Reverse Snobbery

Scribe2b:
there should be a marathon.
who can find the most faint fuzzies with the cheapest equipment?

*****

B-o-r-i-n-g!

But I will note that an anti-snobbery photographer whom I know, and who
used 8X10 view cameras for commercial and industrial work, once did a
one-man show in a prominent gallery in which he displayed fine quality
11x14 images made with the cheapest Kodak Instamatic that he could
find.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

there should be a marathon.
who can find the most faint fuzzies with the cheapest equipment?
KEWL
jc


A couple of years ago J. Reynolds Freeman did the Hershel 400 or some such
thing with a 50mm refractor.

Of course in the 1700's a French fellow did the complete Messier (true) list
with a scope so bad that not even Bushnell, Simmons or Tasco would try to sell
it. It took him most of his life but he did it. Of course he was blessed with
darker skies.
g

Jon

On 22 Jul 2003 14:21:58 GMT, (Scribe2b) wrote:

there should be a marathon.
who can find the most faint fuzzies with the cheapest equipment?

Well, there are a handful of Messier objects I can do naked eye. Can't get much
cheaper than that!

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Plus Bill, there would be the factor of young eyes vs. the 60 year
old eyes....the younger the eyes, that would be the automatic
winner! At 60+, I'll give up right now! (or just won't participate).
TW.





Bill Meyers wrote:
I believe this is logically impossible. I believe that you can't
maximize two components of a system in this way, unless they correlated
at 1.0 You can however ask the question, who can find the faintest
fuzzies with a given level of equipment, or you can ask the question who
can find a given magnitude of faint fuzzies with the cheapest equipment.

It's the same fallacy as the best car for the least money.
I suppose you could try to get around it with a ratio of fuzzieness to
cheapness and try to maximize this.
Bill Meyers

Scribe2b wrote:


there should be a marathon.
who can find the most faint fuzzies with the cheapest equipment?
KEWL
jc

Plus Bill, there would be the factor of young eyes vs. the 60 year
old eyes....the younger the eyes, that would be the automatic
winner! At 60+, I'll give up right now! (or just won't participate).
TW.

Yeah, but think of all that experience your have, heck, even if you can't see
M74 you can imagine it right there where it is!

Maybe this is the time for sort of an Astrovestion of "Junkyard wars" or
whatever that show is was.

How about building a Newtonian with one of the magnifying bathroom mirrors,
their about $20 and around 6 inches in diameter.

Secondary might be a pocket mirror or some such thing...

Eyepieces, maybe cheat here, at least at first, and use a real Kellner or maybe
even a Plossl, after all every scope comes with a 25mm Plossl.

jon

On 22 Jul 2003 14:21:58 GMT, (Scribe2b) wrote:

there should be a marathon.
who can find the most faint fuzzies with the cheapest equipment?

Many of us own the ST-80 under one name or another, so . . .

How about organizing special "sky quests" with 80mm and smaller
apertures at amateur, dark sky, star parties? Those with larger
telescopes can stop their optics down to 80mm (or smaller) and
participate as well.

Even binocular and naked eye observers could compete. Prizes could be
offered for the largest number of objects found by individuals in
different categories. The participants would be required to write a
verbal description or make a quick sketch (a sort of "quick draw"
competition?) of each object.

Bill Greer