![]() |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Nytecam Last edited by nytecam : December 19th 06 at 11:28 PM. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Marty" wrote
Once you think you might have spotted it, try a higher power, (within reason,) to darken the sky a bit. Look for a little grey cloud about the shape of a roast turkey. Would the legs be sticking up, or straight down? (Probably up, 'cause otherwise the gases'd pour out....) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's pretty faint, actually. If you aren't seeing the Andromeda galaxy
naked-eye, then the sky might be too washed-out to pick it up. But in a scope that size, you should just be able to coast over from Taurus's horn and pick it up. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Marty wrote: With my C8, I've never seen a hint of any of the lacey filamentary structure so prominent on photographs. These features are pretty tough. I can see them, barely, with the C11 from a dark site with an OIII. Frankly, even in a 24-inch, they don't exactly jump out at you. There's one secton where a filament branches into two that isn't too bad...but easy? Wouldn't say so. Peace, Rod Mollise Author of: Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope and The Urban Astronomer's Guide http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Marty wrote: With my C8, I've never seen a hint of any of the lacey filamentary structure so prominent on photographs. These features are pretty tough. I can see them, barely, with the C11 from a dark site with an OIII. Frankly, even in a 24-inch, they don't exactly jump out at you. There's one secton where a filament branches into two that isn't too bad...but easy? Wouldn't say so. Peace, Rod Mollise Author of: Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope and The Urban Astronomer's Guide http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Howard Lester was asking
Would the legs be sticking up, or straight down? (Probably up, 'cause otherwise the gases'd pour out....) The legs are tied down on the roast turkey, which is viewed from an elevation of about 35 degrees, and don't show. Marty |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A more complete survey is available on Cloudynights.com
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1520 M1 tends to be helped most by either a broadband "Light Pollution Reduction" filter like the Lumicon Deep-sky or by a narrow-band "nebula" filter like the Lumicon UHC or DGM Optics NPB filter. The OIII filter will also be of use in moderate apertures for viewing the faint filaments which encase the main central glow, although the OIII tends to dim the object more than the UHC does. Clear skies to you. -- David W. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/ ********************************************** * Attend the 14th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 15th-20th, 2007, Merritt Reservoir * * http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org * ********************************************** |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
W. H. Greer wrote:
M1 should be visible! I've seen M1 (from a dark sky) with 8x42 binoculars. No problem seeing it from 3.5 mag skies in a C 8 As an aside... Seeing DSO's from urban areas is a whole lot easier if you can find a *dark* spot to view from. Also seeing mag 9 high surface brightness DSO's should be no problem. -- AM http://sctuser.home.comcast.net |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 19 Dec 2006 08:02:11 -0800, "Bill Hudson"
wrote: Joe S. wrote: Is M1 a difficult object from light polluted skies? I live in a city, in an apartment complex with the usual "security" lighting. I see only the brightest stars with my naked eye. For example, in Orion, I see only Betelgeuse, Rigel, Bellatrix, Saiph, three stars in the belt, and 2-3 stars in the sword. I have tried for the last three nights to find M1 with no luck -- not even the faintest fuzzy appears. I'm using an XT-12, 12-inch dob; collimation is dead on. I've tried different eyepieces -- 35mm PanOptic (43X), 18mm Radian (83X), 10mm Radian (150X) -- no luck. ...Have tried with OII and Orion UltraBlock filters -- not a wisp. For comparison -- M31 is not naked eye but is readily visible with 8X42 and 10X50 binos. With my scope, I see the glowing center surrounded by a fuzzy cloud but I can't see the long, elliptical extensions of M31 -- too much light pollution I assume. -- I can find M57, Ring Nebula, with no problem (takes a little searching). My scope has the Orion Intelliscope feature but I'm trying to find objects by starhopping. I guess my next step is to use the Intelliscope to find M1 -- if it's visible at all. Thanks. In comparison, M57 is a mag 9.6, and M31 is listed as 4.3 I can't seem to pull up Joe's original post so I'm replying to Bill's quote and comment. I tend to suspect that, assuming the scope IS being pointed right at the spot for M1, the problem is two-fold: first, it's caused by the light from all the security fixtures around the apartment complex; and second: Joe's expectations, which might make him overlook something that is just barely visible. Where we live, in San Jose, CA., the light pollution is about as bad as you can get; it discourages all but planetary observation and the odd test of something once in a while. But, M1 is visible here in my husband's 80 mm refractor though it's almost completely unsatisfactory to me (unlike the way it used to look in his 17 inch Dob!) and I'm too impatient to want to struggle with things like that. He, on the other hand, likes a "challenge" so will put up with stuff that isn't satisfactory just to be able to say that he could see it. Twenty years ago, Stephen was working for Orion as their product developer and had to field test the newly introduced filters such as their Ultra Block in order to write the catalogue article; and he used my Astroscan right outside of my apartment in the middle of San Jose near all kinds of businesses, to see if it helped find the Crab nebula and the Owl nebula. The filter helped us find them. But, I had pretty much the same reaction, then: yeah, OK, but so what? They're pretty faint! But I was spoiled by all the views that we used to get up at Lick Observatory using the 22 inch Tauchmann telescope after my concerts! At any rate, over the years the Crab still can be seen here, with a filter and even in a small telescope. So there is no reason to think that a 12 inch Dob can't do it. Maybe Joe needs to take the scope to a much darker place and find and observe the Crab, so that he can "downsize" his expectations. And one problem I always have, when Stephen comes running inside shouting, "Regina: you've GOT to see this!" is that he has been outside away from house lighting for a while, and I haven't been. So you might want to try making sure your eyes are adjusted to the dark, and not even getting the slightest PEEP at the security lights around your building for at least 20 to 30 minutes. Here's me in the red goggles that somebody mentioned; I'm also wearing a black goggle that we made from a welding mask, with just a single hole for sticking the eyepiece thru, to cut off all stray light: http://home.earthlink.net/~astro-app...oggles-red.jpg Unfortunately the original color picture was sent to a magazine so all we had to work with was a b&w photocopy which my husband 'colorized' to show the red goggles. They cost about $20 and are called "Astro-Goggles" but you can accomplish the same thing for less by wearing an eyepatch or even a black cloth over your "observing" eye, leaving your other eye clear so that you can see around you. Then, take off the patch ONLY when looking thru the eyepiece. Throw a dark cloth all over your head, too, if you don't want to bother making up a contraption like that black goggle-thingy I'm wearing. I think we've seen the Crab in my husband's C-11 in our driveway, in the year and a half since we bought the scope. He used it as a test object for difficult conditions. But, it's very vague and not nearly as evident as the Ring nebula, which is really quite nice to see here, even in all the lights, with the C-11. I'd guess that the Crab is just a fraction of the brightness, barely above the glow you get from the reflected city lights. When we've looked at it in the mountains where my husband observes most of the time, south of San Jose, it still isn't even what I'd call "bright" and distinct in the C-11. The only time I think I've seen it like that is in Stephen's horrible old 17 inch Dob, which used to require a cargo van and a ramp to get it in and out: scarcely worth it for the fuzzy images. But, the Dob showed very slight traces of the detail, which aren't at all visible in the C-11. Yet, at the same site, my little Orion StarBlast (4") right next to the C-11 shows a very nice, small, clear M1. Just ten miles south of San Jose, at a high elevation. Check out our old astronomy program, which I give away for nothing since it's so obsolete (being a pre-Windows thing): it has some pictures that Stephen made up to try to show the difference between light polluted and dark sky views of some famous objects; M1 is one of them. He used an 8 inch scope for this particular simulation, showing it about the way it looked at the house we lived in, near hiways 85/87 right in the midst of the Almaden valley area of San Jose, back when he wrote the program in the late 80s/early 90s. It isn't really much worse now because our house was only a mile from "Auto Row" on Hillsdale, with tons of lights from car dealerships. Yet we saw the Crab in his 3", my 4", and our 8" scope there. I seem to remember that Stephen was able to see it -- or CLAIMED he could! -- without the filters, but I couldn't: I needed the filter. Here's where you can download this old program, now freewa http://home.earthlink.net/~steve_waldee/index.html Though the software is now ancient and clunky looking, and the pictures are crude (since they were made up to look OK on old 13 inch VGA monitors, which was the best people had fifteen years ago) there is an interesting function in it that we haven't found in any other program of its type: it will calculate the visibility of objects in varying sizes of telescopes, based on analysis of them that is done by examining the size, the type of light they emit, their brightness, and the telescope optics (Jack Marling assisted with some of the methods for doing this.) If you select the Crab nebula from the database list of objects you can then change the brightness of the sky background, or the telescope or other parameters, and see how the visibility prediction is altered. I just used it to type in a 12 inch scope with the same values as the Orion model Joe has. Then I went into "Config" and selected limiting magnitude and chose stars of 3.5, which is about what we see here, outside our house. I selected the Messier objects, and M1, and the program calculated that its visibility is "marginal" (it also suggested about 100x with a nebular filter) ; I changed the naked eye stars to 5 and the program predicted a visibility that is "good" (and again suggested 100x with either a nebular filter or a light pollution filter.) The program does run in XP or earlier Windows versions (except sometimes for the double star part which tends to balk; see our webpage for some instructions about dealing with that.) So, try to: 1. Guard your eyes from bright lights; 2. See the Crab in a darker sky so that you know what it will look like under really superior conditions. 3. Try again in all the light pollution and make sure you are getting the same region of the sky, and try the filters. It would be nice if you could let us know what your results are. Regina former Lick Observatory "Music of the Spheres" music director: http://home.earthlink.net/~regina-pi...ic/concert.htm |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Regina Roper was saying
http://home.earthlink.net/~astro-app/hors ehead/goggles-red.jpg Unfortunately the original color picture was sent to a magazine so all we had to work with was a b&w photocopy which my husband 'colorized' to show the red goggles. They cost about $20 and are called "Astro-Goggles" Those things are wonderful, and I highly recommend them! After wearing them for 20 minutes or a half an hour and stumbling out in the dark with them, I can not only see both sides of the Veil Nebula from my yard here in town through 11x80 binoculars, but also see that the inside of the loop is brighter than the outside. As a sort of compromise, so that I can find my way around outside, I made a red "monogoggle" out of old flashlight parts to cover only my telescope eye while I'm outside in moderately light polluted areas. Both of these devices are also great for humiliating your children by looking like a total idiot. ![]() Marty |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|