"The Beast" nails Pluto!

The night started out as one of questionable quality. Clouds, some quite large and threatening, passed nearby. Distant lightning flashes never completely ceased. I waited until 'Pluto hour' was only a short distance away before committing to setting up The Beast. On my way out a confused mouse ran back and forth trying to figure out how to climb down the steps of my south porch. The Colosseum's circular wall kept the variable winds from disturbing The Beast from the task at hand.

It took a while to acquire the desired field. It wasn't wise to use a 'correct-image' chart with a mirror-reversed telescopic view! OTOH, I also had a mirror-reversed sketch of the precise field I was after - so once I got there, there was no doubt.

More time was required for the few four and a half (or nine if you want to count from the time they departed the Sun) hour old photons to register intermittently on my observing eye's retina. It first, I couldn't be sure; but with time the dim flash of light repeated itself often enough - in the exact same location - that I was able to accurately (and confidently) mark its position on my sketch. I was reasonably certain that I had once again found Pluto.

Some time later conditions had changed just enough to render Pluto completely invisible - no more intermittent faint flashes at the now well known location. Clearly on this night Pluto teetered on the limit of visibility for the sky, the observer, and the telescope.

Not until this afternoon did I compare the sketch with a software-generated eyepiece field for Pluto customized for the date and time of observation along with The Beast's aperture, a 90-degree diagonal, and a 5mm eyepiece. The pencil dot that represented the 'suspected' dwarf planet was, in relation to the background stars, positioned in exactly the same relative location as that displayed for Pluto by the software. There was no room for error, no room for doubt.

My 6.5 inch circular sketch was created with a scale of 1 inch = 0.067 degrees. The sketched field was sized for my 5mm eyepiece, but most of the observation was made using a wider field 6mm (166x) eyepiece.

Pluto's altitude in my sky was (only) 23 degrees. My zenithal naked-eye limiting magnitude was 6.5. The Beast is a 6-inch f/6.5 achromat.

P.S. Prior to setting up The Beast, on one of the occasions when I stepped outside to check on conditions, an owl silently glided past me. Actually, it was initially heading almost directly for me, swooped downward and (perhaps changing its original intention) headed back upward and away from me.

You never know what you might encounter beneath a starry sky!

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:45:48 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
The night started out as one of questionable quality. Clouds, some quite large and threatening, passed nearby. Distant lightning flashes never completely ceased. I waited until 'Pluto hour' was only a short distance away before committing to setting up The Beast. On my way out a confused mouse ran back and forth trying to figure out how to climb down the steps of my south porch. The Colosseum's circular wall kept the variable winds from disturbing The Beast from the task at hand.

It took a while to acquire the desired field. It wasn't wise to use a 'correct-image' chart with a mirror-reversed telescopic view! OTOH, I also had a mirror-reversed sketch of the precise field I was after - so once I got there, there was no doubt.

More time was required for the few four and a half (or nine if you want to count from the time they departed the Sun) hour old photons to register intermittently on my observing eye's retina. It first, I couldn't be sure; but with time the dim flash of light repeated itself often enough - in the exact same location - that I was able to accurately (and confidently) mark its position on my sketch. I was reasonably certain that I had once again found Pluto.

Some time later conditions had changed just enough to render Pluto completely invisible - no more intermittent faint flashes at the now well known location. Clearly on this night Pluto teetered on the limit of visibility for the sky, the observer, and the telescope.

Not until this afternoon did I compare the sketch with a software-generated eyepiece field for Pluto customized for the date and time of observation along with The Beast's aperture, a 90-degree diagonal, and a 5mm eyepiece. The pencil dot that represented the 'suspected' dwarf planet was, in relation to the background stars, positioned in exactly the same relative location as that displayed for Pluto by the software. There was no room for error, no room for doubt.

My 6.5 inch circular sketch was created with a scale of 1 inch = 0.067 degrees. The sketched field was sized for my 5mm eyepiece, but most of the observation was made using a wider field 6mm (166x) eyepiece.

Pluto's altitude in my sky was (only) 23 degrees. My zenithal naked-eye limiting magnitude was 6.5. The Beast is a 6-inch f/6.5 achromat.

P.S. Prior to setting up The Beast, on one of the occasions when I stepped outside to check on conditions, an owl silently glided past me. Actually, it was initially heading almost directly for me, swooped downward and (perhaps changing its original intention) headed back upward and away from me.

You never know what you might encounter beneath a starry sky!

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

How big is your beast? I saw it once with averted vision with a 6" refractor at the Riverside Star Party.

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:54:50 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:45:48 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
The night started out as one of questionable quality. Clouds, some quite large and threatening, passed nearby. Distant lightning flashes never completely ceased. I waited until 'Pluto hour' was only a short distance away before committing to setting up The Beast. On my way out a confused mouse ran back and forth trying to figure out how to climb down the steps of my south porch. The Colosseum's circular wall kept the variable winds from disturbing The Beast from the task at hand.

It took a while to acquire the desired field. It wasn't wise to use a 'correct-image' chart with a mirror-reversed telescopic view! OTOH, I also had a mirror-reversed sketch of the precise field I was after - so once I got there, there was no doubt.

More time was required for the few four and a half (or nine if you want to count from the time they departed the Sun) hour old photons to register intermittently on my observing eye's retina. It first, I couldn't be sure; but with time the dim flash of light repeated itself often enough - in the exact same location - that I was able to accurately (and confidently) mark its position on my sketch. I was reasonably certain that I had once again found Pluto.

Some time later conditions had changed just enough to render Pluto completely invisible - no more intermittent faint flashes at the now well known location. Clearly on this night Pluto teetered on the limit of visibility for the sky, the observer, and the telescope.

Not until this afternoon did I compare the sketch with a software-generated eyepiece field for Pluto customized for the date and time of observation along with The Beast's aperture, a 90-degree diagonal, and a 5mm eyepiece. The pencil dot that represented the 'suspected' dwarf planet was, in relation to the background stars, positioned in exactly the same relative location as that displayed for Pluto by the software. There was no room for error, no room for doubt.

My 6.5 inch circular sketch was created with a scale of 1 inch = 0.067 degrees. The sketched field was sized for my 5mm eyepiece, but most of the observation was made using a wider field 6mm (166x) eyepiece.

Pluto's altitude in my sky was (only) 23 degrees. My zenithal naked-eye limiting magnitude was 6.5. The Beast is a 6-inch f/6.5 achromat.

P.S. Prior to setting up The Beast, on one of the occasions when I stepped outside to check on conditions, an owl silently glided past me. Actually, it was initially heading almost directly for me, swooped downward and (perhaps changing its original intention) headed back upward and away from me.

You never know what you might encounter beneath a starry sky!

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

How big is your beast? I saw it once with averted vision with a 6" refractor at the Riverside Star Party.

Oops, disregard. I see your beast is a 6" refractor. It's late, my brain not working properly. ;^(

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 00:57:27 UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:54:50 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:45:48 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
The night started out as one of questionable quality. Clouds, some quite large and threatening, passed nearby. Distant lightning flashes never completely ceased. I waited until 'Pluto hour' was only a short distance away before committing to setting up The Beast. On my way out a confused mouse ran back and forth trying to figure out how to climb down the steps of my south porch. The Colosseum's circular wall kept the variable winds from disturbing The Beast from the task at hand.

It took a while to acquire the desired field. It wasn't wise to use a 'correct-image' chart with a mirror-reversed telescopic view! OTOH, I also had a mirror-reversed sketch of the precise field I was after - so once I got there, there was no doubt.

More time was required for the few four and a half (or nine if you want to count from the time they departed the Sun) hour old photons to register intermittently on my observing eye's retina. It first, I couldn't be sure; but with time the dim flash of light repeated itself often enough - in the exact same location - that I was able to accurately (and confidently) mark its position on my sketch. I was reasonably certain that I had once again found Pluto.

Some time later conditions had changed just enough to render Pluto completely invisible - no more intermittent faint flashes at the now well known location. Clearly on this night Pluto teetered on the limit of visibility for the sky, the observer, and the telescope.

Not until this afternoon did I compare the sketch with a software-generated eyepiece field for Pluto customized for the date and time of observation along with The Beast's aperture, a 90-degree diagonal, and a 5mm eyepiece. The pencil dot that represented the 'suspected' dwarf planet was, in relation to the background stars, positioned in exactly the same relative location as that displayed for Pluto by the software. There was no room for error, no room for doubt.

My 6.5 inch circular sketch was created with a scale of 1 inch = 0.067 degrees. The sketched field was sized for my 5mm eyepiece, but most of the observation was made using a wider field 6mm (166x) eyepiece.

Pluto's altitude in my sky was (only) 23 degrees. My zenithal naked-eye limiting magnitude was 6.5. The Beast is a 6-inch f/6.5 achromat.

P.S. Prior to setting up The Beast, on one of the occasions when I stepped outside to check on conditions, an owl silently glided past me. Actually, it was initially heading almost directly for me, swooped downward and (perhaps changing its original intention) headed back upward and away from me.

You never know what you might encounter beneath a starry sky!

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

How big is your beast? I saw it once with averted vision with a 6" refractor at the Riverside Star Party.

Oops, disregard. I see your beast is a 6" refractor. It's late, my brain not working properly. ;^(

It's a problem with most global warmers.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 23:45:48 UTC+2, Sketcher wrote:

More time was required for the few four and a half (or nine if you want to count from the time they departed the Sun) hour old photons to register intermittently on my observing eye's retina. It first, I couldn't be sure; but with time the dim flash of light repeated itself often enough - in the exact same location - that I was able to accurately (and confidently) mark its position on my sketch. I was reasonably certain that I had once again found Pluto.

Not until this afternoon did I compare the sketch with a software-generated eyepiece field for Pluto customized for the date and time of observation along with The Beast's aperture, a 90-degree diagonal, and a 5mm eyepiece. The pencil dot that represented the 'suspected' dwarf planet was, in relation to the background stars, positioned in exactly the same relative location as that displayed for Pluto by the software. There was no room for error, no room for doubt.

My 6.5 inch circular sketch was created with a scale of 1 inch = 0.067 degrees. The sketched field was sized for my 5mm eyepiece, but most of the observation was made using a wider field 6mm (166x) eyepiece.

Pluto's altitude in my sky was (only) 23 degrees. My zenithal naked-eye limiting magnitude was 6.5. The Beast is a 6-inch f/6.5 achromat.


Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

Congratulations! :ø)

As an aside: Would using a minus-violet filter have reduced your perceptibility of Pluto or enhanced it?
One is inclined to think it would be reduced because some light is inevitably lost from the very limited total light available.
Conversely, the light which is lost to filtration would have helped to improve image clarity and contrast which might have aided your observation.

A longer focus refractor, of the same aperture but with reduced chromatic aberration, might have helped by increasing depth of field during atmospheric defocusing.
The reduced violet fringing might have put more [desperately needed] photons into the vital image core.
That said the intermittent nature of Pluto's visibility might have been aided by the "flashing" drawing attention to itself.
While a more "fixed" but still very dim image, might safely have avoided detection.

Regards

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 12:54:55 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 00:57:27 UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:54:50 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:45:48 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
The night started out as one of questionable quality. Clouds, some quite large and threatening, passed nearby. Distant lightning flashes never completely ceased. I waited until 'Pluto hour' was only a short distance away before committing to setting up The Beast. On my way out a confused mouse ran back and forth trying to figure out how to climb down the steps of my south porch. The Colosseum's circular wall kept the variable winds from disturbing The Beast from the task at hand.

It took a while to acquire the desired field. It wasn't wise to use a 'correct-image' chart with a mirror-reversed telescopic view! OTOH, I also had a mirror-reversed sketch of the precise field I was after - so once I got there, there was no doubt.

More time was required for the few four and a half (or nine if you want to count from the time they departed the Sun) hour old photons to register intermittently on my observing eye's retina. It first, I couldn't be sure; but with time the dim flash of light repeated itself often enough - in the exact same location - that I was able to accurately (and confidently) mark its position on my sketch. I was reasonably certain that I had once again found Pluto.

Some time later conditions had changed just enough to render Pluto completely invisible - no more intermittent faint flashes at the now well known location. Clearly on this night Pluto teetered on the limit of visibility for the sky, the observer, and the telescope.

Not until this afternoon did I compare the sketch with a software-generated eyepiece field for Pluto customized for the date and time of observation along with The Beast's aperture, a 90-degree diagonal, and a 5mm eyepiece. The pencil dot that represented the 'suspected' dwarf planet was, in relation to the background stars, positioned in exactly the same relative location as that displayed for Pluto by the software. There was no room for error, no room for doubt.

My 6.5 inch circular sketch was created with a scale of 1 inch = 0.067 degrees. The sketched field was sized for my 5mm eyepiece, but most of the observation was made using a wider field 6mm (166x) eyepiece.

Pluto's altitude in my sky was (only) 23 degrees. My zenithal naked-eye limiting magnitude was 6.5. The Beast is a 6-inch f/6.5 achromat.

P.S. Prior to setting up The Beast, on one of the occasions when I stepped outside to check on conditions, an owl silently glided past me. Actually, it was initially heading almost directly for me, swooped downward and (perhaps changing its original intention) headed back upward and away from me.

You never know what you might encounter beneath a starry sky!

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

How big is your beast? I saw it once with averted vision with a 6" refractor at the Riverside Star Party.

Oops, disregard. I see your beast is a 6" refractor. It's late, my brain not working properly. ;^(

It's a problem with most global warmers.

Stop trolling. Behave yourself. You're better than that.

The question has of course been answered, but if it hadn't been I might have responded: The Beast is a 6-inch f/6.6 achromat:-) (Manufacturer specs put it at f/6.5. My (questionable) calculations put it at f/6.55 - rounding up to 6-inch f/6.6 - "The Beast" :-)

Lately Pluto has become more difficult to see - doubly so for us northerners. It has slowly become (quite noticeably) dimmer with its increasing distance from the Sun. It has also progressed to more southerly declinations. There was a time, when Pluto was closer and higher in our northern hemisphere sky, that it was relatively easy with Excalibur (5.1-inch apochromat) and possible with Woody (10-inch Newtonian with octagonal cedar tube) stopped down to a 4-inch clear aperture. It 'might' still be within range of Excalibur (I've not tried recently), but I'm pretty sure that a 4-inch anything would be insufficient - at least for my sky and my eyes.

Sketcher

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 10:54:50 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:

How big is your beast? I saw it once with averted vision with a 6" refractor at the Riverside Star Party.

A minus-violet filter would most likely have rendered Pluto invisible for me that night - all other things being equal. The planet was *barely* visible - to the point of being invisible most of the time. Chromatic aberration around the planet was *way* *WAY* beyond the limits of human eye detectability. The filter would have effectively removed a small amount of light from Pluto. Under the circumstances the loss of even that small amount of light would likely have been enough to cloak the planet completely.

Higher quality optics, OTOH, could potentially improve the view. For that reason I've yet to rule out visibility with Excalibur (5.1-inch apochromat) - a scope that has revealed Pluto to my eyes on several past oppositions.

As for the 'flashing': Pluto's light registered on my retina intermittently - the 'flashing' was of a very slow-motion variety. Several seconds of invisibility seperated the brief moments of visibility. The 'flashing' did not make the planet easier to see. It made the difference between seeing and not seeing.

A longer focus achromat, all other (unrelated) things being equal, would IMO have a slight advantage over The Beast for this observation by putting slightly more light in the focused image - add the minus-violet filter to the longer-focus achromat and I suspect The Beast (unfiltered) would come out on top.

Sketcher

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 12:00:46 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
Congratulations! :ø)

As an aside: Would using a minus-violet filter have reduced your perceptibility of Pluto or enhanced it?
One is inclined to think it would be reduced because some light is inevitably lost from the very limited total light available.
Conversely, the light which is lost to filtration would have helped to improve image clarity and contrast which might have aided your observation.

A longer focus refractor, of the same aperture but with reduced chromatic aberration, might have helped by increasing depth of field during atmospheric defocusing.
The reduced violet fringing might have put more [desperately needed] photons into the vital image core.
That said the intermittent nature of Pluto's visibility might have been aided by the "flashing" drawing attention to itself.
While a more "fixed" but still very dim image, might safely have avoided detection.

Regards

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 12:29:47 PM UTC-4, Sketcher wrote:
A minus-violet filter would most likely have rendered Pluto invisible for me
that night - all other things being equal. The planet was *barely* visible -
to the point of being invisible most of the time.

edit

According to LsD, you're a dinosaur. You should be using a video cam of some sort to "visually observe" the planet Pluto. For that matter why even look at the planet Pluto through a telescope at all!? There should be a wealth of imagery coming back after the recent flyby. grin

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 12:23:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 12:29:47 PM UTC-4, Sketcher wrote:
A minus-violet filter would most likely have rendered Pluto invisible for me
that night - all other things being equal. The planet was *barely* visible -
to the point of being invisible most of the time.

edit

According to LsD, you're a dinosaur. You should be using a video cam of some sort to "visually observe" the planet Pluto. For that matter why even look at the planet Pluto through a telescope at all!? There should be a wealth of imagery coming back after the recent flyby. grin

You're trolling again.

"A troll," according to definition, "is a person who sows discord ... by starting arguments or upsetting people ... with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

The goal of the troll is to provoke a reaction by any means necessary. Trolls thrive in communities that are open and democratic (they wouldn't be invited into a discussion otherwise) and which operate in presumed good faith (there need to be some standards of decorum to offend).