Telescope Reviews: Re: 100 Hercules at 10x

Thanks all you guys for getting caught up in this little saga and sharing your stories. Since my original post, I have split it nicely again, and failed again. I sure wish I knew what was going on. It seems unlikely that atmospheric stability would play a role in such a wide double star. I think the variability is more likely in myself.

Consider, I'm sitting there hunkered down in my chair, watching the star and my heartbeat, getting a hairline split a best. Then, all of a sudden, two dots!
I think my eyes are worse than some and better than some, really about average. If I do well, it's probably more due to good instruments than exceptional eyesight. Anyhow, there's no virtue nor vice in visual acuity or bat-blindness, as long as you can see well enough to enjoy the view, and not much to be gained by false bragging. Of greater interest to me than having the sharpest eyes on the block is understanding this process of seeing, getting better at it, and having more fun. Now, having the sharpest BINO on the block, well, for that I would gladly lie, cheat, and steal!

Thank you CES. Between you and the unnamed member, we've got a pretty good endorsement for the, what, not even $150?, 11x56.

By the way, the unnamed party who PM'd me with news of a split in his 11x56 has made clear that the bino was purely handheld, standing up with only a bit of back support. So, in addition to the obvious requirement of sharp eyes and a very well adjusted if rather cheap binocular, this raises the issues of musculoskeletal stability, and something that I NEVER see mentioned here, but seems of paramount importance in hand-held binocular observing, the eye's ability to follow a jittering image. Also, not curiously at all I thought, this same person expressed a great cognizance of an interest in this same issue, and offers the encouragement that practice, as in so many other things, works in handheld observing!

Who was the sharpest-eyed observer who ever lived? What is the gold standard to beat? There are telescopically-confirmed tales of people seeing Jupiter's moons, and Venus's phases, naked-eye. S. W. Burnham detected 0.4" elongations in previously unknown doubles with a 6" scope. Rev. "Eagle Eye" Dawes wrote down a criterion that has not been clearly beat. I can make out 0.5" elongations in a 5" scope PROVIDED I KNOW IT'S DOUBLE ALREADY, and I can agree with the Rev., but could never have written the definition down as he did. Of course, some of the greatest observers could see canali on Mars, a feat that has not been equalled in quite some time!

And then, we have Mark. He has raised some eyebrows by claiming to exceed the double-splitting acuity of anybody here. To his credit, he is perfectly consistent in his claims. In the review of his 8.5x44, there are some heavy-duty splits in there, with a bino widely revered for its central sharpness. In another review, he knocks the impressive WO 7x50 as not as sharp. I believe that the guy can just flat see. All you need is for an observer with astigmatism-free vision correctable to 20/10 in both eyes, ( I haven't looked for the bell-shaped curve of visual acuity, but I bet this is not so terribly unusual, and is TWICE as acute as normal vision), an excellent quality binocular like that old Swift, the unusual inclination to go out and bust a gut looking at close double stars, and the the fortitude to go public with it.

Onward! I split Cor Caroli tonight with my 10x50--faint companion, but overall easier than 100 Her.
Ron

Post Extras