Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
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: 2115
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: 4122
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: 2398
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 - NEW website
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: 2398
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 - NEW website
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.
|
|
3 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Olivier Biot
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1199
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
