Observing Report -- M57

Craig B wrote:
Location : Montreal , Canada
I wasn't then able to find M57 . Tonight
I did :-) . Not a very impressive object , not at all like the Orion Nebula
. Didn't see the hole , just made out a dark smudged circle .

vic20owner resonded:

Hi Craig, you didn't mention what magnification you used. At low powers
it looks like a small smudge. With more power it should look like a
ring. Be sure to use averted vision (look all around the eyepiece but
rarely right at the object) to see it more clearly. Also try watching
it with averted vision for 10 minutes or more while shielding your eyes
from outside light. You will gradually begin to see more as your eyes
adjust.

This is all excellent advice, but seeing M57 as a ring in a 4.5-inch
scope under heavy light pollution isn't a forgone conclusion. It would
be a cinch with a bigger scope in the same location, or with the same
scope in a darker location, but as it is, I'd say the observation is
a little iffy. Which shouldn't stop you from trying, of course!

In my 70mm scope in the suburbs, M57 is like a bottle with a cork.
If I like at it directly, it's a solid circular hole. With averted
vision, the center pops out and it looks like a ring. Look straight
at it again, and pop! -- the cork's back in it again. Lots of fun.

- Tony Flanders

Object Found !!!
As I mentioned in an earlier post , I wasn't then able to find M57 . Tonight
I did :-) . Not a very impressive object , not at all like the Orion Nebula
. Didn't see the hole , just made out a dark smudged circle . Oh well , the
satisfaction was in the finding ,

M57 was the first planetary I found as well. It was a lot smaller
than expected, but it took magnification extremely well. If you have
the eyepieces, zoom way in.


Albireo : Very impressive . First time I've seen such color from stars . I
guess its the contrast that makes it stand out so well .


If you like Albiero, try Gamma And. It is another nice, colorful
double. It is closer than Albiero, but still splits very cleanly at
about 100x.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:06:11 -0400, Craig B wrote:


Also observed :

The Double Double : Could not split the doubles , not even at 150X .


Just returned from having split the Double Double very cleanly at 72.8x on
my 4.5 inch Meade 4500. Tried for it at 50x and had my eyes been a wee bit
better, I might have convinced myself that I was getting something
suggesting more than two single stars.

The scope is very well collimated plus the mirrors were recently recoated.

NELM was about 5.0 so I decided to take a quick peek at a couple of other
DSO's.

M57 - With a 9mm UltraWide EP, the object was quite nice. The 13th
magnitude star was not visible (as expected), but the "hole" was very
distinct. Switched to a 6mm Expanse EP and found the image a little too
dim for my taste.

M33 - The 9mm UltraWide revealed a unevenly shaped mass of faint light. .
..quite clearly non-nebula and distinctly galactic in feel. A 25mm modified
achromat EP showed an image of the galaxy which was indistinct and faint
enough that, if I didn't know what I was looking at, might have been
mistaken for a nebula.

M31 - Pleasant surprises here. The 25mm modified acromat EP led my eyes to
a breathtaking package (for a small reflector) of M31, M32, and M110. And
what's this? Is this 18mm Orthoscopic EP of mine serving up the stellar
like nucleus of M31? Well, I believe it is!!!!



--
Martin
"Photographs From the Universe of Amateur Astronomy"
http://home.earthlink.net/~martinhowell

(Tony Flanders) wrote in message m...
Craig B wrote:
Location : Montreal , Canada
I wasn't then able to find M57 . Tonight
I did :-) . Not a very impressive object , not at all like the Orion Nebula
. Didn't see the hole , just made out a dark smudged circle .

vic20owner resonded:


This is all excellent advice, but seeing M57 as a ring in a 4.5-inch
scope under heavy light pollution isn't a forgone conclusion. It would
be a cinch with a bigger scope in the same location, or with the same
scope in a darker location, but as it is, I'd say the observation is
a little iffy. Which shouldn't stop you from trying, of course!

In my 70mm scope in the suburbs, M57 is like a bottle with a cork.
If I like at it directly, it's a solid circular hole. With averted
vision, the center pops out and it looks like a ring. Look straight
at it again, and pop! -- the cork's back in it again. Lots of fun.

- Tony Flanders

Tony,

Your "bottle with the cork" analogy is good and describes what I see
in my TV85 on M57 up to 100x. Above that (if it's a good night like
the last few), it's a smoke ring with direct vision. In my XT6 last
night, it was a ring with direct vision at 60x.

As far as splitting the double double, I can do it often at 60x in the
TV85, though slightly higher is more normal. I've done it once at 60x
in the 6" Dob. Usually it takes 80x or so in the Dob. 80x will do it
the majority of the time in my Ranger.

Clyde

"Craig B" wrote in message ...

Yes , its collimated . Its a cheap Bushnell BTW . Maybe it was just the
seeing , I'll have to give it another try soon .

Ouch! And the 4.5", you say?

What is the focal length of the scope? Is it a Dob or EQ, or is it
the Astroscan knockoff (the Voyager 78-2010)?

The Voyager 78-2010 has been notorious for its hideously bad optics.
How bad? "Uncorrected spherical f/4.4" might not mean anything to
you, but other readers are now picking their jaws up off the floor.
The Sky & Telescope reviewer was unable to make out the rings of
Saturn with his test unit. One SAAer was able to get decent images
only by masking it down to 37mm!

Here's hoping that you don't have the 78-2010, and that you just
happened to have bad seeing.


Clear skies!

--
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------

Its the 78-4678 , its on an alt- az mount ( not as wobbly as my Bushnell
60mm refractor ) focal length is 900mm , its not all that bad really , as
compared the 60mm refractor , it even came with a 1.25" focuser not a .965
..
I have some decent EP's for it , a 32 , 17 and 12.5 mm Plossl , and a 9 and
6mm Expanse ( the Synta/ Skywatcher ones )

Craig

"Cousin Ricky" wrote in message
om...
"Craig B" wrote in message
...

Yes , its collimated . Its a cheap Bushnell BTW . Maybe it was just the
seeing , I'll have to give it another try soon .

Ouch! And the 4.5", you say?

What is the focal length of the scope? Is it a Dob or EQ, or is it
the Astroscan knockoff (the Voyager 78-2010)?

The Voyager 78-2010 has been notorious for its hideously bad optics.
How bad? "Uncorrected spherical f/4.4" might not mean anything to
you, but other readers are now picking their jaws up off the floor.
The Sky & Telescope reviewer was unable to make out the rings of
Saturn with his test unit. One SAAer was able to get decent images
only by masking it down to 37mm!

Here's hoping that you don't have the 78-2010, and that you just
happened to have bad seeing.


Clear skies!

--
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------

Magnification used was 52X , 72X and 100X . The scope is a Bushnell
reflector , I've tried star testing , but I only seem to end up seeing my
secondary and spider . BTW

As others have suggested, it may be that the seeing was not stable enough to
split the double-double. Also, if the seeing is marginal, it is my experience
that a bit of 100X is not enough for a clean split.

jon

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...

As others have suggested, it may be that the seeing was not stable enough to
split the double-double. Also, if the seeing is marginal, it is my experience
that a bit of 100X is not enough for a clean split.

For what it's worth, I was observing that same night some 200 miles south
in New York State. The outskirts of Hurrican Ivan had just passed through,
dumping several inches of rain. The sky cleared remarkably quickly after
that, yielding some of the best transparency and worst seeing I have
ever encountered. Not only couldn't I split the components of the
Double-Double, I couldn't even elongate them.

- Tony Flanders