Bands of Saturn. How many of them can be counted (really!) with 7" scope?

"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message ...
"ValeryD" wrote in message
om...
One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
I can remind, that Saturn's globe typically is 17" in diameter
only. And at least 1/5 of it's globe is polar region (where no
zones seen).

If we remember, that zones are not equal in wide, then some
zones should be not wider, than 1/2"!

Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)

In my house I use smoke detectors to detect smoke. I have a CO detector in
the garage because of the kerosene heater. But for optics, Valery is a human
BS detector. The alarm sound may be a bit like the smoke detector (which is
intended to wake you up if needed), but it works.

Yeah Valery, that report sounds a bit much. I suspect all of us have
convinced ourselves we saw something we really didn't, but some get more
carried away.

BTW, did you see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040117.html

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor

Hi Chuck,

Yes, I saw this image. And I count only 15 zones here, some of them
are
not wider, than 0.4" and much less contrasty, than Enke division!
How such zones can be seen true tiny 175mm scope at 175x???

Here are several another pearls from the same source:


#1.
"Sun

A comparison was made between the Zeiss 10mm, 6mm, and 4mm with the
XXX 10mm, 6mm, and 4mm using my friend's AP 92mm equipped with Baader
white light solar filter. The XXX provided a sharper, brighter and
contrastier images, with less light scatter around the edge of the
sun. This helped to bring out the detail better in the sunspots, as
well as in the facula."

Aha, Zeiss Abbe Orthos obsorbing so much light, that EJ can clearly
see, that
our sun looks _BRIGHTER_ in another eyepieces! LOLT!


#2.

Moon

A few days after I received the XXX eyepieces I observed the moon
with my friend using his 92mm and compared the Zeiss 10mm and Pentax
9mm with the XXX 10mm, as well as the XXX 8mm with the Pentax 9mm and
7mm, and the TV 8mm. The moon during these tests was a couple of days
past full and the sunset terminator was near Mare Crisium and Palus
Somnii. Due to the better contrast and sharpness in the XXX the
elevation between the mare and mountainous wall surrounding it seemed
higher and more 3 dimensional than in the other eyepieces. In
addition the color of the lunar features appeared whiter, brighter,
and much more natural in the XXX than we had seen before. For example
the bright rays which radiate out from the crater Proculus and border
Palus Somnii appeared whiter. Because of the very natural appearance
to the moon, we almost like we were looking at a NASA photograph, or
were orbiting the moon in a spacecraft, rather than observing it
through a telescope.


I especially likes this: "In addition the color of the lunar features
appeared whiter, brighter, and much more natural in the XXX than we
had seen before"

Aha, where do you know real colors rendering of the moon? Colors were
whiter?
And this is _MUCH more natural_? Did you ever saw the natural surface
of the moon? LOLT.

For "reviewer"'s instance, we measured Pentax' eyepieces color
transmittion
curve. No additional colorration vs light source. Measurement has +/-
0.3%
precision.


And final #3. Impressive!

Due to the better contrast and sharpness in the XXX the elevation
between the mare and mountainous wall surrounding it seemed higher
and more 3 dimensional than in the other eyepieces.
Because of the very natural appearance to the moon, we almost like we
were looking at a NASA photograph, or were orbiting the moon in a
spacecraft, rather than observing it through a telescope.

Really, after reading this adverticement BS, we should believe, that
only two
more air-glass surfaces in eyepiece (even if they were made by Zeiss)
dramatically decrease contrast and that without additional lens 3-D
effect will
disappear, colors on the moon will be much less white and unnatural,
sun will be
significantly dimmer and less contrasty etc etc etc.

These observations were done through oiled triplet objectives - they
do have
only 2 air-glass surfaces.
However, what we should guess from such brave reporters if they will
use
XXX refractors with triplet air-spaced objectives, where 4(!) extra
air-glass
surfaces vs oiled triplet objectives.
Does it mean, that looking through XXX super-ED refractors with XXX
monocentrics
in them, we will see MUCH less natural colors on the moon, much dimmer
sun, lesser details on planets, than in refractors with triplet oiled
objectives and
ZAO or Pentax orthos in them???? The same in the same with doublet
APO objectives and ZAO and Pentax orthos in them?


When I read such reviews, I know - the reviewer is sold for the
manufacturer
and his credibility is not worth of electronic "paper" they were
written on.
It is the same as speaking, that short eye-relief and significantly
narrower
FOV is a big plus in planetary and lunar observings.


LOLT.


V.D.

"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message ...
"ValeryD" wrote in message
om...
One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
I can remind, that Saturn's globe typically is 17" in diameter
only. And at least 1/5 of it's globe is polar region (where no
zones seen).

If we remember, that zones are not equal in wide, then some
zones should be not wider, than 1/2"!

Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)

In my house I use smoke detectors to detect smoke. I have a CO detector in
the garage because of the kerosene heater. But for optics, Valery is a human
BS detector. The alarm sound may be a bit like the smoke detector (which is
intended to wake you up if needed), but it works.

Yeah Valery, that report sounds a bit much. I suspect all of us have
convinced ourselves we saw something we really didn't, but some get more
carried away.

BTW, did you see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040117.html

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor

Hi Chuck,

Yes, I saw this image. And I count only 15 zones here, some of them
are
not wider, than 0.4" and much less contrasty, than Enke division!
How such zones can be seen true tiny 175mm scope at 175x???

Here are several another pearls from the same source:


#1.
"Sun

A comparison was made between the Zeiss 10mm, 6mm, and 4mm with the
XXX 10mm, 6mm, and 4mm using my friend's AP 92mm equipped with Baader
white light solar filter. The XXX provided a sharper, brighter and
contrastier images, with less light scatter around the edge of the
sun. This helped to bring out the detail better in the sunspots, as
well as in the facula."

Aha, Zeiss Abbe Orthos obsorbing so much light, that EJ can clearly
see, that
our sun looks _BRIGHTER_ in another eyepieces! LOLT!


#2.

Moon

A few days after I received the XXX eyepieces I observed the moon
with my friend using his 92mm and compared the Zeiss 10mm and Pentax
9mm with the XXX 10mm, as well as the XXX 8mm with the Pentax 9mm and
7mm, and the TV 8mm. The moon during these tests was a couple of days
past full and the sunset terminator was near Mare Crisium and Palus
Somnii. Due to the better contrast and sharpness in the XXX the
elevation between the mare and mountainous wall surrounding it seemed
higher and more 3 dimensional than in the other eyepieces. In
addition the color of the lunar features appeared whiter, brighter,
and much more natural in the XXX than we had seen before. For example
the bright rays which radiate out from the crater Proculus and border
Palus Somnii appeared whiter. Because of the very natural appearance
to the moon, we almost like we were looking at a NASA photograph, or
were orbiting the moon in a spacecraft, rather than observing it
through a telescope.


I especially likes this: "In addition the color of the lunar features
appeared whiter, brighter, and much more natural in the XXX than we
had seen before"

Aha, where do you know real colors rendering of the moon? Colors were
whiter?
And this is _MUCH more natural_? Did you ever saw the natural surface
of the moon? LOLT.

For "reviewer"'s instance, we measured Pentax' eyepieces color
transmittion
curve. No additional colorration vs light source. Measurement has +/-
0.3%
precision.


And final #3. Impressive!

Due to the better contrast and sharpness in the XXX the elevation
between the mare and mountainous wall surrounding it seemed higher
and more 3 dimensional than in the other eyepieces.
Because of the very natural appearance to the moon, we almost like we
were looking at a NASA photograph, or were orbiting the moon in a
spacecraft, rather than observing it through a telescope.

Really, after reading this adverticement BS, we should believe, that
only two
more air-glass surfaces in eyepiece (even if they were made by Zeiss)
dramatically decrease contrast and that without additional lens 3-D
effect will
disappear, colors on the moon will be much less white and unnatural,
sun will be
significantly dimmer and less contrasty etc etc etc.

These observations were done through oiled triplet objectives - they
do have
only 2 air-glass surfaces.
However, what we should guess from such brave reporters if they will
use
XXX refractors with triplet air-spaced objectives, where 4(!) extra
air-glass
surfaces vs oiled triplet objectives.
Does it mean, that looking through XXX super-ED refractors with XXX
monocentrics
in them, we will see MUCH less natural colors on the moon, much dimmer
sun, lesser details on planets, than in refractors with triplet oiled
objectives and
ZAO or Pentax orthos in them???? The same in the same with doublet
APO objectives and ZAO and Pentax orthos in them?


When I read such reviews, I know - the reviewer is sold for the
manufacturer
and his credibility is not worth of electronic "paper" they were
written on.
It is the same as speaking, that short eye-relief and significantly
narrower
FOV is a big plus in planetary and lunar observings.


LOLT.


V.D.

"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message ...
"ValeryD" wrote in message
om...
One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
I can remind, that Saturn's globe typically is 17" in diameter
only. And at least 1/5 of it's globe is polar region (where no
zones seen).

If we remember, that zones are not equal in wide, then some
zones should be not wider, than 1/2"!

Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)

In my house I use smoke detectors to detect smoke. I have a CO detector in
the garage because of the kerosene heater. But for optics, Valery is a human
BS detector. The alarm sound may be a bit like the smoke detector (which is
intended to wake you up if needed), but it works.

Yeah Valery, that report sounds a bit much. I suspect all of us have
convinced ourselves we saw something we really didn't, but some get more
carried away.

BTW, did you see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040117.html

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor

Hi Chuck,

Yes, I saw this image. And I count only 15 zones here, some of them
are
not wider, than 0.4" and much less contrasty, than Enke division!
How such zones can be seen true tiny 175mm scope at 175x???

Here are several another pearls from the same source:


#1.
"Sun

A comparison was made between the Zeiss 10mm, 6mm, and 4mm with the
XXX 10mm, 6mm, and 4mm using my friend's AP 92mm equipped with Baader
white light solar filter. The XXX provided a sharper, brighter and
contrastier images, with less light scatter around the edge of the
sun. This helped to bring out the detail better in the sunspots, as
well as in the facula."

Aha, Zeiss Abbe Orthos obsorbing so much light, that EJ can clearly
see, that
our sun looks _BRIGHTER_ in another eyepieces! LOLT!


#2.

Moon

A few days after I received the XXX eyepieces I observed the moon
with my friend using his 92mm and compared the Zeiss 10mm and Pentax
9mm with the XXX 10mm, as well as the XXX 8mm with the Pentax 9mm and
7mm, and the TV 8mm. The moon during these tests was a couple of days
past full and the sunset terminator was near Mare Crisium and Palus
Somnii. Due to the better contrast and sharpness in the XXX the
elevation between the mare and mountainous wall surrounding it seemed
higher and more 3 dimensional than in the other eyepieces. In
addition the color of the lunar features appeared whiter, brighter,
and much more natural in the XXX than we had seen before. For example
the bright rays which radiate out from the crater Proculus and border
Palus Somnii appeared whiter. Because of the very natural appearance
to the moon, we almost like we were looking at a NASA photograph, or
were orbiting the moon in a spacecraft, rather than observing it
through a telescope.


I especially likes this: "In addition the color of the lunar features
appeared whiter, brighter, and much more natural in the XXX than we
had seen before"

Aha, where do you know real colors rendering of the moon? Colors were
whiter?
And this is _MUCH more natural_? Did you ever saw the natural surface
of the moon? LOLT.

For "reviewer"'s instance, we measured Pentax' eyepieces color
transmittion
curve. No additional colorration vs light source. Measurement has +/-
0.3%
precision.


And final #3. Impressive!

Due to the better contrast and sharpness in the XXX the elevation
between the mare and mountainous wall surrounding it seemed higher
and more 3 dimensional than in the other eyepieces.
Because of the very natural appearance to the moon, we almost like we
were looking at a NASA photograph, or were orbiting the moon in a
spacecraft, rather than observing it through a telescope.

Really, after reading this adverticement BS, we should believe, that
only two
more air-glass surfaces in eyepiece (even if they were made by Zeiss)
dramatically decrease contrast and that without additional lens 3-D
effect will
disappear, colors on the moon will be much less white and unnatural,
sun will be
significantly dimmer and less contrasty etc etc etc.

These observations were done through oiled triplet objectives - they
do have
only 2 air-glass surfaces.
However, what we should guess from such brave reporters if they will
use
XXX refractors with triplet air-spaced objectives, where 4(!) extra
air-glass
surfaces vs oiled triplet objectives.
Does it mean, that looking through XXX super-ED refractors with XXX
monocentrics
in them, we will see MUCH less natural colors on the moon, much dimmer
sun, lesser details on planets, than in refractors with triplet oiled
objectives and
ZAO or Pentax orthos in them???? The same in the same with doublet
APO objectives and ZAO and Pentax orthos in them?


When I read such reviews, I know - the reviewer is sold for the
manufacturer
and his credibility is not worth of electronic "paper" they were
written on.
It is the same as speaking, that short eye-relief and significantly
narrower
FOV is a big plus in planetary and lunar observings.


LOLT.


V.D.

Hi Valery,

Last night I had decent seeing and counted 4 dark bands not including
the polar area detail. Two of the bands were very subtle and not visible
except when the seeing was settled down. I also did not concentrate on
the polar region (it was cold enough here without thinking of polar
stuff). I used a 4mm Radian at 341x with 0.82mm exit pupil and a 17%
diametrical obstruction for the best view. If the lighter zones were
also counted then the total number would approach those listed I guess.
I searched for but did not see the Encke gap but I've found that my eyes
need close to 500x for me to pick it up if the seeing allows. I don't
often observe the planets at 175x when looking for maximum details as it
just is not enough magnification for my tastes. I know several folks who
feel that I overdo the magnification but I just go with what works for
my eyes. I haven't used the Hubble (too short to reach the eyepiece g)
but the pictures are pretty. Of course I don't know what you should
believe - it's hard enough for me to keep my own life straight so you're
on your own I guess.
Best in the New Year,
--Mike Spooner


"ValeryD" wrote in message
om

One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
snip
Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)


V.D.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Hi Valery,

Last night I had decent seeing and counted 4 dark bands not including
the polar area detail. Two of the bands were very subtle and not visible
except when the seeing was settled down. I also did not concentrate on
the polar region (it was cold enough here without thinking of polar
stuff). I used a 4mm Radian at 341x with 0.82mm exit pupil and a 17%
diametrical obstruction for the best view. If the lighter zones were
also counted then the total number would approach those listed I guess.
I searched for but did not see the Encke gap but I've found that my eyes
need close to 500x for me to pick it up if the seeing allows. I don't
often observe the planets at 175x when looking for maximum details as it
just is not enough magnification for my tastes. I know several folks who
feel that I overdo the magnification but I just go with what works for
my eyes. I haven't used the Hubble (too short to reach the eyepiece g)
but the pictures are pretty. Of course I don't know what you should
believe - it's hard enough for me to keep my own life straight so you're
on your own I guess.
Best in the New Year,
--Mike Spooner


"ValeryD" wrote in message
om

One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
snip
Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)


V.D.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Hi Valery,

Last night I had decent seeing and counted 4 dark bands not including
the polar area detail. Two of the bands were very subtle and not visible
except when the seeing was settled down. I also did not concentrate on
the polar region (it was cold enough here without thinking of polar
stuff). I used a 4mm Radian at 341x with 0.82mm exit pupil and a 17%
diametrical obstruction for the best view. If the lighter zones were
also counted then the total number would approach those listed I guess.
I searched for but did not see the Encke gap but I've found that my eyes
need close to 500x for me to pick it up if the seeing allows. I don't
often observe the planets at 175x when looking for maximum details as it
just is not enough magnification for my tastes. I know several folks who
feel that I overdo the magnification but I just go with what works for
my eyes. I haven't used the Hubble (too short to reach the eyepiece g)
but the pictures are pretty. Of course I don't know what you should
believe - it's hard enough for me to keep my own life straight so you're
on your own I guess.
Best in the New Year,
--Mike Spooner


"ValeryD" wrote in message
om

One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
snip
Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)


V.D.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Hi Valery,

Last night I had decent seeing and counted 4 dark bands not including
the polar area detail. Two of the bands were very subtle and not visible
except when the seeing was settled down. I also did not concentrate on
the polar region (it was cold enough here without thinking of polar
stuff). I used a 4mm Radian at 341x with 0.82mm exit pupil and a 17%
diametrical obstruction for the best view. If the lighter zones were
also counted then the total number would approach those listed I guess.
I searched for but did not see the Encke gap but I've found that my eyes
need close to 500x for me to pick it up if the seeing allows. I don't
often observe the planets at 175x when looking for maximum details as it
just is not enough magnification for my tastes. I know several folks who
feel that I overdo the magnification but I just go with what works for
my eyes. I haven't used the Hubble (too short to reach the eyepiece g)
but the pictures are pretty. Of course I don't know what you should
believe - it's hard enough for me to keep my own life straight so you're
on your own I guess.
Best in the New Year,
--Mike Spooner


"ValeryD" wrote in message
om

One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
snip
Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)


V.D.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

(Dan Chaffee) wrote in message ...
On 17 Jan 2004 12:12:15 -0800, (ValeryD)
wrote:

One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
I can remind, that Saturn's globe typically is 17" in diameter
only. And at least 1/5 of it's globe is polar region (where no
zones seen).

If we remember, that zones are not equal in wide, then some
zones should be not wider, than 1/2"!

Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)


The most I've ever seen with the ring tilt obscuring the majority of
one of the hemispheres is five--counting the polar cap. I drew it
back a couple of years ago using a 9.6" newtonian. Five can plainly
be seen on this drawing, where I tried to reproduce the bands' actual
contrast as seen through the eyepiece.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...12021722sTdEvG

Seeing was P6-7; good, but not good enough for the Enke gap :-(

Dan C.

Hi,

I almost always get confused when somebody speaks of "bands" seen on a
planet's disk. I usually use terms like belts and zones.

Currently, I have 2 scopes that are optically good and show fine
detail and contrast on nights with good seeing. My scope's apertues
are 6" and 9.6".

Like Dan's drawing shows I find that to see the type belt and zone
detail that Dan's Saturn drawing renders with certainty, the
magnification range had to be at roughly 300x-450x. 350x or higher
being ideal. Same goes for finer ring details and SPR features.

Still, sometimes when observing I still get very surprised by the
amount of detail I can discern that others may not. With other
talented people's support, Dan's among them, I took to drawing rather
than verbally describing everything. In other words, I typically see
Saturn with 4 to 6 belts separated by zones.

Thanks, Sol Robbins

(Dan Chaffee) wrote in message ...
On 17 Jan 2004 12:12:15 -0800, (ValeryD)
wrote:

One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
I can remind, that Saturn's globe typically is 17" in diameter
only. And at least 1/5 of it's globe is polar region (where no
zones seen).

If we remember, that zones are not equal in wide, then some
zones should be not wider, than 1/2"!

Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)


The most I've ever seen with the ring tilt obscuring the majority of
one of the hemispheres is five--counting the polar cap. I drew it
back a couple of years ago using a 9.6" newtonian. Five can plainly
be seen on this drawing, where I tried to reproduce the bands' actual
contrast as seen through the eyepiece.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...12021722sTdEvG

Seeing was P6-7; good, but not good enough for the Enke gap :-(

Dan C.

Hi,

I almost always get confused when somebody speaks of "bands" seen on a
planet's disk. I usually use terms like belts and zones.

Currently, I have 2 scopes that are optically good and show fine
detail and contrast on nights with good seeing. My scope's apertues
are 6" and 9.6".

Like Dan's drawing shows I find that to see the type belt and zone
detail that Dan's Saturn drawing renders with certainty, the
magnification range had to be at roughly 300x-450x. 350x or higher
being ideal. Same goes for finer ring details and SPR features.

Still, sometimes when observing I still get very surprised by the
amount of detail I can discern that others may not. With other
talented people's support, Dan's among them, I took to drawing rather
than verbally describing everything. In other words, I typically see
Saturn with 4 to 6 belts separated by zones.

Thanks, Sol Robbins

(Dan Chaffee) wrote in message ...
On 17 Jan 2004 12:12:15 -0800, (ValeryD)
wrote:

One guy reported, that 12(bands) on Saturn were counted
in a 7" APO at 175x(only!).
I can remind, that Saturn's globe typically is 17" in diameter
only. And at least 1/5 of it's globe is polar region (where no
zones seen).

If we remember, that zones are not equal in wide, then some
zones should be not wider, than 1/2"!

Should I believe to such observations? Interesting, how many
bands can be counted on Saturn globe on Hubble pictures? :-)


The most I've ever seen with the ring tilt obscuring the majority of
one of the hemispheres is five--counting the polar cap. I drew it
back a couple of years ago using a 9.6" newtonian. Five can plainly
be seen on this drawing, where I tried to reproduce the bands' actual
contrast as seen through the eyepiece.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...12021722sTdEvG

Seeing was P6-7; good, but not good enough for the Enke gap :-(

Dan C.

Hi,

I almost always get confused when somebody speaks of "bands" seen on a
planet's disk. I usually use terms like belts and zones.

Currently, I have 2 scopes that are optically good and show fine
detail and contrast on nights with good seeing. My scope's apertues
are 6" and 9.6".

Like Dan's drawing shows I find that to see the type belt and zone
detail that Dan's Saturn drawing renders with certainty, the
magnification range had to be at roughly 300x-450x. 350x or higher
being ideal. Same goes for finer ring details and SPR features.

Still, sometimes when observing I still get very surprised by the
amount of detail I can discern that others may not. With other
talented people's support, Dan's among them, I took to drawing rather
than verbally describing everything. In other words, I typically see
Saturn with 4 to 6 belts separated by zones.

Thanks, Sol Robbins