| |
Main
Date: 14 Aug 2006 09:18:43
From: Dave Mitsky
Subject: Chi Cygni Is Unusually Bright!
|
While observing Perseid Earthgrazers and artificial satellites from the
Astronomical Society of Harrisburg's Naylor Observatory before the Moon
rose on Saturday night, the famous variable star Chi Cygni was fairly
easy to see without optical aid. Through my 8x42 binocular, Chi was
distinctly red.
Be sure to have a look at Chi Cygni soon. The star typically ranges
between fifth and thirteenth magnitude (I can recall times when it was
a bit hard to make out with a 12.5" Newtonian) but Chi Cygni is now
brighter than it's been in 148 years, according to the well known
amateur astronomer John Bortle.
http://skytonight.com/observing/highlights/3512306.html
Dave Mitsky
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2006 18:45:03
From: SkySea
Subject: Re: Chi Cygni Is Unusually Bright!
|
My wife and I were also looking for earth-grazers in the late evening
(PDT). I noticed both Chi and Eta, surprised that I could see both
(because of light pollution). They appeared to me to be about the same
magnitude. I didn't notice anything odd enough to motivate me to look
up their info on charts and scrutinize any further.
On 14 Aug 2006 09:18:43 -0700, "Dave Mitsky" <djm28@psu.edu > wrote:
>While observing Perseid Earthgrazers and artificial satellites from the
>Astronomical Society of Harrisburg's Naylor Observatory before the Moon
>rose on Saturday night, the famous variable star Chi Cygni was fairly
>easy to see without optical aid. Through my 8x42 binocular, Chi was
>distinctly red.
>
>Be sure to have a look at Chi Cygni soon. The star typically ranges
>between fifth and thirteenth magnitude (I can recall times when it was
>a bit hard to make out with a 12.5" Newtonian) but Chi Cygni is now
>brighter than it's been in 148 years, according to the well known
>amateur astronomer John Bortle.
>
>http://skytonight.com/observing/highlights/3512306.html
>
>Dave Mitsky
>
=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
http://flavorj.com/~skysea
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2006 21:44:57
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Eyepieces
|
Thanks for you and Bills replay, the one thing I forgot to say was that
they'll be used mostly on one of two scopes, to start out with my 10inch f5
dob and then once the repairs are done, my 8inch f8 dob.
This weekend I got better views of Jupiter with my no brand name 10mm Ep
than I've been getting with my 17mm tel-vue or my 25mm meade.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Willie R. Meghar" <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote in message
news:5cj2e21ovhpqi6rktgtpopt4h6edvrni9b@4ax.com...
> "Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
>
>>So I was looking at Orion's catalog and figure maybe some of the ones they
>>have in there, if anyone has used them, they could say what they are like.
>>
>>1. Orion Deepview 2 inch
>>
>>2. Orion "Epic" ED-2 EP's
>>
>>3. Orion Highlight Plossl
>>
>>4. Orion Expanse Wide-field
>>
>>Any info about them would be good.
>
> Hi Starlord,
>
> I lack experience with #1 and #2 above.
>
> I've been *very* pleased with the Highlight Plossls (7.5mm through
> 26mm) for my own observing; but for sidewalk astronomy you'll probably
> want to stay away from those shorter than 17mm due to short eye
> relief. The eye relief gets shorter as the focal length gets shorter.
> The 17mm Plossl's eye relief is probably at or near the limit for your
> purposes.
>
> The eye relief (and wider field) of the Expanse line is well suited
> IMO for sidewalk astronomy. The sharpness of the field edge can drop
> off quite noticeably, particularly in the longer focal lengths. This
> may be more noticeable in shorter focal length telescopes. The 9mm
> and 6mm tend to be the better eyepieces in this line; but for your
> purposes any of the Expanses would probably do well.
>
> Willie R. Meghar
|
|
