Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4115
Loc: Ireland
|
|
We were discussing "claims" and averted imagination in another thread.
I still find that I don't trust my own eyes to the extent that I probably should. One of the results of this is that I don't bring out star charts to the observatory. This makes it hard to find edge-of-the-envelope targets (such as Gyulbudaghian's Nebula) where you need to know exactly where to look, but it does give some interesting results.
For instance, here's a sketch of Abell 1656 (the Coma Cluster) that I did (without aid of a star chart):
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4115
Loc: Ireland
|
|
It turns out that many of the things I sketched as stars were actually galaxy cores. Here's a version with the galaxies annotated, and the "missing" galaxy halo's added in blue:
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4115
Loc: Ireland
|
|
One interesting upshot of this is that I'm overly conservative: there are no galaxies (which is what I was hunting for) in the sketch which turned out to be stars. But there are quite a few stars which turned out to be galaxies.
-- Jeff.
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
JakeSaloranta
sage
Reged: 09/18/08
Posts: 234
Loc: Sisu, Sauna, Sibelius...
|
|
Quote:
I still find that I don't trust my own eyes to the extent that I probably should.
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here.
I've many sketches where I've placed the object in the wrong place, have it elongated the wrong way or have seen something that's not there to begin with. I've sketched star fields with stellar planetary nebulae only to realize none of the stars I sketched was the actual object even though I was positive many of the stars got brighter by blinking with O-III. Everyone makes misses sometimes.
There are a lot of observations I've been able to see extremely faint objects (stellar galaxy cores, quasars) only seeing the object a few times but trusting in myself that I saw it. This is the hobby.
In this digital age it is so easy to check the DSS afterwards and make sure if you really saw something or not. It is all about being honest which pretty much is what this hobby is about.
Your example with the Coma cluster is very typical in my eyes. I have loads of sketches like that, that show anonymous galaxies as stellar dots.
/Jake
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4115
Loc: Ireland
|
|
Good points, Jake.
Put antoher way:
"I sketch what I see. Most of the time it's actually there." 
-- jeff.
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
Cygnus_x1
Sketcher Extraordinaire
Reged: 11/17/04
Posts: 2387
Loc: 50N - too far north!
|
|
Sometimes though, with galaxies, it can be very difficult. I have found that, when attempting to sketch very faint galaxies, it is tricky to see which way the thing is elongated! The really faint ones blink in and out of view, you look at it and sketch it. You let your eyes adjust again (even a dim red light can be too much when observing very faint targets) and then take another look. 'Hang on...I thought it was elongated the other way...hard to tell which way it is!'
Art books tell us to draw what we see, not what we know and that works well with astronomical sketching, of course. Do that and you *shouldn't* go too far wrong. There have been times when I have not trusted my own eyes on seeing very faint targets, but I have sketched it anyway and, on making a comparison with charts and photos have found that I had got it right. A lot of the time, anyway!
--------------------
Visual Deep Sky Observing - being rebuilt
Observing blog
My astronomy event photos on Flickr
12 inch Dob
8 inch Celestron C8 Newtonian
4 inch Meade SCT
8x42 Leica binoculars
Various TeleVue eyepieces
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4115
Loc: Ireland
|
|
Faith --
Sometimes when a galaxy flips orientation I've been able to nail it down to elongation in one direction in averted and in another direction in direct. I believe this is usually the result of a brighter bar in the direct-vision direction with dimmer arms elongated in the other direction.
Of course, other times it just flips randomly.
Anyway, here's and example of one which flips uniformly going between averted and direct:
Quote:
Arp12 NGC2608 1/23/2009 21:11 UT; Pickering 3, NELM 5, SQM 20.3
400mm Mak-Cass @ 235X
Mostly just a smudge with a semi-stellar core and nondescript elongation. However, after considerable study it becomes apparent that the elongation flips 90° between averted and direct vision, suggesting a bar running NNW-SSE and a halo running ENE-WSW.
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4115
Loc: Ireland
|
|
And the Second Gen DSS image rotated/flipped to match:
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1237
Loc: Estonia
|
|
I occasionally have slight flashes in my eye. Some are stellar, some are a bit wider. And these are defects that it just takes a lot of attention (and possibly a bit of hypochondria) to notice.
Even despite that, I believe that it's possible to reach reasonably high confidence, as long as you sketch everything, including stars, and try to repeat observations from slightly different angles.
--------------------
|
BillFerris
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/17/04
Posts: 2910
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I still find that I don't trust my own eyes to the extent that I probably should.
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here.
Who said there was a problem? Jeff's posts do a really nice job of illustrating the reality that detections of objects at the threshold of visibility are as tenuous as one would expect of observations made at the edge. His posts also illustrate the benefit of experience. Over time--and this is something that can only be gained with time at the eyepiece--an observer gains an awareness of where his threshold of reliability lies. And as one's observing skill develops, that threshold can be lowered. A few of the most experienced observers I know can reliably trust detections in the 10% to 20% visibility range. Personally, I'm more comfortable in the 30% range. Another bit of helpful information Jeff's posts impart is the value of sketching as a tool for confirming threshold detections. A sketch serves as a detailed record of an observation and can be compared to a CCD image of the field to confirm the accuracy--or the inaccuracy--of that night's work. Finally, I applaud the implied message in Jeff's posts that it's OK to make and acknowledge an erroneous observation. Every seasoned observer has a few Big Foot sightings in his log book.
Novice observers should learn to appreciate this aspect of the hobby. Expressions of skepticism toward a threshold observation are perfectly natural. More than that, in instances where an observer tosses off a claim of detection of a notoriously difficult object without offering details of the observation, skepticism is an appropriate response.
Bill in Flag
--------------------
Grand Canyon Adventure
Lowering the Threshold
18" Obsession
4.5" Meade 4500
10x50 Swift Audubon
Cosmic Voyage
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1237
Loc: Estonia
|
|
While we're discussing averted imagination, one trick I use is to put the object I'm hunting out of the eyepiece, and do a 'staring session' at a blank area. If I see similar flickers of the eye there, then I know that the observation is suspicious.
Any others also do this?
--------------------
|
Lard Greystoke
sage
Reged: 07/27/08
Posts: 377
Loc: Ohio
|
|
Quote:
While we're discussing averted imagination, one trick I use is to put the object I'm hunting out of the eyepiece, and do a 'staring session' at a blank area. If I see similar flickers of the eye there, then I know that the observation is suspicious.
Any others also do this?
Yes. If it happens it's a pretty sure sign that it's time to go on to another object - or maybe go home. Or get a bigger telescope...?
Regarding the flipping of the orientation of galaxies, the internet material has been a great help, as mentioned. I'm unable to make a decent artistic sketch, but even a few blobs with orientation indicated with arrows or words helps in the checking. Sometimes the galaxy has a complex shape which is accurately seen in ghostly form; sometimes it's as in the first paragraph, time to look at something a little easier.
--------------------
Lard Greystoke
10" Odyssey Compact
"With Tantor, the elephant, he made friends. How? Ask me not."
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4115
Loc: Ireland
|
|
Thanks for the kind words, Bill.
One other advantage of sketching is that the dimmest field stars often provide a better record of conditions (in the immediate vicinity of the target) than do NELM or SQM readings.
I find this particularly helpful with M57's central star: if you don't get the mV mid-15-ish stars around the ring, your chances aren't good with the central star (which is slightly brighter but whose observation is hampered by the brighter background of the nebulosity in the ring's interior).
Cheers,
-- Jeff.
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4115
Loc: Ireland
|
|
Quote:
While we're discussing averted imagination, one trick I use is to put the object I'm hunting out of the eyepiece, and do a 'staring session' at a blank area. If I see similar flickers of the eye there, then I know that the observation is suspicious.
Any others also do this?
Hrundi --
Yep, me too.
And, like you, I also rotate the image to a different angle, and see what (if anything) changes.
Lastly, I like to tap the diagonal to "bounce" the image a bit. If the "phantom glow" bounces too, then it's probably real. If it doesn't, then my doubts go up -- although I have experienced sightings of larger diffuse glows that were too faint of a signal to move when bounced.
I've also used many of these techniques to pick out detail within a target. For instance, the bar in M95:
Quote:
M95 NGC3351 3/23/2009 23:00 UT; Pickering 4, NELM 5.5, SQM 20.5
400mm Mak-Cass @ 153X
Very difficult to get anything more than a semi-stellar core swimming in a circular disk under these conditions. I spent about an hour, using everything from 70X up to 330X, with and without a Deep Sky filter at the larger exit pupils. The higher light densities probably worked a little better, but there wasn't much between them. Sometimes I felt the Deep Sky was helping, but never enough to nail down any detail. I finally took a break and sketched M96 before coming back to this one.
In the end it was motion that brought out the bar. Jiggling wasn't really helping, but slewing the whole field back and forth at 64x-sidereal provided the most conclusive information. I tried slewing in both axes, and rotated the diagonal to change the image orientation to make sure I was picking up actual detail instead of eye/brain-induced artefacts. Still got just the bar; no ring.
And indeed, there was yet another technique in that one (as suggested by Lard): sometimes you need to take a break.
Cheers,
-- Jeff.
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
Quote:
in instances where an observer tosses off a claim of detection of a notoriously difficult object without offering details of the observation, skepticism is an appropriate response.
Bill in Flag
One phenomenon that I've seen repeated again and again and again is that of the smaller apertures outdoing at times larger apertures on stellar objects.
The fact that a given telescope has a larger aperture than a nother telescope at times isnt the clean visa to fainter stars that one would expect. The trouble with the larger scopes is they all too often reveal stars as bloated distortions with nary a diffraction ring in sight. Though it SHOULD be smaller, its often disappointingly smeared to a great extent. Not the mirrors fault, just the atmosphere.
The lesser aperture - even by half often excels at producing a more proper diffraction pattern. ITs neat , tight and small and thereby has its contrast against a dark sky at an optimum no matter how faint it is. O'meara seeing the central star [M57] through a 9" refractor or pluto through a 4" refractor is testament to O'Meara certainly, but the fact is these instruments were able to be ALLOWED to produce text book stellar or stellar-like images.
On extended objects like galaxies the textbook advantage drops away and greater aperture reins like the king it is.
On fainter stars or star-like points of light, the smaller scope will often bely its own size in comparison to greater objectives.
Having said the above, I'm not stating this is the staus quo.
I'm saying under certain conditions the smaller aperture will allow itself to outdo whats normally expected of larger aperture. On truly pristine nights, when even a 20" can atleast be NEAR its diffraction limit. Then you'll see some serious magic happen with the 20.
In closing, while its wonderful that a lot of astronomers among us get out and even have the chance to observe through observatory size scopes, it often reeks more of the state of the sky that night and nothing more if it was invisible. When the sky is at least decent, those same scopes [I'm recalling the 81"] will allow direct vision of M57's central star as posted by some one recently who had the great opportunity to look through it.
Pete
--------------------
|
AndrewJ
member
Reged: 08/21/09
Posts: 39
|
|
Quote:
One interesting upshot of this is that I'm overly conservative: there are no galaxies (which is what I was hunting for) in the sketch which turned out to be stars. But there are quite a few stars which turned out to be galaxies.
-- Jeff.
I incline the other way and tend to give myself the benefit of the doubt 'cause at least some photons hitting my eye must be from a DSO. I used to wonder why the M81 I saw in my binocs didn't point at M82 as it did in the finder map - then I saw them through a sope and realised there was a faint star just below M81 that I had previously been blurring in. 
|
Jim Curry
sage
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 432
Loc: Maine
|
|
>Lastly, I like to tap the diagonal to "bounce" the image a bit. <
I've tried that tapping method but with my current CG5 mount the bounce is too quick. I've settled on using the slo-mo's at a crawl speed. Because all my observing is star hopping once I'm in the approx. field I slowly scan in one direction. The slow movement plus rapid eye movements to get the most of averted vision can bring out threshold objects. If I get some flickering I'll move the object out of the field and come at it again from 90 deg. A few passes like this can confirm or deny a sighting.
Jim
--------------------
Vixen 140 refractor
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Quote:
One phenomenon that I've seen repeated again and again and again is that of the smaller apertures outdoing at times larger apertures on stellar objects.
...
Boil it down to aperture (presuming optical quality), seeing, and skill.
Increasing aperture, even very significant increases in aperture, means little to nothing if seeing and skill don't accompany it. I would go further and suggest that it can even work backwards...
That an O'Meara pulls so much from a 4" means that his priorities are: skill, seeing, aperture - in that order.
Skill is the hardest of these - because before you possess it, its hard to believe that it could ever even be there. There's no ASA/ISO number engraved on the sides of our eyeballs, no "seeing in the dark" IQ marking on the forehead. You don't know if you'll ever possess the skill to do better (NB and some of us, as we age, may lose it to things like macular degeneration - some go to a Mallincam). Have met many who never develop, others that do so impressively.
Seeing is quantifiable, yet I suspect few would put away the 18" Obsession once noticing the topped out seeing and pull out a 4" refractor instead. The times I've set up my scope collection and shuffled between big to small, I've been surprised at how much the smaller scopes do in such conditions, where the biggest yield seems to be at the 4" point, 4-8" seems iffy, 8-10" well past iffy, > 10" seems same/worse. During these times I'll wait patiently for moments of better seeing, and even these seem even more rare for the thresholds of the larger apertures. Which is why my most frequent number of observations have been with 8" or 10" scopes.
Aperture for aperture's sake seems to be in the 12" and up category.
So for claims, I think we attempt to often to think of so called "physics limitations", e.g. "not enough photons", when we have no idea of how this fits with perception limits at all. I don't think that you can find the "quantum efficiency" of visual perception - there are physiological characteristics not unlike the integrative aspects of CCDs that vary widely. I distrust claims of "too little a scope" for this reason.
Similarly, we don't pay enough attention to various aspects of seeing and physiology, which can often play a far greater role in seeing DSO's. And, because we lack quantitative means to describe skill, we fail utterly to appreciate the role of the single most important part of this talent of seeing in the dark.
Astronomers are an obsessive lot - possibly because of the peculiarities of what they study, and the aspects of inattention to detail wiping out entirely ones careful efforts. So, looking for flaws in quantifiable items like coatings/figure/correction/etc never satisfy as being good enough.
When the things we can't control/quantify are the more significant issues to contend with.
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1237
Loc: Estonia
|
|
Under seeing, do you mean transparency?
'Cause I've seen some pretty dim stuff when the seeing's been abysmal.
--------------------
|
Cygnus_x1
Sketcher Extraordinaire
Reged: 11/17/04
Posts: 2387
Loc: 50N - too far north!
|
|
Quote:
Under seeing, do you mean transparency?
'Cause I've seen some pretty dim stuff when the seeing's been abysmal.
For DSOs, transparency (and dark skies of course) is more important than seeing. If the seeing is rubbish, often - at least here in the UK - the transparency is good. If the seeing is steady the transparency is not usually that good and you're best not looking for those faint galaxies.
--------------------
Visual Deep Sky Observing - being rebuilt
Observing blog
My astronomy event photos on Flickr
12 inch Dob
8 inch Celestron C8 Newtonian
4 inch Meade SCT
8x42 Leica binoculars
Various TeleVue eyepieces
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1237
Loc: Estonia
|
|
Same here. When the seeing is good, it's cloudy 
--------------------
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
Quote:
That an O'Meara pulls so much from a 4" means that his priorities are: skill, seeing, aperture - in that order.
I think your ingredients are correct but your measuring cup is off. At anyrate I get your jist. It does help to have the best skys in the world as well.
Pete
--------------------
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Quote:
Under seeing, do you mean transparency?
'Cause I've seen some pretty dim stuff when the seeing's been abysmal.
I lumped them together to shorten my too long post.
Obviously given different kinds of objects/situations, different things matter more/less.
My point here is that we spend too much time on irrelevant details, denying more relevant but harder to wrestle with ones.
I particularly think its a misguided notion the degree we quantify observation. Remember as a kid being told I couldn't possibly routinely see nebula around Altinak with my 6" under dark skies - the local astronomy group had all decided that a 10" was the minimum believable. This was enough to a jerky young kid to sell off everything and leave the area for more than a decade. Happened to more than a few.
Also remember a lot of bogus claims about the lack of sensitivity of the human eye. When I later worked at NASA, people told me stories of visual perception with pilots (including the more public case of Chuck Yeager). It's amazing how much "old wives tales" dominate.
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That an O'Meara pulls so much from a 4" means that his priorities are: skill, seeing, aperture - in that order.
1. I think your ingredients are correct but your measuring cup is off.
2. At anyrate I get your jist. It does help to have the best skys in the world as well.
Pete
Pete,
1. Huh? Don't understand
2. It also helps to have trained possibly the some of the best eyes on the planet. How that happens I'm very interested in.
When I worked with photomultiplier tubes, bolometers, and CCD's, I could tell you what a photon really meant to a detector. To hear people idly talking about photons and their eyes in the same measure sounded ludicrous - they are in no way similar.
If they were, we wouldn't have such a vast discrepancy in visual perception of dim objects. Yet we clearly do.
|
Ian Robinson
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/29/09
Posts: 1165
Loc: Gateshead.NSW Nth Coast,Austra...
|
|
When I was a participant observer in my club's variable star program , I often used averted vision to "see" variables and comparison stars that were close to or just beyond the direct vision observeability , the trick to this was;
- good dark adaption
- know where to look
- look slightly away from the star or object you want to see and it usually popped out and was seeable.
This is to do with the sensitivity of the light receptor cells which is better than the rods close to optic nerve.
No myth .... it actually works.
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
1. Huh? Don't understand
At this point its splitting hairs, but I'd place aperture number 1. But this could quickly spiral into the chicken and the egg.
"2. It also helps to have trained possibly the some of the best eyes on the planet. How that happens I'm very interested in."
Who trained whose eyes? I've never heard of eyes "trained" for deepsky. Planetary is another matter - we all know about "learning to see". I think its a compelling thought - to have ones eye/brain trained to detect detail previously unseen. In my expeirence however, it is entirely about controlling external influences such as limiting daylight exposure, proper breathing at the eye piece, understanding the most sensitive part of the retina in dim light, the effect of moving the field of view to activate motion sensing to detect dim objects. Then theres looking in the right area to begin with, proper image scale on the retina, dark skys, etc etc...
But training eyes ? Have I got this right - for deepsky?
I know how it applies in lunar planetary observation but
NEVER in deepsky. Either you do it right or you dont.
However correct me if Im wrong.
Pete
PS:With regard to photons and astronomers getting them and such I'm sure it was meant in the most casual sense and no tube or ccd technology was being alluded to.
--------------------
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1237
Loc: Estonia
|
|
I think there's at least some training involved. I know that I am capable of seeing things I was not when I first started.
When I first got into this, I could not see the pleiades at all in the city, and couldn't figure out what that bluish blob was in a darker sky.
Now I can see to mag ~5 in the same location in the city, for example.
A similar example would be a friend who couldn't see m44 naked eye in a mag ~5.5-6 sky. It was a big an obvious glow. But even if I pointed him to the exact location using every method I knew, he saw nothing. Nowadays, however, it's a trivial task.
I could tell a similar story about myself and M31, cr399 and so on.
Now I do not know if this learning continues on in the eyepiece, but I suspect it might. I'm rather confident of seeing galaxies like ngc 185 in borderline conditions where I would have seen nothing before.
--------------------
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8279
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
When I was a participant observer in my club's variable star program , I often used averted vision to "see" variables and comparison stars that were close to or just beyond the direct vision observeability , the trick to this was;
- good dark adaption
- know where to look
- look slightly away from the star or object you want to see and it usually popped out and was seeable.
This is to do with the sensitivity of the light receptor cells which is better than the rods close to optic nerve.
No myth .... it actually works.
Yes indeed, averted vision has the potential of gaining between one and three full stellar magnitudes over direct vision depending on your eyes and your degree of dark adaptation. With absolutely dead-on direct vision, I can get down to around 5th magnitude on stars, but with averted, I regularly go to 6.5, and from a truly pristine dark sky, I have gone as faint as 7.6. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8279
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
azure1961p wrote:
Quote:
Who trained whose eyes? I've never heard of eyes "trained" for deepsky. Planetary is another matter - we all know about "learning to see". I think its a compelling thought - to have ones eye/brain trained to detect detail previously unseen. In my expeirence however, it is entirely about controlling external influences such as limiting daylight exposure, proper breathing at the eye piece, understanding the most sensitive part of the retina in dim light, the effect of moving the field of view to activate motion sensing to detect dim objects. Then theres looking in the right area to begin with, proper image scale on the retina, dark skys, etc etc...
But training eyes ? Have I got this right - for deepsky?
Yup, there is training involved, but it is largely self-training bought about by experience and the advice of others. As a young kid stuck with using only a 2.4 inch refractor for several years, I was very disappointed with my views of M42 and had a hard time observing galaxies. I had just watched a partial solar eclipse with a properly-filtered 2.4 inch refractor, and the next night, I noticed to my horror that when I looked directly at M81, it almost vanished! The next day, I quickly ran over to my next door neighbor (my optometrist) and told my tale, asking what I had done to my eyes. He quickly reassured me that there was nothing wrong and this was normal, introducing me to the techniques of both dark adaptation and averted vision. This gave me some confidence that I might see more if I stayed in total darkness for about half an hour and used the averted vision technique. Some time later, I went out after spending 30 minutes in my darkened basement with no light at all, and when I got to my little 2.4 inch refractor, suddenly, M42 looked absolutely wonderful (not quite photographic, but a lot better than it had earlier). This is all about the learning experience. Using that little scope and pushing myself to try and see everything I possibly could track down helped build my observing abilities to a level that when I finally got a bigger scope, I had no trouble in seeing much detail that others sometimes could never quite glimpse. Sadly, most people don't start with anything as small as a 2.4 inch nowadays, so they don't get that extended "forced" learning that is often required for much of the visual deep-sky. If they stick with it, they do eventually get the techniques down, but often they don't. They can become disappointed, eventually leaving the hobby without really having seen what can be seen. For me, I have my parents, my next door neighbor, and my 2.4 inch refractor to thank for teaching me exactly how to really see. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Cygnus_x1
Sketcher Extraordinaire
Reged: 11/17/04
Posts: 2387
Loc: 50N - too far north!
|
|
Quote:
Who trained whose eyes? I've never heard of eyes "trained" for deepsky. Planetary is another matter - we all know about "learning to see". I think its a compelling thought - to have ones eye/brain trained to detect detail previously unseen.
Practice. More experienced observers do see more than beginners. Drawing and/or describing what you see, rather than saying 'Yep, that's nice' and moving on, helps a lot in 'learning to see' or 'training the eyes to see'.
--------------------
Visual Deep Sky Observing - being rebuilt
Observing blog
My astronomy event photos on Flickr
12 inch Dob
8 inch Celestron C8 Newtonian
4 inch Meade SCT
8x42 Leica binoculars
Various TeleVue eyepieces
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
But training eyes ? Have I got this right - for deepsky?
I'm surprised that you're surprised. I think of training as more important for deep sky than for planetary observing. But I suppose that's really apples and oranges. Experience is immensely important for both.
Regardless, if you put a really hot small-scope observer -- say Steve O'Meara, Sue French, or Jay Freeman -- at the eyepiece of a 4-inch telescope, they'll see more than your average deep-sky observer looking through the eyepiece on an 8-inch scope seated right next to them.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
brianb11213
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/25/09
Posts: 2106
Loc: 55.215N 6.554W
|
|
Quote:
if you put a really hot small-scope observer -- say Steve O'Meara, Sue French, or Jay Freeman -- at the eyepiece of a 4-inch telescope, they'll see more than your average deep-sky observer looking through the eyepiece on an 8-inch scope seated right next to them.
It's not limited to small scopes, or to especially skilled people, or to especially dark sites. Your eyes learn, with a couple of years experience you will see as much as you could with a scope twice the aperture when you started.
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
Post deleted by azure1961p
--------------------
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
Quote:
Yup, there is training involved, but it is largely self-training bought about by experience and the advice of others.
The lunar/planetary crowd seems to have something else entirely going on. I can attest as I'm sure everyone else can that at the beginning of a planetary observing program the details gain in number and complexity as the nights go on until it can even be staggering. Terrence Dickerson admits that if hes been away from it for a while it can take a few nights before the eye-brain kicks in from
the training. Roger Gordon of ALPO whom I used to correspond back waaayyyy in the day was adamant about instructing the eye to see and not to give and the details will come even tho at first it may seem impossible.
Ive never enjoyed the same eye/brain training with deepsky.
Spending an hour on M51 at the beginning of the season reveals utterly nothing new by the final hour of the season.
If you're doing it all right the first night - there is no training curve to see more arms. Indeed, the first night, if its crystal clear can arguably be the best night no matter how many times you observe later on.
Mars is coming around. I know my first few nigths may be a little dry. Given a few nights however, its a different planet.
I see the points raised, but in the case of lunar/planetary there is a training that is going on in the eye brain that i cant say carries over to deepsky.
I wish to hell it did.
Pete
--------------------
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8279
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Sue French... yikes.... sorry I cant lump her in the same bin
as O'Meara. Freeman i dont know... but Sue French. I've never heard things about her seeing prowess but suffice it to say, her column is the least inspiring thing in that mag. I all but wince at her writing and frankly - I think I DO wince come to think of it.
I hate to down play a person but frankly wow.... infact aaaarrgghhhh.
I dont know... maybe being "raised" on Walter Scott Houston spoiled me. If I had to pick a stale flat spot in that terrific magazine it'd be French. If she has CCD eyes forgive me. Frankly, I wish MacRobert would reinvoke his star-hop articles and be done with it. Even reruns.
Oh my gaaawwdddd... if I read one more time "and my little telescope can see" blah blah blah. Its like prose from a 12 year old.
I should have refrained from that I guess but on the other hand the magazine isnt free either.
Pete
Yea, it might have been better if you had. Sue French's writing may or may not be Houston (he had his problems as well), but it is certainly a lot better than some things I have seen in print when it comes to astronomy. At least she tends to get her facts right, which is probably the most important thing in the long run. Writing styles vary by quite a bit (as do the tastes of those who read these articles), but at least for me, I find her material to be reasonably good. I have not found anything even remotely childish or overtly distracting when it comes to Sue's articles. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
Dave,
Thanks for the input. It wasn't a post that I should have made. In the end, nothing good really can come from it and I'm sure the person does their best. I'll just never be a fan.
With regard to Houston. I heard the guy was crusty. Oh hell, he never even wrote me back. Still, I enjoyed his articles. He was the original deepsky-guy. I enjoyed David Eichers work even though he was just a kid back in the days of yore with ASTRONOMY mag.
At any rate, I'm pulling my post. Apologies if I offended anyone.
Pete
--------------------
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8279
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Dave,
Thanks for the input. It wasn't a post that I should have made. In the end, nothing good really can come from it and I'm sure the person does their best. I'll just never be a fan.
With regard to Houston. I heard the guy was crusty. Oh hell, he never even wrote me back. Still, I enjoyed his articles. He was the original deepsky-guy. I enjoyed David Eichers work even though he was just a kid back in the days of yore with ASTRONOMY mag.
At any rate, I'm pulling my post. Apologies if I offended anyone.
Pete
No problem. People do have different tastes. As for Houston ("Scotty" to those who knew him), he wasn't really terribly crusty (pretty nice actually), but just occasionally got a little "behind the cutting-edge" of deep sky observing. I remember when a friend of mine (Rick Johnson) first got me into observing with filters and Scotty had made some comment about the Rosette in one of his columns. I wrote him about the old trick using the UHC held up to the unaided eye to see the object. He *did* write back, with a very nice long letter, including some stuff about his days observing not that far south of me in Kansas. In a later column, he did screw up just a teeny tiny bit, putting my friend (Rick Johnson) in Nevada instead of NEBRASKA, and that little goof up made it into his book DEEP-SKY WONDERS. Still, we are all human and do make a few errors now and then, so it is easy to forgive, especially given the wealth of knowledge and information that he put out in his monthly columns. Sue French has now taken over for Scotty, but as she would put it, she will never replace him, as he is a tough act to follow. Still, Sue does do a pretty good job, and I am sure she will continue to get even better the more she writes. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Astrojensen
sage
Reged: 10/05/08
Posts: 219
Loc: Bornholm, Denmark
|
|
Quote:
I see the points raised, but in the case of lunar/planetary there is a training that is going on in the eye brain that i cant say carries over to deepsky.
Hi Pete
That is *ABSOLUTELY* not my experience!!!
There is training involved and that to a very high degree, just as in planetary observing. It works very differently, however, and there will be little night-to-night difference, but over a longer timespan, your skills in deep-sky observing can be improved and honed to a very high degree.
Just consider averted vision. We all know what it means, but have you located your best spot and used it so much, using it becomes second nature and you feel it almost awkward to use direct vision on deep-sky objects?
Have you learned to control your eyes motion and suppress its natural random motion, so that you can stare (with averted vision) at that "empty" spot in the eyepiece, until the object finally starts to appear?
Have you learned to combine these into a sort of "integrated imaging mode", where the eye accumulates light over several seconds? Yes, the eye can have an exposure time of up to six seconds or so in very dim light. You need to hold your focus and eye position totally in control for that long for it to work. It ain't easy!
Some people breathe steadily and deeper while trying to glimpse something faint. To some it works, others say it doesn't. For me, it does, especially when I use "long exposure mode".
Have you got your star-hopping under total control? It is often only possible to see a certain faint object if you know *exactly* where it is located in the field, and then it suddenly becomes very easy to see. GOTO is of NO USE HERE! It may bring you to the right area, but the objects position may be slightly in error, so it might not be centered. GOTO has not made maps obsolete for threshold objects, only for those well within reach of the telescope used.
These techniques are quite difficult to master and you will have to use them regularly to be able to use them effectively. Also, you must be well rested, I find it almost impossible to have enough concentration to suppress random eye movement and focus drift if I'm tired.
I have used these techniques for years, and I can see stars to around 14 with my 63mm Zeiss telemator, so they definitely work, at least for me.
Sorry if any of this is old news for you.
Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8279
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Pete (azure1961p) wrote:
Quote:
I've never enjoyed the same eye/brain training with deepsky.
Spending an hour on M51 at the beginning of the season reveals utterly nothing new by the final hour of the season.
If you're doing it all right the first night - there is no training curve to see more arms. Indeed, the first night, if its crystal clear can arguably be the best night no matter how many times you observe later on.
Mars is coming around. I know my first few nigths may be a little dry. Given a few nights however, its a different planet.
I see the points raised, but in the case of lunar/planetary there is a training that is going on in the eye brain that i cant say carries over to deepsky.
While it may not be quite identical to the "training" that goes on with lunar and planetary viewing, there is still training and study involved that will show the observer more the longer they tend to observe. I may not have my eye looking at M51 for a solid hour, but I have spent a total time of many many hours viewing that object, and a lot of the time, I do see something I have never noticed before. If I am *drawing* M51 at the scope, I will probably spend at least an hour doing it. There will be nights when I will just barely see the arms, while there will be others when the arms show knots and the faint bridge and tidal tails will appear. Like planetary viewing, what is seen sometimes changes from night to night, as conditions are rarely identical. Indeed, the big bugaboo of lunar/planetary viewing, seeing plays a huge factor in many deep-sky details. The central star of M57 is a prime example, as it can simply not be seen at all unless the seeing is razor-sharp (as is the case with the Coprates/Tithonius Lacus detail on Mars). Like noticing certain planetary detail on subsequent nights, learning to look at the little faint fuzzy spots of galaxies for things like faint star-like nucleii, narrow dim central spines, bars, or dust lanes can take a while. The observer may not see many of these things initially, but later on after viewing objects for a while at various powers under various conditions, the details finally become noticed. The eye and brain must be trained to look for and see these things, very much similar to the way the eye and brain must train for planetary or variable star work. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
brianb11213
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/25/09
Posts: 2106
Loc: 55.215N 6.554W
|
|
Quote:
There is training involved and that to a very high degree, just as in planetary observing. It works very differently, however, and there will be little night-to-night difference, but over a longer timespan, your skills in deep-sky observing can be improved and honed to a very high degree.
Excellent post! I agree with every word, not just the excerpt quoted above.
Educating your eye doesn't help you see to record breaking values in moonlit or polluted skies, but it does help you wring the best out of whatever conditions and equipment you have available.
If you need a technological short cut to eye/brain training (and the need for dark adaptation), try a Watec 120n / Stellacam III.
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
Dave, Thom, and Brian,
Thanks for the input - actually I threw the hour long ob of M51 as an example... when looking up things I may spend 20 minutes or so and move on. As you mention, drawing the object is another matter.
With regard to Walter, I still recall my question!! About 20 years later but here goes -
Dear ----,
Since the eye is more sensitive to blue light than red in darkness, do you think blue stars can be seen to a fainter magnitude than red?
-P
Though at the time it was quite the question, I'd imagine [20 years later] that carbon stars would possibly wink out a couple of tenths sooner than a blue. Maybe half a magnitude.
At least thats my good-feel-guess.
Pete
--------------------
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
With regard to learning to see deepsky versus planetary, the best way might be to say, what skills I have for deepsky are always there. In terms of planetary they can get slack and need warming up. Then, for the opposition or whatever, they seem good to go. If I am observing the moon a lot however, they are "toned" and ready.
I guess with deepsky, I should have said, once you get your skills - its always on board.
Everyones different, thats just me.
Pete
--------------------
|
brianb11213
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/25/09
Posts: 2106
Loc: 55.215N 6.554W
|
|
Quote:
Since the eye is more sensitive to blue light than red in darkness, do you think blue stars can be seen to a fainter magnitude than red?
Good question, but don't forget that the usual magnitude scale is the V scale, which is pretty similar in spectral sensitivity to the dark adapted eye. A red star will have a higher magnitude when measured using a photometric B filter, sometimes by several magnitudes.
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4115
Loc: Ireland
|
|
I believe there are two parts to deep-sky "training": the skills that Thomas and others have mentioned, and the re-weighting of stimulus processing by the eye/brain (which perhaps Brian and David were alluding to in parts of their posts).
Your brian is primarily a change-detector, and as such tends to discard very weak signals as noise. (In fact, in a steady state, your brain will start to throw out even strong signals.) Repeated use of the low-signal-strength information will, over time, cause your brain to re-weight what it throws out. You will then be able to perceive dimmer objects.
Interestingly, "use" by motor function has a stronger reinforcement feedback than "use" by memory function. This is another reason sketching improves your observing.
Cheers,
-- Jeff.
PS: I probably didn't get that 100% right, but it should be enough to instigate a discussion to clear up any missteps I made.
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-100 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
Nice posts guys...
Funny how this thread has really taken some turns... all good turns for the most part, but interesting nonetheless.
Pete
--------------------
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Pete,
I know that astronomy can be a very personal experience for many, and that brings out all kinds of opinions, including yours, cf:
Quote:
With regard to photons and astronomers getting them and such I'm sure it was meant in the most casual sense and no tube or ccd technology was being alluded to.
Quote:
If she has CCD eyes forgive me.
Sometimes casual talk turns after a while into a mindset. This happens a lot with men, and it gets into unpleasant "locker room" behavior pretty quick.
But in particular about the "photons", I've heard this on and off for since before there was CCDs (just photomultiplier tubes). It was particularly annoying to my quantum mechanics professor (an amateur too!) at Berkeley - he said it was one of the reasons he stayed away from such groups.
He (and my wife as well, a Berkeley Physics alumna) found that contact with people with a narrow mindset that they *required* from interactions with others, *drove people away from astronomy*, *for no good reason*. He said that an open, questioning mind was the only requirement for joint interaction - which is why he did keep up with some other amateurs *selectively*.
I'm glad you retreated on your post - it went too far. I particularly don't think running down anyone for any reason helps anyone see a DSO one bit better. I'm very wary also of certain aspersions directed at women in astronomy - have seen them too often - they sadden me.
I observe people as well as DSO's, and I don't have to agree with everything said. But I do have to listen respectfully and think about what they say - I owe them that.
As to observing skill, I just "observe" that there's something present - I wish I could be more descriptive / clinical / deterministic. Others have more answers here, and I listen to them and look for confirmation. After close to 43 years of this, I'm still learning.
|
Cygnus_x1
Sketcher Extraordinaire
Reged: 11/17/04
Posts: 2387
Loc: 50N - too far north!
|
|
Quote:
Pete,
I know that astronomy can be a very personal experience for many, and that brings out all kinds of opinions, including yours, cf:
Quote:
With regard to photons and astronomers getting them and such I'm sure it was meant in the most casual sense and no tube or ccd technology was being alluded to.
Quote:
If she has CCD eyes forgive me.
Sometimes casual talk turns after a while into a mindset. This happens a lot with men, and it gets into unpleasant "locker room" behavior pretty quick.
But in particular about the "photons", I've heard this on and off for since before there was CCDs (just photomultiplier tubes). It was particularly annoying to my quantum mechanics professor (an amateur too!) at Berkeley - he said it was one of the reasons he stayed away from such groups.
He (and my wife as well, a Berkeley Physics alumna) found that contact with people with a narrow mindset that they *required* from interactions with others, *drove people away from astronomy*, *for no good reason*. He said that an open, questioning mind was the only requirement for joint interaction - which is why he did keep up with some other amateurs *selectively*.
I'm glad you retreated on your post - it went too far. I particularly don't think running down anyone for any reason helps anyone see a DSO one bit better. I'm very wary also of certain aspersions directed at women in astronomy - have seen them too often - they sadden me.
I observe people as well as DSO's, and I don't have to agree with everything said. But I do have to listen respectfully and think about what they say - I owe them that.
As to observing skill, I just "observe" that there's something present - I wish I could be more descriptive / clinical / deterministic. Others have more answers here, and I listen to them and look for confirmation. After close to 43 years of this, I'm still learning.
Re. 'photons' and eyes, it's just a figure of speech. If your prof stayed away from groups because of a silly, idle throwaway expression then it's his loss. Not worth getting upset about. Being an ex-seafarer, I don't particularly like people calling ships 'boats' but I don't get upset about it that I would shy away from a group.
Re. women in astronomy - what sort of aspersions? As a female amateur myself, I can honestly say that I have not encountered any negativity or 'aspersions' cast by male amateurs. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, just because I have not personally encountered any negative 'vibes' towards women doesn't mean it doesn't happen of course. Although, in the past I have run across one or two patronising old types, but they were patronising to everybody, not just women. I think it was a generational thing, they were pretty old.
As for Sue French's column - I like that column and it's just about the best thing in that mag these days. Ok, so she may not be Shakespeare or even Steve O'Meara or WS Houston himself, but her style is interesting and entertaining.
--------------------
Visual Deep Sky Observing - being rebuilt
Observing blog
My astronomy event photos on Flickr
12 inch Dob
8 inch Celestron C8 Newtonian
4 inch Meade SCT
8x42 Leica binoculars
Various TeleVue eyepieces
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
I have a wife and a daughter involved in astronomy, and they have "run ins" 2-3 times a year. Sometimes right in front of me. One has a physics degree, formally studied stellar atmospheres, and did graduate work at professional observatories. The other is an intern at NASA in the planetary sciences side and has presented papers to the Mars Society. Occasionally they both get treated worse than scullery maids - so they are quite careful of groups who might be from "ugly dog kennels".
Hearing "chill out b?tch" (actual words heard by my ears) from a prominent member is an example of where this goes. One common thread I've noticed with them is a dislike for Sue that makes no sense - don't know the person, seems to be just fine as a writer to me, can't see the point. Have heard it stems from some of Patrick Moore's comments that I also fail to understand. However, it is real and unhelpful.
The physics professor mentioned is quite famous - I knew him for a quarter century. He was blessed with the best of amateurs - I disagree with you - think it is others loss more.
And I have heard people describe eye's in terms of CCD detectors *seriously*, including a lot of gibberish about ways they are affected, totally ignoring the important differences. To the point, you can actually with certain detectors count photons, determine detector quantum efficiencies, find losses and artifacts - its a matter of qualifying some kinds of detectors tracking such details down.
Eyes don't work this way. And its good for us that this is true. The beginnings of using them well is recognizing this fact. That is the point I'm attempting to make.
|
Cygnus_x1
Sketcher Extraordinaire
Reged: 11/17/04
Posts: 2387
Loc: 50N - too far north!
|
|
Quote:
I have a wife and a daughter involved in astronomy, and they have "run ins" 2-3 times a year. Sometimes right in front of me. One has a physics degree, formally studied stellar atmospheres, and did graduate work at professional observatories. The other is an intern at NASA in the planetary sciences side and has presented papers to the Mars Society. Occasionally they both get treated worse than scullery maids - so they are quite careful of groups who might be from "ugly dog kennels".
Hearing "chill out b?tch" (actual words heard by my ears) from a prominent member is an example of where this goes. One common thread I've noticed with them is a dislike for Sue that makes no sense - don't know the person, seems to be just fine as a writer to me, can't see the point. Have heard it stems from some of Patrick Moore's comments that I also fail to understand. However, it is real and unhelpful.
Disgusting behaviour and totally unacceptable no matter who says it to whom. If someone spoke to me like that there'd be serious ructions, both right there on the spot and taken further with club hierarchy. Guys like that need to be shown up and stepped on.
Anyway, this has gone way off topic.
This physics professor, did he try and point out to people the important differences between CCDs, other detectors and the human eye? Or did he just not bother and just shied away from societies? Maybe a talk emphasising the differences would have eased such frictions?
--------------------
Visual Deep Sky Observing - being rebuilt
Observing blog
My astronomy event photos on Flickr
12 inch Dob
8 inch Celestron C8 Newtonian
4 inch Meade SCT
8x42 Leica binoculars
Various TeleVue eyepieces
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
He tried to do just as I have done - in fact, my comments are most in his memory. I think the common issue is the belief in "virtuous ignorance" of some, that isn't interested in discussing the issue, rather than ridiculing a defended point of view. He, to use a more contemporary reference, didn't have any interest in arguing with "dining room table's", no matter the careful, reasoned dialogue he easily used. It wasn't that it was "beneath him" - far from it - he was salt of the earth, and very involved.
But not everyone wants to build a mob to takeout another mob. Part of the reason they are at that eyepiece, attempting to conjure a dim view, is to get away from the uglyness in our society - not to experience more of it. A sense of wonder is worth much more.
|
azure1961p
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/17/09
Posts: 731
|
|
Wfj,
You seem to carry this burden of purpose that has me a little choked up actually. Indeed, I have met these photon seeking "mobs" and their baggage of misconceptions and like you , have waxed in deep pathos over their lost road to no where. Hold fast my friend.
P.
--------------------
Edited by azure1961p (09/17/09 08:08 PM)
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Just surprised at the unforeseen difficulties in looking at fuzzy objects in the sky. Here's another I never expected:
A gentleman fresh into astronomy goes out and tries to get a jump on things - buys major aperture(18") as the first thing and can't see beans with it. So I take out a very small scope, and while I'm educating him with finding simple things at 20x (few inch refractor) and camera tripod, I slowly sort through misassembly, unbalance, collimation, alignment, focuser issues. I take out the 5mm EP he was attempting to use (the longest fl EP he was sold), loan him a 2" 35mm. In the end he's having more fun with the short tube, and can find a couple of bright, big objects with both of them.
He tells me he can't see much difference between them(!)
I tell him to give it time, to get a small scope, spend time with others under dark sky, and both will deliver more (in different ways) over time. But you can't buy skill - it comes when it comes.
Pete, my issue is of opening the skys to others and myself. I hope we all tend to do this and I hope I haven't annoyed too many with these issues. I sometimes wonder what happens when people don't come back to observe, and sometimes its such issues - which are hard to deal with.
Where my issues are with claims and averted imagination is that of finding the boundary between observing skills and the provability of an observation (dispositive facts). These have less to do with aperture than skill/conditions.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 