[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

BOUNCE RESEND Re: (IAAC) Object: M45, Instrument: 16"



Hi, CJ. GREAT first post! I also liked your comments on the 'discussion'
list. I have only found a few occasions myself where the DS filter really
helps much: still every once in a while, it CAN be handy. With most
planetaries though,  such as M76, the narrow band filters (like the OIII,
UHC, or the Orion Narrowbands) REALLY help: do you have access to any of
these to try?
BTW, unfortunately, I was the only one who got to read either message yet!
The messages to both 'netastrocatalog' and 'netastrocatalog-announce' got
bounced! The reason is that you were sending them from the domain
"SpectraX.Net", while the domain name you subscribed under was
"Spectra.Net" (without the "X"!).
I'll make sure these two submissions get through, but for future
submissions, which domain name will you be using to post - and can I just
make sure you're subscribed to that one? Let me know, and clear skies!
Lew Gramer
owner-netastrocatalog@latrade.com
At 03:15 PM 9/9/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 15:15:09 -0400
>From: Clif Ramsey <CjRamsey@SpectraX.Net>
>To: netastrocatalog-announce@latrade.com
>Subject: Re: (IAAC) Object: M45, Instrument: 16" Newtonian f/4.59
>
>Last evening (9/8 EDT) was nice here, I was trying to find
>the GRS, but didn't. What I did do was search M76 again
>since I found it very hard to locate (view) the first time.
>  Tonight it was very evident, looked as good in the scope
>as my gif picture. I'm starting to slow down and learn more
>as I go now - so tried a couple EPs AND the DeepSky filter,
>taking Todd's advice and using a higher power with no
>significant loss of brightness.
>  Honestly - I think the view and available detail were
>better without the filter. With averted vision the nebula
>was definately brighter without the filter. 
>  Conclusion: As a beginner I'm learning what good seeing
>really means, it's not always what's naked-eye clear. I was
>surprised that more (larger area) of the nebula was not
>visible with the filter, believing that the weaker limbs
>would be more pronunced, but they were not. I agree with
>Todd that the filter is of limited use under less than
>desired conditions. Perhaps I should right this up and make
>it my first post ?
>
>Lew Gramer wrote:
>> 
>> At 05:12 PM 9/8/97 -0400, Todd wrote:
>> >>Hi Todd:
>> >>Darker skies should help in seeing the nebulousity surrounding M-45. I
>> >>have seen it in my old 6.8" f/14 AP refractor under very dark skies
>> >>(est. limiting mag. 6), and it was easy in my 20" Obsession both with
>> >>and without a filter under reasonably dark skies (est. limiting mag.
>> >>5.3).
>> >
>> >filterless?
>> 
>> I rarely find that the DeepSky (or other broadband) filter helps with
>> reflection nebulae or galaxies (continuous-spectrum objects). There are
>> certain conditions (like a hazy night under a VERY dark sky, or a very
>> transparent night under a very light-polluted sky) where paradoxically the
>> DS WILL make a difference, though. Have others had the same experience?
>> 
>> Anyway, the observing sessions I cited where the Merope nebulosity was
>> visible were all WITHOUT the use of any filter... Not that a DeepSky
>> mightn't have improved the view those nights even more: I just didn't
>> happen to think of trying it out at the time!
>> 
>> Lew
>
>-- 
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>* * * Anti-Spam address: REMOVE "X" to reply * * *
>
>The Ramsey Reports & Observatory at -
><http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/5367>
>
>