| |
Main
Date: 01 Sep 2007 21:19:32
From: brucegooglegroups
Subject: finding the ring nebula
|
I looked for the Ring between Sheliak and Sulafat and I believe that I
located it. It seems to be closer to Sheliak. However, I am wondering
whether I am confusing it with a star.
When I first located it, it seemed to moving-or I should say that was
a sense of motion to it- unlike the stars around it. But my eyepiece
was slightly out of focus, which could have created the "motion"
effect.
I put in a higher magnification eyepiece, and I could see two black
circles within it- one near to the edge and another dead center.With
my 10 magnification eyepiece, it seemed to drift quickly to the edge
of the eyepiece
When I looked at Vega slightly out of focus, I also got the two circle
effect, so I am wondering if I was looking at the Ring.
Comments?
Thanks.
Bruce
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 18:03:08
From: Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
On Sep 2, 9:49 pm, brucegooglegroups <brucegooglegro...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> On Sep 2, 12:37 pm, William Hamblen <wrhamb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:19:32 -0700, brucegooglegroups
>
> > <brucegooglegro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >I looked for the Ring between Sheliak and Sulafat and I believe that I
> > >located it. It seems to be closer to Sheliak. However, I am wondering
> > >whether I am confusing it with a star.
>
> > When you look carefully at the ring nebula you can tell it is not a
> > star. It is a little closer to beta than it is to gamma. To really
> > see the ring shape you want to push the magnification up to 40 x or
> > so. The ring is pretty bright and can take a lot of magnification.
>
> > Bud
>
> > --
> > The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
>
> Thanks for your replies. My scope is a 4.5 Dob. I first used 37X and
> then 90x.
> Bruce- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
37X is good to locate the Ring. With 4.5 inches of aperture, you'll
need fairly clear skies with good seeing conditions. I locate the
ring using a 35mm PanOptic eyepiece on my XT-12 -- 43X -- you'll find
you can focus the surrounding stars but the Ring will never come into
clear, sharp focus -- that's how I find it.
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 14:00:14
From: brucegooglegroups
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
On Sep 3, 4:39 pm, laura halliday <marsga...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 10:30 am, AstroSketc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 2, 7:49 pm, brucegooglegroups <brucegooglegro...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for your replies. My scope is a 4.5 Dob. I first used 37X and
> > > then 90x.
>
> > Hi Bruce,
> > Keep trying and sooner or later you'll succeed with the Ring Nebula.
> > Laura's advice concerning a decent star atlas is good (though I'm not
> > familiar with the one she recommended)...
>
> Probably because I saw "Pocket" on the cover and typed "Personal". :-)
>
> It's Sky & Telescope's new atlas, and it's very nice indeed.
> It started as an attempt to capture what makes Sky Atlas 2000
> so wonderful, but in a more portable package.
>
> Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Non sequitur. Your ACKs are
> Grid: CN89mg uncoordinated."
> ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Nomad the Network Engineer
Hi all,
Thanks for your further encouragement. I spent this year learning the
constellations , so I am ready for more deep sky. However, I am not
sure about using a Dob. It's been frustrating finding deep sky
objects- including the Ring with it.
I am wondering whether I should invest in a larger aperture scope, 8
inch. I don't think I want to go the goto route, so an equatorial
mount is a possibility. The only issue is that my northern directional
view of polaris is not the best place to have the telescope due to
street lights in that area.
Comments?
Bruce
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 20:44:36
From: Steve Paul
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
"brucegooglegroups" <brucegooglegroups@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1188853214.993067.39140@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
> Thanks for your further encouragement. I spent this year learning the
> constellations , so I am ready for more deep sky. However, I am not
> sure about using a Dob. It's been frustrating finding deep sky
> objects- including the Ring with it.
> I am wondering whether I should invest in a larger aperture scope, 8
> inch. I don't think I want to go the goto route, so an equatorial
> mount is a possibility. The only issue is that my northern directional
> view of polaris is not the best place to have the telescope due to
> street lights in that area.
>
> Comments?
> Bruce
Hi Bruce,
There's nothing inherently more difficult about finding objects in a Dob, in
fact quite the opposite. It is however a little frustrating at first no
matter what scope you have. You aren't suffering anything new. That's for
certain. :-)
I'm not sure a bigger scope is really necessary, but a low power wide field
of view is always the way to start a finding mission.
Commiserating from my not to distant past, it is especially difficult to
start out on your own without an astro-friend to at least get you looking at
something interesting . I started this journey alone, and with the exception
of a handful of times, I've done, and continue to do my observing alone
(it's my "me" time :-) ).
Of course, I then come here to share my experience(s). ;-)
Remember this, it's not the main scope that's the "problem" when it comes to
finding, it's the finder, and learning to use it well. I can enjoy seeing
any fuzzy in any scope that will show it (and 4.5" qualifies for _at least_
a couple dozen show piece DSOs).
The trick is finding them in the first place. :-)
Keep at it, and keep looking up,
Steve Paul
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 06:01:37
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
Steve Paul <smarshallpaul@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> There's nothing inherently more difficult about finding objects in a Dob, in
> fact quite the opposite. It is however a little frustrating at first no
> matter what scope you have. You aren't suffering anything new. That's for
> certain. :-)
Hi, Bruce and all.
Please let me agree with this wise statement, as a beginning telescopic
observer who's still going through the growing pains.
With a 200mm f/6 Dob, I've done fine with M24 and M25 -- but in a "dry run"
last night, or actually early this morning, had problems locating an
asterism close to NGC 253, the Silver Coin Galaxy in Sculptor, although
I found the same asterism below Beta Sculptoris quite easily using
7X50 binoculars. Local light pollution from nearby outdoor lights, which
affects me when I'm using the scope or finder, but which the walls of
my apartment observatory largely protect me against when viewing from a
lower level with the binocs, could account for some of this. My Orion
Canopy helps -- but maneuvering between scope and finder, even from a
comfortable observing chair, while keeping the canopy in place can get
rather intricate <grin >.
After a couple of hours of this, I was a bit down, but assured myself
that it was a question of finding the right strategy and having patience.
Of course, there's also the question of whether NGC 253, with the scope
accurately positioned on it, can sufficiently stand out against the
surface brightness of a light polluted sky not so far from the horizon.
However, I want to try my best -- possibly with more magnification or
my Astronomik CLS broadband filter as helpful options.
My idea wasn't necessarily to find NGC 253 with the Moon still a
factor (at third quarter), but to practice locating the right area for
the coming time around the new moon when things may be close to optimal,
or as close as they can at an urban site like mine <grin >.
> I'm not sure a bigger scope is really necessary, but a low power wide field
> of view is always the way to start a finding mission.
Please let agree! Recently I had a first light with a 2" 30mm Garrett Optical
eyepiece with an apparent field of view of 82 degrees -- or just over
2 degrees at 40X with my Dob (1200mm focal length). The wide field is
wonderful both for sweeping between objects and viewing something like
M24 (the Small Sagittarius Star Cloud) in a single field! This is a
"not-quite-Nagler" EP, and I could note a bit of what looked like field
curvature at the edges if I looked for it, but those wide views were
still beautiful, and sweeping from M25 to M24 in only about two fields
was lots of fun.
[...]
> Remember this, it's not the main scope that's the "problem" when it comes to
> finding, it's the finder, and learning to use it well. I can enjoy seeing
> any fuzzy in any scope that will show it (and 4.5" qualifies for _at least_
> a couple dozen show piece DSOs).
>
> The trick is finding them in the first place. :-)
That's pretty much a neat summary. May I add that while I'm using a scope
just a tad smaller than 8", a 4.5" scope in dark skies might reveal all
kinds of views that I might long for here in a city setting.
> Keep at it, and keep looking up,
> Steve Paul
Indeed: I hope, Steve, that your words encourage Bruce, because at
any rate they encourage me after a not-so-successful night.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 13:39:41
From: laura halliday
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
On Sep 3, 10:30 am, AstroSketc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 2, 7:49 pm, brucegooglegroups <brucegooglegro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thanks for your replies. My scope is a 4.5 Dob. I first used 37X and
> > then 90x.
>
> Hi Bruce,
> Keep trying and sooner or later you'll succeed with the Ring Nebula.
> Laura's advice concerning a decent star atlas is good (though I'm not
> familiar with the one she recommended)...
Probably because I saw "Pocket" on the cover and typed "Personal". :-)
It's Sky & Telescope's new atlas, and it's very nice indeed.
It started as an attempt to capture what makes Sky Atlas 2000
so wonderful, but in a more portable package.
Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Non sequitur. Your ACKs are
Grid: CN89mg uncoordinated."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Nomad the Network Engineer
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 10:30:40
From:
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
On Sep 2, 7:49 pm, brucegooglegroups <brucegooglegro...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>
> Thanks for your replies. My scope is a 4.5 Dob. I first used 37X and
> then 90x.
Hi Bruce,
Keep trying and sooner or later you'll succeed with the Ring Nebula.
Laura's advice concerning a decent star atlas is good (though I'm not
familiar with the one she recommended).
Along a similar line of thought:
In addition to a good atlas, good eyepieces and finders can also work
wonders when it comes to making a 'stock' telescope more useable and
more user friendly. With the right combination of eyepieces, finders
and charts (and a bit of knowledge that can be gleaned from the book
recommended below) it's possible (under a dark sky) to point a
telescope *exactly* at *any* object in the night sky. This is true
even for objects that are too faint to be seen in the primary
telescope. Good charts, finders, and eyepieces remain useful even
after one starts acquiring additional telescopes or discarding older
telescopes.
There are many wonderful astronomy books available these days. One
that stands out in my opinion is "Norton's Star Atlas and Reference
Handbook". Some of the text may be no more useful that a Greek
encyclopedia; but many valuable gems of wisdom, advice and facts that
are difficult to find between any other single set of covers can be
found in Norton's.
Regardless, keep us posted on your progress. It *is* possible for you
to see M57 with your eyes, from your sky, with your telescope! Expect
to have to use "averted vision" to see the Ring Nebula. To
experienced amateurs the Ring is considered a "bright" object; but a
less experienced observer is likely to think of it as a "faint" or
perhaps even a "very faint" object. Many perceptions in this hobby
tend to be relative.
Bill Greer
To sketch is to see.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 21:17:30
From: laura halliday
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
On Sep 2, 6:49 pm, brucegooglegroups <brucegooglegro...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> Thanks for your replies. My scope is a 4.5 Dob. I first used 37X and
> then 90x.
> Bruce
37x will show M57 easily. Just scan along the line between
beta and gamma Lyrae. It's about half way between the brightish
star closer to gamma, and beta. It really does look like a smoke
ring hanging in space, though at low power it will look more like a
small disk, in contrast to the sharp points of the stars.
Invest in a decent star atlas. Personal Sky Atlas is hard to
beat nowadays.
Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Non sequitur. Your ACKs are
Grid: CN89mg uncoordinated."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Nomad the Network Engineer
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 18:49:20
From: brucegooglegroups
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
On Sep 2, 12:37 pm, William Hamblen <wrhamb...@comcast.net > wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:19:32 -0700, brucegooglegroups
>
> <brucegooglegro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I looked for the Ring between Sheliak and Sulafat and I believe that I
> >located it. It seems to be closer to Sheliak. However, I am wondering
> >whether I am confusing it with a star.
>
> When you look carefully at the ring nebula you can tell it is not a
> star. It is a little closer to beta than it is to gamma. To really
> see the ring shape you want to push the magnification up to 40 x or
> so. The ring is pretty bright and can take a lot of magnification.
>
> Bud
>
> --
> The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
Thanks for your replies. My scope is a 4.5 Dob. I first used 37X and
then 90x.
Bruce
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 11:37:20
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:19:32 -0700, brucegooglegroups
<brucegooglegroups@hotmail.com > wrote:
>I looked for the Ring between Sheliak and Sulafat and I believe that I
>located it. It seems to be closer to Sheliak. However, I am wondering
>whether I am confusing it with a star.
When you look carefully at the ring nebula you can tell it is not a
star. It is a little closer to beta than it is to gamma. To really
see the ring shape you want to push the magnification up to 40 x or
so. The ring is pretty bright and can take a lot of magnification.
Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 09:59:08
From: Steve Paul
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
"brucegooglegroups" <brucegooglegroups@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1188706772.222857.4060@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I looked for the Ring between Sheliak and Sulafat and I believe that I
> located it.
> I put in a higher magnification eyepiece, and I could see two black
> circles within it- one near to the edge and another dead center.With
> my 10 magnification eyepiece, it seemed to drift quickly to the edge
> of the eyepiece
>
> When I looked at Vega slightly out of focus, I also got the two circle
> effect, so I am wondering if I was looking at the Ring.
>
Can you provide some details about the scope?
(aperture, focal ratio, refractor/reflector/catadioptric (or brand and model
if you don't know those))
The two circle effect is somewhat concerning as it regards your optics.
The drift is normal as the sky is moving. At higher powers, it appears to
move faster because the field of view in the eyepiece is smaller.
Astronomical eyepieces are generally not measured as "10 magnification", but
rather by there focal length, like 10 millimeter (mm).
-Steve
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 23:16:11
From:
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
On Sep 1, 10:19 pm, brucegooglegroups <brucegooglegro...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>
> When I first located it, it seemed to moving-or I should say that was
> a sense of motion to it- unlike the stars around it. But my eyepiece
> was slightly out of focus, which could have created the "motion"
> effect.
Hi Bruce,
>From your description it sounds like you may have been seeing a bright
star's reflection off one or more of the lenses in the eyepiece. Such
reflections often appear to move at a different rate than the stars
that share the same field. A *real* nebula would appear to move
*with* the background stars -- in the same direction, and at the same
speed. Eyepieces with "fully-multicoated" optics tend to be less
prone to such reflections.
The Ring Nebula looks very much like a small, ghostly, slightly
elongated ring of smoke. It will look best when viewed using averted
vision. With direct vision (depending on your telescope, dark
adaptation, and light pollution situation) the ring's glow might be
too dim to notice.
The deepsky page of my website (linked below) shows a couple sketches
of the Ring Nebula; but the ring's brightness has been greatly
exagerrated. The lower powered view is likely to be closer to what
you might expect to see.
Bill Greer
To sketch is to see.
http://cejour.blogspot.com/
http://www.rangeweb.net/~sketcher/deepsky.html
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 04:34:00
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: finding the ring nebula
|
brucegooglegroups wrote:
> I looked for the Ring between Sheliak and Sulafat and I believe that I
> located it. It seems to be closer to Sheliak. However, I am wondering
> whether I am confusing it with a star.
>
> When I first located it, it seemed to moving-or I should say that was
> a sense of motion to it- unlike the stars around it. But my eyepiece
> was slightly out of focus, which could have created the "motion"
> effect.
>
> I put in a higher magnification eyepiece, and I could see two black
> circles within it- one near to the edge and another dead center.With
> my 10 magnification eyepiece, it seemed to drift quickly to the edge
> of the eyepiece
>
> When I looked at Vega slightly out of focus, I also got the two circle
> effect, so I am wondering if I was looking at the Ring.
>
> Comments?
> Thanks.
> Bruce
>
You won't confuse M57 with a star!
Look at the many on-line images (most of which are time exposures, but
the are some fairly representative of what one sees in the eyepiece.
http://images.google.com/images?q=M57
|
|
