 2012 - 05:02 PM

1) I searched for it for 11 years with an 8" but never saw it. That, from a high altitude site in a Blue LP Zone.
2) Saw it on first try, without filter, with a 12.5". I was surprised how large it was.
3) An H-Beta filter definitely helps, by accenting the nebula IC434 and suppressing star light.
4) My favorite view is at 140X (42' field, 2.3mm exit pupil) because the contrast is excellent. I was surprised by how LARGE the HH was--perhaps 1/5 the width of the entire FOV. I hadn't seen it before, I think, because I was looking for something much much smaller.
5) Carol's drawing is EXCELLENT.


Excellent tips and explanation on how to increase the possibilities . Between this post and Carols drawing , this is great help in what to look for and what to expect .
:bow:

#55 Carol L

Carol L

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7241
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2004
  • Loc: Tomahawk, WI 45N//89W

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:32 AM

While I've seen B33 at small exit pupils, it has been much easier in my experience to make out its shape when using eyepieces producing exit pupils of 4 to 5 millimeters. Employing eyepieces with smaller apparent fields of view such as Plössls does seem to make the task easier.

Dave Mitsky


Thanks for the extra info, Dave. :)
The sketch was done using a 32mm Plossl that yields an exit pupil of 7.11 - way too much according to what i've read here. I'll try a 20mm Plossl ASAP - the exit pupil is 4.44.

#56 Carol L

Carol L

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7241
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2004
  • Loc: Tomahawk, WI 45N//89W

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:54 AM

4) My favorite view is at 140X (42' field, 2.3mm exit pupil) because the contrast is excellent. I was surprised by how LARGE the HH was--perhaps 1/5 the width of the entire FOV. I hadn't seen it before, I think, because I was looking for something much much smaller.
5) Carol's drawing is EXCELLENT.


Thanks Don! :rainbow: What scope/ep do you use to get your favorite view? I've got a number of eyepieces and plan on experimenting with them ASAP to see which one is best on the HH. And i agree with you regarding the size of the nebula - it's much bigger than i'd thought it would be.

#57 Carol L

Carol L

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7241
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2004
  • Loc: Tomahawk, WI 45N//89W

Posted 25 November 2012 - 03:09 AM

Between this post and Carols drawing , this is great help in what to look for and what to expect .
:bow:


Thanks Dave, this thread has been a wealth of info for me too - it's been quite an educational discussion! :D

#58 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22578
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:04 AM

4) My favorite view is at 140X (42' field, 2.3mm exit pupil) because the contrast is excellent. I was surprised by how LARGE the HH was--perhaps 1/5 the width of the entire FOV. I hadn't seen it before, I think, because I was looking for something much much smaller.
5) Carol's drawing is EXCELLENT.


Thanks Don! :rainbow: What scope/ep do you use to get your favorite view? I've got a number of eyepieces and plan on experimenting with them ASAP to see which one is best on the HH. And i agree with you regarding the size of the nebula - it's much bigger than i'd thought it would be.

My favorite view is the one with the best contrast. Usually, that's my 12.5" with a 13 Ethos. It was very nice through a 24" f/4.5 last year, though.
I guess the point is, if you can see it easily, and conditions are good, it's a nice object to view, and sketch!

#59 tcmzodiac

tcmzodiac

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 585
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2011

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:36 AM

Im very grateful for the quality of discussion. Many thanks, I am learning a bunch! Now...if only the Evil Orb will kindly leave the stage.....

#60 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22578
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:49 AM

Im very grateful for the quality of discussion. Many thanks, I am learning a bunch! Now...if only the Evil Orb will kindly leave the stage.....

Many years ago, I had a t-shirt that said:
"Fight Light Pollution. Nuke the Moon!"

#61 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16191
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 25 November 2012 - 12:15 PM

In this case, evil may be in the eye of the beholder. I enjoy observing the Moon. There's not much else worth looking at in my light-polluted, glare-ridden, scotophobic neighborhood. But I also enjoy going to my dark site as often as I can.

At least the Moon can give you something to look at when you can't look at the faint stuff.

Mike

#62 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10506
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 25 November 2012 - 12:25 PM

Same-focal-length eyepieces having differering apparent fields are much like naked eye viewing through paper towel tubes of differing length. The longer tube constricts the field, blocking potentially interfering sources. In the case of ye olde Horsehead, a narrower FOV puts blazing Alnitak out of the picture.

If there are no particularly bright stars about, a larger AFoV can be useful. Particularly if the object is large, and when no particularly offending stars are in the area, a larger 'frame' places more sky around the target, facilitating edge detection. And there is more room for nodding the scope, this technique taking advantage of the visual system's great sensitivity to object movement.

Here's another potential benefit of a larger AFoV, as it appears to me after many years of observing. When using averted vision, while directing my gaze away from the target I seem to prefer not having the field stop anywhere close to my fovea. Strange as it may seem, a vast expanse of sky glow across my field of vision is for some reason better than a sharp discontinuity to black nearby. This might result from the naked eye experience, where the dome of the sky largely fills my field of vision, particularly when gazing near overhead.

#63 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5082
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 25 November 2012 - 12:36 PM

Here's another potential benefit of a larger AFoV, as it appears to me after many years of observing. When using averted vision, while directing my gaze away from the target I seem to prefer not having the field stop anywhere close to my fovea. Strange as it may seem, a vast expanse of sky glow across my field of vision is for some reason better than a sharp discontinuity to black nearby. This might result from the naked eye experience, where the dome of the sky largely fills my field of vision, particularly when gazing near overhead.


I have found the same thing. When there's a bright, nearby light source, I get better results with a narrow field, through a telescope or with the naked eye, blocking the light with my hands, but if there is no distracting lights, I get better performance by going as wide as possible, or nearly so.

100° AFOV eyepieces are awesome! And very expensive... :tonofbricks: :bawling:


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#64 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16191
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 25 November 2012 - 01:46 PM

The only possible benefits I've seen from wider AFOV eyepieces are that they allow for larger TFOVs and I don't have to nudge the Dob as often.

Narrower AFOVs will block glare from nearby brighter objects. Other than that, I see no benefit from a narrower AFOV.

IME, any other benefit of either wide or narrow AFOV is merely aesthetic or due to some personal eccentricity of the observer ... which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

:grin:
Mike

#65 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 35041
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:31 PM

Here's a quote from a report by a fellow CAS member regarding observing B33 through an 18" f/4.3 StarStructure Dob (equipped with a Paracorr) from the peak of Spruce Knob, West Viriginia, back in October:

A special treat was when I borrowed Bill H’s 2” H-Beta filter and sought out the Horsehead with my 17mm Ethos (133x, 3.4mm exit pupil). The image was surprisingly LARGE, taking up about 1/3 or more of the right side of the field of view. When I shared the view with Dave M, he said it was the highest magnification he had ever seen of the Horsehead and was surprised it held up so well. He suggested I use something with about a 5mm exit pupil, so out came my 24mm Panoptic (4.9mm exit pupil) and he was right. It popped much more easily, with the Horsehead now a clear stand-out against the brighter nebulosity. As I write this I’m kicking myself for not thinking of trying my 31mm Nagler, too.

I can attest that the difference between the two views was striking.

http://www.chesmontastro.org/node/8967

Dave Mitsky

#66 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22578
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:52 PM

The only possible benefits I've seen from wider AFOV eyepieces are that they allow for larger TFOVs and I don't have to nudge the Dob as often.

Narrower AFOVs will block glare from nearby brighter objects. Other than that, I see no benefit from a narrower AFOV.

IME, any other benefit of either wide or narrow AFOV is merely aesthetic or due to some personal eccentricity of the observer ... which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

:grin:
Mike

And if your widefields are flat and sharp to the edge, simply put the offending star or stars outside the FOV and view the object off-center. I've been doing that for years with NGC2024 (Flame Nebula). No need for a narrow AFOV eyepiece.

#67 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16191
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 25 November 2012 - 03:49 PM

Don,

And if your widefields are flat and sharp to the edge, simply put the offending star or stars outside the FOV and view the object off-center. I've been doing that for years with NGC2024 (Flame Nebula). No need for a narrow AFOV eyepiece.


You're right. I also do that with the Flame Nebula, as well as other nebulae, without really even thinking about it.

So then, it seems there is no need for a narrow-field eyepiece qua narrow-field. :thinking:

:grin:
Mike

#68 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11145
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:55 PM

If your widefields are flat and sharp to the edge, simply put the offending star or stars outside the FOV and view the object off-center.


For me, the problem isn't image quality so much as the physical discomfort of looking at the field stop, especially in eyepieces with AFOVs bigger than 70 degrees. This often requires either swiveling my eye or bending my neck at uncomfortable angles. Oddly, it seems to depend some on the eyepiece design; two different eyepieces with the same focal length, AFOV, and even nominal eye relief may be quite different in this regard.

When putting a bright star out of the FOV is an issue, I much prefer narrower fields of view.

#69 tcmzodiac

tcmzodiac

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 585
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2011

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:42 PM

I'd like to see you folks discuss the merits of fewer EP elements as regards the view. This has been mentioned as being a "plus" in addition to the narrower FOV/excluding Alnitak from same......

#70 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15452
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 26 November 2012 - 01:33 AM

I'd like to see you folks discuss the merits of fewer EP elements as regards the view. This has been mentioned as being a "plus" in addition to the narrower FOV/excluding Alnitak from same......


With the newer eyepiece coatings and designs, the number of elements isn't an overriding factor in eyepiece selection when going for something really faint. Heck, I often use an 8 element eyepiece with a 4-element Powermate to see faint detail in planetary nebulae, so while theoretically, it may be a factor, in practice, it is less than many people make it out to be. Clear skies to you.

#71 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16191
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 26 November 2012 - 06:57 AM

I only notice an edge to simple glass such as orthos when I'm trying to bag faint DSO toward the limiting magnitude of my telescope. XW's are supposed to have good transmission. I use my XW 3.5 for planetaries, but I favor my BGO's for faint galaxies and BN. I'll have to compare my BGO's to my XW's to see if there is still an advantage to simple glass.

If at all possible, though, I like to keep my Baader Zoom in the focuser so I can dial in the best image scale and perceived contrast for each object. IMO, that makes much more sense than switching out eyepieces all night. K.I.S.S.

Mike

#72 Starboat

Starboat

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:06 AM

I've seen the Horsehead many times now, but never through less than 18" or without an H-beta filter, or great darkness. For first timers, I would stress that you're really trying to pick up IC 434. When you manage that, B33 will appear as a thumb in the pudding of the nebula, the snout not at first apparent. Its not tiny, just faint. Averted vision certainly helps, along with patience. In Oz through a 30" with filter under great darkness, I could see it in all its glory with direct vision, snout and all. This was because IC 434 wasn't just visible, but almost sparkling.

#73 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16191
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:03 AM

I've seen the Horsehead many times now, but never through less than 18" or without an H-beta filter, or great darkness.


Yep.

For first timers, I would stress that you're really trying to pick up IC 434.


Makes sense to me. And I don't think this is stressed enough. If you can't see IC 434, forgetaboutit. Find something else to do that night.

When you manage that, B33 will appear as a thumb in the pudding of the nebula, the snout not at first apparent. Its not tiny, just faint.


Good to keep in mind.

Mike

#74 BillFerris

BillFerris

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3687
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2004
  • Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:36 AM

I've seen the Horsehead many times now, but never through less than 18" or without an H-beta filter, or great darkness.


Yep.


Just so folks don't become overly discouraged, under a truly pristine sky (excellent darkness and transparency), the B33/IC 434 complex is rather trivial in an unfiltered 18 inch, and is doable in a good quality, unfiltered 6 inch Newtonian or smaller refractor. It's the first observation that is most challenging. But, once you've seen the Horsehead and know what to look for, it is an object that is much more dependent on sky conditions than aperture when it comes to detectability.

Bill in Flag

#75 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16191
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:03 PM

Dependent on sky conditions including level of light pollution as well as transparency.

Mike






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics