"The Beast" nails Pluto!

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 1:28:06 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

You're trolling again.

You didn't notice the "grin" at the end of my post? Have someone explain to you what the grin means.

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 1:17:22 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 1:28:06 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

You're trolling again.

You didn't notice the "grin" at the end of my post? Have someone explain to you what the grin means.

You're right, and so I guess you didn't mean to be a smart ass putting someone else down, so the grin makes it alright then. My apologies. ~:^)

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:48:01 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 1:17:22 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 1:28:06 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

You're trolling again.

You didn't notice the "grin" at the end of my post? Have someone explain to you what the grin means.

You're right, and so I guess you didn't mean to be a smart ass putting
someone else down, so the grin makes it alright then. My apologies. ~:^)

I didn't put Sketcher down, nor was I intending to do so.

The reason Sketcher gets to see so much visually is that he has honed his skills and puts in some effort, whereas LsD hasn't and doesn't.

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 18:29:47 UTC+2, 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. 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


Thanks for the interesting response.
The longer focus achromat should not need the minus violet filter.
So would help to minimise light loss.

Couldn't you most easily obtain a reversed image star map simply by using Ctrl+PrtSc?
Then reversing the image laterally in some free image handling software before any necessary cropping and printing black on white.
Though that does raise the spectre of having to use illumination to examine the star map in the presence of "The Beast."
Not ideal for pulling off observations on the absolute limit of visual perception.
I suppose I ought to ask: How do you sketch in the dark? Using red light?

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 6:52:41 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:

Though that does raise the spectre of having to use illumination to examine the star map in the presence of "The Beast."
Not ideal for pulling off observations on the absolute limit of visual perception.
I suppose I ought to ask: How do you sketch in the dark? Using red light?

A correctly designed red light should work, however a patch for the observing eye can be added to the configuration. It might be possible to simply memorize the field, given adequate preparation.

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 4:37:37 AM UTC-6, wrote:

I didn't put Sketcher down, nor was I intending to do so.

I understood the earlier dinosaur comment, including the reasoning behind it, and took no offense. OTOH, now that we know that dinosaurs have survived to the present day it may be wise to use a different term for 'outdated' ;-)

I suggest that we all *try* to refrain from putting down others - including those who 'deserve' it. It's good to point out errors, disagreements, differences of opinion, etc. but it serves no useful purpose to continue arguing with a person who's demostrated that they will refuse to permit logic to get in the way of their unwavering insistance (or pride) that they are 'right'.

Sketcher

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 6:52:41 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:

Though that does raise the spectre of having to use illumination to examine the star map in the presence of "The Beast."
Not ideal for pulling off observations on the absolute limit of visual perception.
I suppose I ought to ask: How do you sketch in the dark? Using red light?

A correctly designed red light should work, however a patch for the observing eye can be added to the configuration. It might be possible to simply memorize the field, given adequate preparation.

Another option is a dim white light, and a white pencil on black
paper.

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:08:16 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 6:52:41 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:

Though that does raise the spectre of having to use illumination to examine the star map in the presence of "The Beast."
Not ideal for pulling off observations on the absolute limit of visual perception.
I suppose I ought to ask: How do you sketch in the dark? Using red light?

A correctly designed red light should work, however a patch for the observing eye can be added to the configuration. It might be possible to simply memorize the field, given adequate preparation.

Another option is a dim white light, and a white pencil on black
paper.

I find that dim red light, of the proper wavelengths, works better most of the time.

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 3:52:41 AM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 18:29:47 UTC+2, 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. 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


Thanks for the interesting response.
The longer focus achromat should not need the minus violet filter.
So would help to minimise light loss.

Couldn't you most easily obtain a reversed image star map simply by using Ctrl+PrtSc?
Then reversing the image laterally in some free image handling software before any necessary cropping and printing black on white.
Though that does raise the spectre of having to use illumination to examine the star map in the presence of "The Beast."
Not ideal for pulling off observations on the absolute limit of visual perception.
I suppose I ought to ask: How do you sketch in the dark? Using red light?

Actually, the color of the light is not as important as the dimness of the light, although everyone I know uses red lights as their default. This link claims that using a red light to preserve your night vision is a myth...

http://stlplaces.com/night_vision_red_myth/

.... and this link does a great job of further explanations...

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/qa/nightvision.htm

\Paul A

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 12:55:06 PM UTC-4, Sketcher wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 4:37:37 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

I didn't put Sketcher down, nor was I intending to do so.

I understood the earlier dinosaur comment, including the reasoning behind it, and took no offense. OTOH, now that we know that dinosaurs have survived to the present day it may be wise to use a different term for 'outdated' ;-)

I suggest that we all *try* to refrain from putting down others - including
those who 'deserve' it. It's good to point out errors, disagreements,
differences of opinion, etc. but it serves no useful purpose to continue
arguing with a person who's demostrated that they will refuse to permit logic
to get in the way of their unwavering insistance (or pride) that they are
'right'.

My aim was to disarm LsD by anticipating his objections and disposing of them ahead of time.

My concern is that his posts might actually discourage some of those beginners who have to learn how to observe the sky on their own terms with whatever equipment is available to them.