| |
Main
Date: 24 Aug 2007 17:32:36
From: ko57
Subject: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
I'm throwing down the gauntlet, taking on the Dumbell Nebula. What
seems to be so easy for everyone else has me dumbfounded. I found a
Lumicon Deepsky Filter and an Orion Ultrablock filter on Astromart, so
I am ready. I know filters are not a miracle worker but had to give
these a try. I stay out and get dark adapted for a good while, will
try my 20 Superview, 32 Sirius plossl, and an UW 36 Russell Optics (at
least 62 degrees).
My skies can get dark but M27 is very elusive, yet I can see M57
okay. So when the moon is gone, lookout...
Kerry Elizabeth
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 23:17:06
From: ko57
Subject: Re: WELL-GUESS WHAT??? IT'S OFF!!! >:)
|
On Aug 31, 3:55 am, br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
> Margo Schulter wrote:
> > Please let me say that it's late here, but before retiring I had to say
> > CONGRATULATIONS!
>
> Ditto. Both the "late" and the "congratulations."
>
> I should point out that planetary nebulae are traditionally grouped into
> four categories: large and bright, large and dim, small and bright,
> small and dim.
>
> Of these four categories, M27 is one of the few that falls into the
> first category. In some sense, that means that M27 is as good as it
> gets, but in my opinion, planetary nebulae are so pretty that even this
> rare example is worth the rest. I never tire of looking at M27, by
> binoculars, by telescope with narrowband filter, whatever. You will
> return to this object again and again.
>
> The archetype of the large but faint category is probably the Helix
> Nebula, NGC 7293. Actually, it is not that faint, and I have seen it
> by binoculars even in decent suburban skies, let alone truly dark skies,
> where it is downright simple in binoculars. Do not let this object's
> reputation precede itself when you attempt it.
>
> Most of the planetary nebulae fall in the small categories, because that
> simply means that they are far away. Still, some well-known planetaries
> fall in this category. One example is the Eskimo Nebula, NGC 2392,
> which is in the small but bright category. In larger telescopes, it
> actually reveals some reasonable amount of detail.
>
> Good luck to all in their planetary nebula pursuits.
>
> --
> Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Margo-
Thank you, and I'll try more power next time I'm out. I wanted to go
low because of the darkness of the filters, was not sure how much
darker they'd make the view. I am impressed with them, especially how
they helped with the moon out (it was new or right at...).
As far as M24 & 25 go, I hope to get in a few hours one night, go
through Sagittarius' area, perhaps another time Cygnus-on and on, log
what I see. I should sketch more. I'm pretty sure it was M22 I'd
seen, my first "cluster"-it was pretty concentrated yet to me looked
like a big clump of stars (I sound so green...), pretty interesting,
that was 5 years ago,not long after I'd gotten my XT4.5 (first
scope). What a rewarding hobby we have.
About viewing M27-never getting tired of it, I feel the same about M57
and Andromeda Galaxy. I guess when you think about how far they are,
even though some are much closer than others-it is amazing that we can
view these objects period. Time observing is time learning to see.
Brian,
Thanks also and for the information, in the five years I've been at
this-more off than on-I've read about the Eskimo & the Helix, read
observation reports, just didn't spot these. I'm looking forward to
finding more now that I have a couple of more tools at my disposal.
I'm the sort who'd rather view without filters when possible-which is
most of the time, especially for planets, but realize they can help
with contrast a bit. The same goes for photography, wanting to have
the least amount of glass necessary trying to keep the images
natural. I can see it now-I'll be doing the filter on/filter off
camparison for a while...
Thanks for having your website Brian, sites like yours are helpful,
one of the first telescope sites I'd seen when I started looking for
info about astronomy & observing. I wonder how many people had to run
out and get a C5 thanks to you <:) not me-well, not yet...
More reports later...
Clear skies you guys,
Kerry
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 21:51:32
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: WELL-GUESS WHAT??? IT'S OFF!!! >:)
|
ko57 <kowen@mobiletel.com > wrote:
> Margo-
> Thank you, and I'll try more power next time I'm out. I wanted to go
> low because of the darkness of the filters, was not sure how much
> darker they'd make the view. I am impressed with them, especially how
> they helped with the moon out (it was new or right at...).
> As far as M24 & 25 go, I hope to get in a few hours one night, go
> through Sagittarius' area, perhaps another time Cygnus-on and on, log
> what I see. I should sketch more. I'm pretty sure it was M22 I'd
> seen, my first "cluster"-it was pretty concentrated yet to me looked
> like a big clump of stars (I sound so green...), pretty interesting,
> that was 5 years ago,not long after I'd gotten my XT4.5 (first
> scope). What a rewarding hobby we have.
Hi, Kerry. Recently I've been looking for M22, although now its
azimuth may be considerably lower than a couple of months ago,
making it more difficult to find from my observatory. Your description
sounds very much like how I might imagine this globular cluster:
compact, yet quite large.
What I can say is that Sagittarius is very rich -- so go for it! Marty
posted a neat article here maybe in late July summing up a lot of the
attractions.
> About viewing M27-never getting tired of it, I feel the same about M57
> and Andromeda Galaxy. I guess when you think about how far they are,
> even though some are much closer than others-it is amazing that we can
> view these objects period. Time observing is time learning to see.
Yes, and it's fascinating how the concept of a distance scale has changed.
Around 1800, William Herschel proposed that the most distant nebulae he
was able to detect with his large Newtonian reflectors (the 40-foot
telescope with 48" aperture being the "bleeding edge" of technology,
but something like his 20-foot telescope with 18.7" aperture more
manageable and still superb) might be about 1.9 million light years
away, which, as he pointed out, implied a universe at least this old.
As it happens, his estimate is actually quite close to the 2.3 million
light years we now estimate as the distance to the farthest object
detectible with _the naked eye_ -- M31. I'd be curious to know what
the most distant object in the Herschel catalogues is as now measured.
Best,
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 16:16:34
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: WELL-GUESS WHAT??? IT'S OFF!!! >:)
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
> Hi, Kerry. Recently I've been looking for M22, although now its
> azimuth
Altitude maybe? (Altitude is how high in the sky it is, azimuth is
"sideways" around the sky.)
> may be considerably lower than a couple of months ago,
> making it more difficult to find from my observatory. Your description
> sounds very much like how I might imagine this globular cluster:
> compact, yet quite large.
M22 is just off the top of the teapot, to the northeast (upper left if
Sagittarius is to the south). Between M22 and the teapot top is a trio
of sixth-magnitude stars.
It is a large globular, one of my favorites, and one of the few that is
a real showpiece in smaller telescopes, even under suburban skies. It
seems to me to be full of stars that twinkle in and out of view as you
run your eye across it.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 05:16:49
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: WELL-GUESS WHAT??? IT'S OFF!!! >:)
|
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu > wrote:
> Margo Schulter wrote:
>> Hi, Kerry. Recently I've been looking for M22, although now its
>> azimuth
>
> Altitude maybe? (Altitude is how high in the sky it is, azimuth is
> "sideways" around the sky.)
Thanks, Brian, for the very timely correction! Actually with Jupiter
the other evening I had a real azimuth problem: too far to the west
even shortly after sunset for my telescope to reach from its position
in the observatory, although I could see it from the same room with
binocs (and wasn't sure if I could see Vesta, then within less a degree
of it).
However, as you recognized, my problem with M22 was one of altitude,
or at least it seemed like it might be below my observatory's line of
sight with the telescope, although I could also have missed it. I wonder
how it would compare in surface brightness to M24 or M25, easily seen
here around 2030 on August 30 (i.e. 0330 UT on the 31st).
>> may be considerably lower than a couple of months ago,
>> making it more difficult to find from my observatory. Your description
>> sounds very much like how I might imagine this globular cluster:
>> compact, yet quite large.
>
> M22 is just off the top of the teapot, to the northeast (upper left if
> Sagittarius is to the south). Between M22 and the teapot top is a trio
> of sixth-magnitude stars.
That trio might be a big help! What I've been trying to do is sweep down
and slightly to the east from M25. but I wonder if that's the best approach.
Looking at a chart with a 5-degree field from fchart, I see what looks like
that trio to the southeast and within a degree or so of the cluster, with
a fourth and somewhat fainter star (7th or 8th mag?) so that the trio could
also be called a tetrad if we count that star also. It maybe reminds me a
bit of a tetrahedral carbon bond.
> It is a large globular, one of my favorites, and one of the few that is
> a real showpiece in smaller telescopes, even under suburban skies. It
> seems to me to be full of stars that twinkle in and out of view as you
> run your eye across it.
One thing that might help -- and if I'm going to try it I better do it
soon, given that the area around M25 and M22 is setting earlier and earlier
(meaning azimuth issues from my observatory location as well as altitude,
I guess, as things reaching the meridian so early in the evening get lower
and lower -- is this correct?) -- would be moving the telescope a bit so
that a desk I have in the room doesn't interfere with the OTA moving down
unobstructed to the very bottom of the open window for viewing. This might
not mean much more viewing area, but it could make all the difference
for an object just on the border, as M22 may be at this point of the year.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 16:19:22
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
On Aug 25, 9:30 pm, ko57 <ko...@mobiletel.com > wrote:
> Kapella, I've read it is a challenge, although seems like old hat to
> others. I'm sure "WHEN" I do find it I'll feel like "what was all the
> fuss about?", but i'm not imagining that this thing seems to have
> disappeared, or it is "clear" in my sky.
>
> I am out in the country, and once I get the field cut behind my house,
> I'll probably set up there just a bit back, that way no trees in the
> way although they help block out the neighboring few floodlights when
> I'm in my driveway or yard.
>
> I will win this battle, one way or another...ABCD-as far as
> photographing this, that might be a challenge, I do planet & moon
> snapshots, I don't guess you can "snapshot" M27. I've been doing
> mostly nature/landscape photography for the last 35+ years (gee, I'm
> old...)
>
> Kerry Elizabeth
> s.e. Louisiana
While the M27 is fairly bright, I have had difficulty with faint
objects when light was in the atmosphere, from distant points.
Distant floods may wash out the view a bit. O-III filter usually
sorts that out.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 21:30:27
From: ko57
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
Kapella, I've read it is a challenge, although seems like old hat to
others. I'm sure "WHEN" I do find it I'll feel like "what was all the
fuss about?", but i'm not imagining that this thing seems to have
disappeared, or it is "clear" in my sky.
I am out in the country, and once I get the field cut behind my house,
I'll probably set up there just a bit back, that way no trees in the
way although they help block out the neighboring few floodlights when
I'm in my driveway or yard.
I will win this battle, one way or another...ABCD-as far as
photographing this, that might be a challenge, I do planet & moon
snapshots, I don't guess you can "snapshot" M27. I've been doing
mostly nature/landscape photography for the last 35+ years (gee, I'm
old...)
Kerry Elizabeth
s.e. Louisiana
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 11:48:51
From: kapella1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:30:27 -0700, ko57 <kowen@mobiletel.com > wrote:
<snip >
>
>I will win this battle, one way or another...ABCD-as far as
>photographing this, that might be a challenge, I do planet & moon
>snapshots, I don't guess you can "snapshot" M27. I've been doing
>mostly nature/landscape photography for the last 35+ years (gee, I'm
>old...)
>
>Kerry Elizabeth
>s.e. Louisiana
>
>
That's the spirit! I remember having a difficult time locating M33.
Once I nailed it, I could not believe how relatively easy it was to
see (under great skies, mind you). After that, I have actually
spotted it naked eyed a couple of times!
Kapella
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 10:53:36
From: kapella1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:32:36 -0700, ko57 <kowen@mobiletel.com > wrote:
>I'm throwing down the gauntlet, taking on the Dumbell Nebula. What
>seems to be so easy for everyone else has me dumbfounded. I found a
>Lumicon Deepsky Filter and an Orion Ultrablock filter on Astromart, so
>I am ready. I know filters are not a miracle worker but had to give
>these a try. I stay out and get dark adapted for a good while, will
>try my 20 Superview, 32 Sirius plossl, and an UW 36 Russell Optics (at
>least 62 degrees).
>
>My skies can get dark but M27 is very elusive, yet I can see M57
>okay. So when the moon is gone, lookout...
>
>Kerry Elizabeth
I have seen the Dumbell with 7x50 binoculars from within Columbus Ohio
city limits. The night was fantastic: clear, steady seeing, and I
leaned against a wall to hold the binoculars very steady, but it was
there. If M57 is visible, then M 27 should be obvious. Since the
planetary is in a rather barren (naked-eye) area of the sky, it is
definitely harder to find than M57. Good luck!
Kapella
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 22:24:43
From: ko57
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
"Oh sod! Did I forget to put M27 back when I was done with it? I
just
took it down from the heavens to show the neighbour kids and a few
friends who dropped in for tea and a chat. I'll have it back up
there
as soon as I can find my ladder." - Richard ;-)
No wonder...put it back, thief!
"I can't imagine any difficulty here and the filters would seem
unnecessary. Through my 12.5 inch dobsonian under NELM 5.3 skies, M27
is at least as easy, if not easier, for naked eye observation than
M57. Are you certain you are looking in the right place? Do you
have
a pc planetarium installed?" - Martin R. Howell
One thing, I've read both sides of the filter argument at S.A.A.-they
don't/won't help-they won't give you dark skies (understandable)-you
need to go to a dark sky site, and then the: I had my scope pointed
at it and ? lo and behold-where was it? couldn't see it so I popped on
my broad/narrow/OIII filter and voila`! I have read other's report on
"it was invisible", "could not see it"-until they used their filter,
so there's something there-filters are helping some people.
I do have a good pc planetarium, a handheld one from Chandler's,
enough books, observing atlases, Deepsky 600, Planetarium for Palm
pilot (seems to be the most helpful-portable). I can't understand why
it seems invisible to me when I can find M31. M57, comets okay. I
have an XT8, an XT4.5, 70mm & 60mm refractors, I know people view this
in small scopes. The XT4.5 is the easiest to take out, I'll have to
get the XT8 out a few nights.
"If M27 is invisible you must really have it bad, M27 being one of
the
biggest and brightest. It is in a blank part of the sky, so finding
it might be problematical in a light-polluted sky. Once I have it
spotted, it shows up well in my 4" in my back yard". - Bud
I do live in the country, and my skies actually can get somewhat dark,
wih the moon up tonight, I can see mag 5 stars right there in Cygnus
(barely but they are visible). I know I just have to keep looking,
and I can't wait 'til the moon disappears again so I can try, try
again. The few floodlights and one streetlight near the area do not
help, but hey-I'm not in the city. (I know quit crying...)
I'll post what happens once the moon goes down-filters or no filters.
I am not crazy about them, I use a variable on the Moon, and once on a
really bright Jupiter. Don't really use 'em for planets. There's
nothing like a really exceptional night of clear seeing, viewing
Jupiter, Saturn or Mars with no filter, getting some really nice,
detailed views, that is hard to beat. Will see what happens...
Clear skies to all,
Kerry
s.e. Louisiana
"It's probably the humidity..."
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 23:36:14
From: ABCD
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
ko57 wrote:
> I'm throwing down the gauntlet, taking on the Dumbell Nebula. What
> seems to be so easy for everyone else has me dumbfounded. I found a
> Lumicon Deepsky Filter and an Orion Ultrablock filter on Astromart, so
> I am ready. I know filters are not a miracle worker but had to give
> these a try. I stay out and get dark adapted for a good while, will
> try my 20 Superview, 32 Sirius plossl, and an UW 36 Russell Optics (at
> least 62 degrees).
>
> My skies can get dark but M27 is very elusive, yet I can see M57
> okay. So when the moon is gone, lookout...
>
> Kerry Elizabeth
actually its a.b.p.a ..... pictures.astro. Good luck.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 23:34:32
From: ABCD
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
ko57 wrote:
> I'm throwing down the gauntlet, taking on the Dumbell Nebula. What
> seems to be so easy for everyone else has me dumbfounded. I found a
> Lumicon Deepsky Filter and an Orion Ultrablock filter on Astromart, so
> I am ready. I know filters are not a miracle worker but had to give
> these a try. I stay out and get dark adapted for a good while, will
> try my 20 Superview, 32 Sirius plossl, and an UW 36 Russell Optics (at
> least 62 degrees).
>
> My skies can get dark but M27 is very elusive, yet I can see M57
> okay. So when the moon is gone, lookout...
>
> Kerry Elizabeth
Club member here Doug Slauson pulled several fine M27's out using his
C9.25 and dslr ..... and almost tack sharp also. So if Doug
can do it you surely can! Post the results somewhere we can find them like
here or the astro.pictures group.
Thanks.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 21:42:45
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:32:36 -0700, ko57 <kowen@mobiletel.com > wrote:
>My skies can get dark but M27 is very elusive, yet I can see M57
>okay. So when the moon is gone, lookout...
If M27 is invisible you must really have it bad, M27 being one of the
biggest and brightest. It is in a blank part of the sky, so finding
it might be problematical in a light-polluted sky. Once I have it
spotted, it shows up well in my 4" in my back yard.
Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 01:59:29
From:
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
On Aug 24, 5:32 pm, ko57 <ko...@mobiletel.com > wrote:
> I stay out and get dark adapted for a good while, will
> try my 20 Superview, 32 Sirius plossl, and an UW 36 Russell Optics (at
> least 62 degrees).
I can't imagine any difficulty here and the filters would seem
unnecessary. Through my 12.5 inch dobsonian under NELM 5.3 skies, M27
is at least as easy, if not easier, for naked eye observation than
M57. Are you certain you are looking in the right place? Do you have
a pc planetarium installed?
--
Martin R. Howell
Moderated sci.astro.amateur
www.moderatedsciastroamateur.org
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 02:13:34
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
martinhowell@bluebottle.com wrote:
> On Aug 24, 5:32 pm, ko57 <ko...@mobiletel.com> wrote:
>> I stay out and get dark adapted for a good while, will
>> try my 20 Superview, 32 Sirius plossl, and an UW 36 Russell Optics (at
>> least 62 degrees).
>
>
> I can't imagine any difficulty here and the filters would seem
> unnecessary. Through my 12.5 inch dobsonian under NELM 5.3 skies, M27
> is at least as easy, if not easier, for naked eye observation than
> M57. Are you certain you are looking in the right place? Do you have
> a pc planetarium installed?
>
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
> Moderated sci.astro.amateur
> www.moderatedsciastroamateur.org
>
This is not very practical for obvious reasons, but it would
make more sense if the observing filters were on our eyes instead
of screwed into the eyepieces... Yes there are 2" filters that can go
ahead of eyepieces so one doesn't have to keep switching--but I'm
thinking about the filters aiding the dark adaptation process by
being on the eyes. Like I said--it is not very practical.
--Sam
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 17:43:05
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: ALLRIGHT-BATTLE WITH the DUMBBELL!!! >:o( IT'S ON!!!
|
On Aug 24, 5:32 pm, ko57 <ko...@mobiletel.com > wrote:
> I'm throwing down the gauntlet, taking on the Dumbell Nebula. What
> seems to be so easy for everyone else has me dumbfounded. I found a
> Lumicon Deepsky Filter and an Orion Ultrablock filter on Astromart, so
> I am ready. I know filters are not a miracle worker but had to give
> these a try. I stay out and get dark adapted for a good while, will
> try my 20 Superview, 32 Sirius plossl, and an UW 36 Russell Optics (at
> least 62 degrees).
>
> My skies can get dark but M27 is very elusive, yet I can see M57
> okay. So when the moon is gone, lookout...
>
> Kerry Elizabeth
Oh sod! Did I forget to put M27 back when I was done with it? I just
took it down from the heavens to show the neighbour kids and a few
friends who dropped in for tea and a chat. I'll have it back up there
as soon as I can find my ladder.
;-)
|
|
