January 2003 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

testing...please delete
by David L Bennett 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

1, 10, 11

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Time for a quote
by UTAHDEB＠aol.com 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

Rich, As a said before, most people are like a bunch of chickens pecking at the ground that never bother to look up at the night sky. We are like eagles that love to fly into the distant reaches of our universe. Debbie

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Where is power needed?
by UTAHDEB＠aol.com 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

I'm not sure if it needs it. I need to come up there and get the 8" so I can sell the fork mount and buy the dovetail plate to put the OTA on my Losmandy GM-8 mount. I also need to buy a 2" visual back so I can use my 2" EverBright diagonal and Nagler eyepieces with it. I'll probably come up to Utah County after first quarter moon. The 8" hasn't seen alot of action with competition from the TV-102 refractor and the 15" Obsession. But I would like to try splitting some tight doubles with it. Clear Skies, Debbie

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Where is power needed?
by David Dunn 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

That explains a lot. I had thought that going too high in magnification would make the image blury. I have been able to use my 4.5" reflector several times at about 285X, which is greater than 60X the appeture. What I understand now is that the seeing was good enough to allow me to make Jupiter bigger but I could still only see the same detail as was in the smaller image. Has anyone used the Orion Epic ED-2 eyepieces? I tried one that Dale Hooper had last summer and it looked good. They are $69 and have 20mm eye relief and 55 degree field. The 3.7mm eyepiece would get me almost 400X on my short 10" scope. The 5.1mm would get 496X in my 10" f/10 without a barlow. -----Original Message----- From: Brent Watson [mailto:brentjwatson@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:32 AM To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Where is power needed? More like getting a magnifying glass out to look at the 1600X1200. The detail is there, you jst need to make it bigger to see. Brent --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Brent > > It's kind of like when I can't read the text on a > computer screen set to 1600X1200 I have no problem > when the resolution is set to 600X800; no additional > detail just easyer for my old eyes. > > Jim > > > Brent Watson <brentjwatson(a)yahoo.com> wrote:Jim, > > High power above the maximum can sometimes > compensate > for resolving power difficulties of a person's eye. > There will not be more detail there, but sometimes > the > high power will make it big enough to see. Also, the > seeing on vrareeare occasions will allow a "peek" at > higher resolution than you might otherwise think. > > One word of caution. High power also brings out the > defects in the eyeball. You have to be very careful > about what you see, and whether it is an artifact or > not. Please look up Hershel's use of high power, and > his reports of moon creatures. (A famous hoax) > > Brent > > --- Jim Gibson wrote: > > > > Question for Rich Tenny (or anyone else) > > > > I saw the new Televue products (41mm eyepiece etc) > > you mentioned last night at SLAS at: > > > http://www.televue.com/WSP2003/NewProdsJan2003/New_at_WSP2003.htm > > > > I don't currently have any hi-power stuff like the > > 3.5mm or the 2.5mm Nagler. I ran this little > program > > at: > http://www.csgnetwork.com/telescopemagcalc.html > > for a 12" mirror with an f7 focal length and a > 2.5mm > > eyepiece. One of the calculations states that for > > this setup the "Maximum Useful Magnification" is > > 600x; however, the 2.5mm would provide 853x. I > also > > recall from a previous conversation we had that > > someone told you in reference to the Mars > opposition > > that it could take all of the power you could > crank. > > How does all this square? Does the Maximum Useful > > Magnification mean that everything over 600x (in > > this case) will go soft? If (big if) I bought a > > 2.5mm Nagler, could I use it for anything else? I > am > > thinking that such power would only be good for > > bright planets. > > > > > > > > Jim Gibson > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up > now > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up > now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Where is power needed?
by Brent Watson 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

More like getting a magnifying glass out to look at the 1600X1200. The detail is there, you jst need to make it bigger to see. Brent --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Brent > > It's kind of like when I can't read the text on a > computer screen set to 1600X1200 I have no problem > when the resolution is set to 600X800; no additional > detail just easyer for my old eyes. > > Jim > > > Brent Watson <brentjwatson(a)yahoo.com> wrote:Jim, > > High power above the maximum can sometimes > compensate > for resolving power difficulties of a person's eye. > There will not be more detail there, but sometimes > the > high power will make it big enough to see. Also, the > seeing on vrareeare occasions will allow a "peek" at > higher resolution than you might otherwise think. > > One word of caution. High power also brings out the > defects in the eyeball. You have to be very careful > about what you see, and whether it is an artifact or > not. Please look up Hershel's use of high power, and > his reports of moon creatures. (A famous hoax) > > Brent > > --- Jim Gibson wrote: > > > > Question for Rich Tenny (or anyone else) > > > > I saw the new Televue products (41mm eyepiece etc) > > you mentioned last night at SLAS at: > > > http://www.televue.com/WSP2003/NewProdsJan2003/New_at_WSP2003.htm > > > > I dont currently have any hi-power stuff like the > > 3.5mm or the 2.5mm Nagler. I ran this little > program > > at: > http://www.csgnetwork.com/telescopemagcalc.html > > for a 12 mirror with an f7 focal length and a > 2.5mm > > eyepiece. One of the calculations states that for > > this setup the Maximum Useful Magnification is > > 600x; however, the 2.5mm would provide 853x. I > also > > recall from a previous conversation we had that > > someone told you in reference to the Mars > opposition > > that it could take all of the power you could > crank. > > How does all this square? Does the Maximum Useful > > Magnification mean that everything over 600x (in > > this case) will go soft? If (big if) I bought a > > 2.5mm Nagler, could I use it for anything else? I > am > > thinking that such power would only be good for > > bright planets. > > > > > > > > Jim Gibson > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up > now > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up > now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Please call!
by Josephine Grahn 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

Brent, Senator Ron Allen is a member of Utah Dark Skies. He decided to draft this bill and put it in. He told the Utah Dark Skies group about it. They let everyone who has signed up for their e-mail list know about it, and urged them to pass it on. For the record, there were about 15 supporters of the bill at the meeting. (Stepping onto soapbox) Before you go pointing fingers and blaming the Astronomical League for not leading a fight which no one ever asked them into, perhaps you can explain why EVERYONE, including you, on this newsgroup, utterly failed to respond to my TWO posts about this resolution. Check the archives. One post was dated Thursday January 9th and titled "IMPORTANT, Utah's Light Pollution Control Resolution". The second was made Thursday January 16th, clearly labeled "Text of Utah Light Pollution Control Resolution". You apparently just ignored them. (I've seen spam get a better reaction than my posts.) Perhaps I should have done something more, like tattoo it to your forehead, but I figured you were adults, and could make your own decisions. What more was I supposed to do for you? Go to your door, get you off your duff, and make you call? If you are not willing to sign up for the e-mail lists, then chances are pretty good that we will not take the time to track you down at the hanger and beat the information into you! Why do you expect the League to do something, when you won't be bothered to show up, make a few calls, or try to get support for the bill. The fact that Senator Hellewell could not seem to remember getting my call or the calls from the Utah Dark Skies people must be just a bit of alzheimers kicking in, because I am certain that the good man would communicate only the truth as he remembers it. (Steps down from soapbox) Sincerely, Jo At 09:14 PM 1/28/2003 -0800, you wrote: >Please excuse my hasty post. I mistakenly hit the >send button before I had a chance to proof read my >previous post. > >I understand the vote went against this bill >(resolution) by a vote of three to two. It seems to >me like this is a very important issue for those of us >living in the intermountain west, not just Utah. I am >also disturbed that the only call that Senator >Hellewell had received FOR the resolution was from >Rich, and that didn't come until this afternoon. > >Members of the Salt Lake Astronomical Society pay >membership dues to the Astronomical League. Many are >also members of the International Dark Sky >Association. I must ask the question - Where is the >support from our national organizations when critical >items such as this come up? My understanding was that >there may have been a representative from a Utah group >representing IDA at the hearing, but there was no IDA >lobbying, nor support from the national oganization >for this resolution. The Astronomical league was not >represented at all. I would surmise from Senator >Hellewell's comment that neither organization had even >made calls in support of this resolution. > >What's up here? > >Brent > >--- Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Ouch! >> >> I called Sen. Hellewell (from Orem), and he said >> I've >> been the first person to support this bill; he said >> he's had dozens of calls against it. (Businesses >> worried they can't adequately light their property >> or >> signs, etc.). >> >> Please do call and voice support today! >> Rich >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do you Yahoo!? >> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up >> now. >> http://mailplus.yahoo.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. >http://mailplus.yahoo.com > >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >

3 2

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Where is power needed?
by Chuck Hards 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

No problem. It took me 35 years to get some concepts! I may have a parallelogram for you this weekend. We can come up with something for a tripod if you strike-out completey. C. --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Chuck > > That was a good explanation. I believe that Brent > Watson explained that to me once. It seems it takes > me a couple more times to hear things than it used > to for things to gel. > > Thanks. > > > > By the way, I went to a couple of DI s looking for a > tripod. I my have to go to Salt Lake to look for > one. > > > > Jim > > > > Chuck Hards <chuckhards(a)yahoo.com> wrote:Hi Jim: > > Here's the deal: > > 50X-60X per inch of aperture is the accepted maximum > useful magnification for any telescope. > > At these powers, small details approach the > diffraction-limit for any given aperture. > > Excellent optics will allow a coherent image above > that limit, but no additional detail will be seen, > since the resolving power of the telescope has > already > been taken to it's limit. The image can get bigger, > but you won't pick up further details. > > 853X is too high for a 12", you won't see any > additional detail beyond that seen at 600X. > > Make sense? > > Chuck > > > --- Jim Gibson wrote: > > > > Question for Rich Tenny (or anyone else) > > > > I saw the new Televue products (41mm eyepiece etc) > > you mentioned last night at SLAS at: > > > http://www.televue.com/WSP2003/NewProdsJan2003/New_at_WSP2003.htm > > > > I dont currently have any hi-power stuff like the > > 3.5mm or the 2.5mm Nagler. I ran this little > program > > at: > http://www.csgnetwork.com/telescopemagcalc.html > > for a 12 mirror with an f7 focal length and a > 2.5mm > > eyepiece. One of the calculations states that for > > this setup the Maximum Useful Magnification is > > 600x; however, the 2.5mm would provide 853x. I > also > > recall from a previous conversation we had that > > someone told you in reference to the Mars > opposition > > that it could take all of the power you could > crank. > > How does all this square? Does the Maximum Useful > > Magnification mean that everything over 600x (in > > this case) will go soft? If (big if) I bought a > > 2.5mm Nagler, could I use it for anything else? I > am > > thinking that such power would only be good for > > bright planets. > > > > > > > > Jim Gibson > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up > now > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up > now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Where is power needed?
by Chuck Hards 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

Hi Jim: Here's the deal: 50X-60X per inch of aperture is the accepted maximum useful magnification for any telescope. At these powers, small details approach the diffraction-limit for any given aperture. Excellent optics will allow a coherent image above that limit, but no additional detail will be seen, since the resolving power of the telescope has already been taken to it's limit. The image can get bigger, but you won't pick up further details. 853X is too high for a 12", you won't see any additional detail beyond that seen at 600X. Make sense? Chuck --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Question for Rich Tenny (or anyone else) > > I saw the new Televue products (41mm eyepiece etc) > you mentioned last night at SLAS at: > http://www.televue.com/WSP2003/NewProdsJan2003/New_at_WSP2003.htm > > I dont currently have any hi-power stuff like the > 3.5mm or the 2.5mm Nagler. I ran this little program > at: http://www.csgnetwork.com/telescopemagcalc.html > for a 12 mirror with an f7 focal length and a 2.5mm > eyepiece. One of the calculations states that for > this setup the Maximum Useful Magnification is > 600x; however, the 2.5mm would provide 853x. I also > recall from a previous conversation we had that > someone told you in reference to the Mars opposition > that it could take all of the power you could crank. > How does all this square? Does the Maximum Useful > Magnification mean that everything over 600x (in > this case) will go soft? If (big if) I bought a > 2.5mm Nagler, could I use it for anything else? I am > thinking that such power would only be good for > bright planets. > > > > Jim Gibson > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

1 1

Kudo-Fujikawa
by David L Bennett 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

Hey, great images from LASCO at http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/ Just click on the SOHO Observes Comet link or a link from below. The quicktime & mpeg movies are fabulous. Dave --------------------------------------------------------------- Comet C/2002 X5 (Kudo-Fujikawa) is passing by the Sun and is just now visible in the SOHO/LASCO images that are available on the Web. Images and movies of the comet can be found here: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html On Jan. 29th, it will be only 0.19 AU from the Sun. 1 Astronomical Unit is the the mean distance of Earth from the Sun which is approximately 150 million km. The intense bright light from our star will make it impossible to view the close encounter from the Earth. However, SOHO is able to block the Sun's glare using onboard coronagraphs. Thus, everyone with an Internet connection can follow the comet in the SOHO while it is approaching the Sun, passing it and then moving out in space again. The comet will remain visible in the SOHO/LASCO images until ~14 UT Friday Jan 31. The comet is also now clearly visible in the C2 images beginning on January 27th at 22:23. Kudo-Fujikawa is passing inside the orbit of Mercury, the innermost planet. On Wednesday it will make its closest approach, about 17.7 million miles (28.4 million kilometers) from the Sun, before starting its swing back out through the solar system,beyond Earth. Many comets carve such highly elliptical paths on orbits that can take anywhere from a few years to a few hundred years to complete. See: http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/ for a comet orbit map.

1 0

Please call!
by Richard Tenney 29 Jan '03

29 Jan '03

Ouch! I called Sen. Hellewell (from Orem), and he said I've been the first person to support this bill; he said he's had dozens of calls against it. (Businesses worried they can't adequately light their property or signs, etc.). Please do call and voice support today! Rich __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

5 6