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

I like the goto for both Saturn and M42. They are such difficult objects to
find!

;-)

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

************************************
"Axel" wrote in message
om...
"I next GoTo'ed Saturn. Wow conditions were pretty good indeed, at
least an 8/10. I haven't seen Saturn this well in a long time. The
25mm came out and a TMB monocentric 8mm went in. Very crisp, the
Cassini is razor sharp. I was able to count 12 bands on the globe.
The Crepe was also visible. Saturn is just a plain old awesome sight."

I do have to say that it seems strange to mention that the Crepe (a
pretty darn easy feature) was visible right after seeing 12 bands
(quite a feat). In my 8" f/6 I don't think I've ever seen more than
two belts plus the dusky polar region. I guess that makes a total of
five "bands", since next to each belt is a zone. But the Crepe Ring
is quite obvious most nights.

Ritesh

I like the goto for both Saturn and M42. They are such difficult objects to
find!

;-)

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

************************************
"Axel" wrote in message
om...
"I next GoTo'ed Saturn. Wow conditions were pretty good indeed, at
least an 8/10. I haven't seen Saturn this well in a long time. The
25mm came out and a TMB monocentric 8mm went in. Very crisp, the
Cassini is razor sharp. I was able to count 12 bands on the globe.
The Crepe was also visible. Saturn is just a plain old awesome sight."

I do have to say that it seems strange to mention that the Crepe (a
pretty darn easy feature) was visible right after seeing 12 bands
(quite a feat). In my 8" f/6 I don't think I've ever seen more than
two belts plus the dusky polar region. I guess that makes a total of
five "bands", since next to each belt is a zone. But the Crepe Ring
is quite obvious most nights.

Ritesh

I like the goto for both Saturn and M42. They are such difficult objects to
find!

;-)

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

************************************
"Axel" wrote in message
om...
"I next GoTo'ed Saturn. Wow conditions were pretty good indeed, at
least an 8/10. I haven't seen Saturn this well in a long time. The
25mm came out and a TMB monocentric 8mm went in. Very crisp, the
Cassini is razor sharp. I was able to count 12 bands on the globe.
The Crepe was also visible. Saturn is just a plain old awesome sight."

I do have to say that it seems strange to mention that the Crepe (a
pretty darn easy feature) was visible right after seeing 12 bands
(quite a feat). In my 8" f/6 I don't think I've ever seen more than
two belts plus the dusky polar region. I guess that makes a total of
five "bands", since next to each belt is a zone. But the Crepe Ring
is quite obvious most nights.

Ritesh

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:12:21 -0800, "Chuck Taylor"
wrote:


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

I noticed that image is accompanied by the date "Jan 17th". I presume
that was the posting date, since it cannot be from that actual date.
The rings are less tilted on that image than they are these days, and
it is much closer to opposition in that image was well.

Dan

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:12:21 -0800, "Chuck Taylor"
wrote:


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

I noticed that image is accompanied by the date "Jan 17th". I presume
that was the posting date, since it cannot be from that actual date.
The rings are less tilted on that image than they are these days, and
it is much closer to opposition in that image was well.

Dan

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:12:21 -0800, "Chuck Taylor"
wrote:


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

I noticed that image is accompanied by the date "Jan 17th". I presume
that was the posting date, since it cannot be from that actual date.
The rings are less tilted on that image than they are these days, and
it is much closer to opposition in that image was well.

Dan

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:12:21 -0800, "Chuck Taylor"
wrote:


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

I noticed that image is accompanied by the date "Jan 17th". I presume
that was the posting date, since it cannot be from that actual date.
The rings are less tilted on that image than they are these days, and
it is much closer to opposition in that image was well.

Dan

Which telescope will have better contrast:

1. Air spaced SD triplet ( 6 air-glass surfaces) + super-monocentric
eyepiece (2 air-glass surfaces). Total number of air-glass surfaces 8.

2. Air spaced fluorite doublet (4 air-glass surfaces and same color
correction in visual, as in objective 1) + ZAO (4 air-glass surfaces).
Total number of air-glass surfaces 8.

3. Oil spaced triplet ( 2 air-glass surfaces) + ZAO (4 air-glass
surfaces).
Total number of air-glass surfaces 6.

4. Air spaced fluorite doublet (4 air-glass surfaces and same color
correction in visual, as in objective 1) + any monocentric eyepiece (2
air-glass surfaces). Total number of air-glass surfaces 6.

5. Oil spaced triplet ( 2 air-glass surfaces) + any cemented triplet
eyepiece (2 air-glass surfaces). Total number of air-glass surfaces 4.


Don't you think, that the case 1 will loss vs any another case, except
case 2
(where both will be equal)?



V.D.

We just did this experiment with an AP 7" F/9? (not the f/7) Starfire versus
a TMB 175. Switching both scopes to the TMB supermono had more
apparent effect on contrast than the air spaced or oil spaced pedigree
of the refractors.

If you don't believe me than I suggest trying it yourself under real skies with
other observers present, not alone at a testbench where you see only
what you want to see.

I and others who have observed for 25+ years have stated it plain fact,
the TMB SuperMono are fantastic eyepieces. Surpassing ZAO in ways.
If you have problems seeing 12 color transistions on Saturn, perhaps you
need to upgrade your eyepieces instead of attacking a user about his
semantics of color "bands" or "zones and bands". Arguing over the
vocabulary wont succeed in derailing the users true message.

JD

Which telescope will have better contrast:

1. Air spaced SD triplet ( 6 air-glass surfaces) + super-monocentric
eyepiece (2 air-glass surfaces). Total number of air-glass surfaces 8.

2. Air spaced fluorite doublet (4 air-glass surfaces and same color
correction in visual, as in objective 1) + ZAO (4 air-glass surfaces).
Total number of air-glass surfaces 8.

3. Oil spaced triplet ( 2 air-glass surfaces) + ZAO (4 air-glass
surfaces).
Total number of air-glass surfaces 6.

4. Air spaced fluorite doublet (4 air-glass surfaces and same color
correction in visual, as in objective 1) + any monocentric eyepiece (2
air-glass surfaces). Total number of air-glass surfaces 6.

5. Oil spaced triplet ( 2 air-glass surfaces) + any cemented triplet
eyepiece (2 air-glass surfaces). Total number of air-glass surfaces 4.


Don't you think, that the case 1 will loss vs any another case, except
case 2
(where both will be equal)?



V.D.

We just did this experiment with an AP 7" F/9? (not the f/7) Starfire versus
a TMB 175. Switching both scopes to the TMB supermono had more
apparent effect on contrast than the air spaced or oil spaced pedigree
of the refractors.

If you don't believe me than I suggest trying it yourself under real skies with
other observers present, not alone at a testbench where you see only
what you want to see.

I and others who have observed for 25+ years have stated it plain fact,
the TMB SuperMono are fantastic eyepieces. Surpassing ZAO in ways.
If you have problems seeing 12 color transistions on Saturn, perhaps you
need to upgrade your eyepieces instead of attacking a user about his
semantics of color "bands" or "zones and bands". Arguing over the
vocabulary wont succeed in derailing the users true message.

JD

Which telescope will have better contrast:

1. Air spaced SD triplet ( 6 air-glass surfaces) + super-monocentric
eyepiece (2 air-glass surfaces). Total number of air-glass surfaces 8.

2. Air spaced fluorite doublet (4 air-glass surfaces and same color
correction in visual, as in objective 1) + ZAO (4 air-glass surfaces).
Total number of air-glass surfaces 8.

3. Oil spaced triplet ( 2 air-glass surfaces) + ZAO (4 air-glass
surfaces).
Total number of air-glass surfaces 6.

4. Air spaced fluorite doublet (4 air-glass surfaces and same color
correction in visual, as in objective 1) + any monocentric eyepiece (2
air-glass surfaces). Total number of air-glass surfaces 6.

5. Oil spaced triplet ( 2 air-glass surfaces) + any cemented triplet
eyepiece (2 air-glass surfaces). Total number of air-glass surfaces 4.


Don't you think, that the case 1 will loss vs any another case, except
case 2
(where both will be equal)?



V.D.

We just did this experiment with an AP 7" F/9? (not the f/7) Starfire versus
a TMB 175. Switching both scopes to the TMB supermono had more
apparent effect on contrast than the air spaced or oil spaced pedigree
of the refractors.

If you don't believe me than I suggest trying it yourself under real skies with
other observers present, not alone at a testbench where you see only
what you want to see.

I and others who have observed for 25+ years have stated it plain fact,
the TMB SuperMono are fantastic eyepieces. Surpassing ZAO in ways.
If you have problems seeing 12 color transistions on Saturn, perhaps you
need to upgrade your eyepieces instead of attacking a user about his
semantics of color "bands" or "zones and bands". Arguing over the
vocabulary wont succeed in derailing the users true message.

JD