Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN?
Joe, I clearly see a spot in the spiral arm where it was discovered. You got it! I guess it teaches us to be more observant with our photos. I'm taking my 4" refractor out tonight. It would be interesting to see if I can see it in a 4" scope. Keep up those astrophotos, Debbie
From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> Date: 2005/07/06 Wed PM 03:33:35 MDT To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN?
Joe, on both of your photos there does seem to be a bright object at the location of the supernova, to my eye at least.
C.
--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
I'm resending this because, as pointed out, the previous heading sounded like one of those Internet scams.
____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Well, if I got it, it is BEFORE the official discovery photo -- so I wish I had studied it more carefully, so I could have claimed discovery! IF I did get it, I think I know how I happened to get one quite a bit earlier than others. It could be a SN that is visible for quite a few days. I was so eager to try for a galaxy photo that I went out on a night when the moon was in a very bad phase for astronomy -- it was pretty close to full. So I waited until something like 3 a.m., when the moon set, before I could get some pictures. I took a slew of M51 views. Then, again assuming that it really is the SN, nobody else was photographing M51 during the full moon stage and for a while afterward. Then came the discovery view. Anyway, that's a theory. I may submit the photo to the web site that shows the SN. Thanks, Joe On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 astrodeb@charter.net wrote:
Joe,
I clearly see a spot in the spiral arm where it was discovered. You got it! I guess it teaches us to be more observant with our photos. I'm taking my 4" refractor out tonight. It would be interesting to see if I can see it in a 4" scope.
Keep up those astrophotos,
Debbie
From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> Date: 2005/07/06 Wed PM 03:33:35 MDT To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN?
Joe, on both of your photos there does seem to be a bright object at the location of the supernova, to my eye at least.
C.
--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
I'm resending this because, as pointed out, the previous heading sounded like one of those Internet scams.
____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe: I haven't looked at your photo, but if you think it shows the SN, then by all means, you should send it to the appropriate clearing house for such discoveries. Sorry, I can't say who that would be, but maybe Patrick could help. Your photo may be more important than the "discovery" photo. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <bau@desnews.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 3:58 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN? | Well, if I got it, it is BEFORE the official discovery photo -- so I wish | I had studied it more carefully, so I could have claimed discovery! IF I | did get it, I think I know how I happened to get one quite a bit earlier | than others. It could be a SN that is visible for quite a few days. I was | so eager to try for a galaxy photo that I went out on a night when the | moon was in a very bad phase for astronomy -- it was pretty close to | full. So I waited until something like 3 a.m., when the moon set, before I | could get some pictures. I took a slew of M51 views. Then, again assuming | that it really is the SN, nobody else was photographing M51 during the | full moon stage and for a while afterward. Then came the discovery view. | Anyway, that's a theory. I may submit the photo to the web site that shows | the SN. Thanks, Joe | | On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 astrodeb@charter.net wrote: | | > Joe, | > | > I clearly see a spot in the spiral arm where it was discovered. You got it! I guess it teaches us to be more observant with our photos. I'm taking my 4" refractor out tonight. It would be interesting to see if I can see it in a 4" scope. | > | > Keep up those astrophotos, | > | > Debbie | > > | > > From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> | > > Date: 2005/07/06 Wed PM 03:33:35 MDT | > > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> | > > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN? | > > | > > Joe, on both of your photos there does seem to be a | > > bright object at the location of the supernova, to my | > > eye at least. | > > | > > C. | > > | > > --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote: | > > | > > > I'm resending this because, as pointed out, the | > > > previous heading sounded | > > > like one of those Internet scams. | > > | > > | > > | > > ____________________________________________________ | > > Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - no fees. Bid on great items. | > > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ | > > | > > _______________________________________________ | > > Utah-Astronomy mailing list | > > Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | > > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | > > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Utah-Astronomy mailing list | > Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | > | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Early discoveries are important so spectra can be taken as soon as possible. But Joe should submit it anyway, there are several prediscovery shots already posted on more than one site. It may help establish a timeline, and it will get Joe's name out there. C. --- Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Joe: I haven't looked at your photo, but if you think it shows the SN, then by all means, you should send it to the appropriate clearing house for such discoveries. Sorry, I can't say who that would be, but maybe Patrick could help. Your photo may be more important than the "discovery" photo.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Joe, I copied your images and several of the comparison images and made a negative of the images with the white background so I could compare them in Paint Shop Pro (I know Kim will laugh at this, but it's a great tool and I use it professionally). I zoomed in and rotated the images to match, but I didn't notice any brightness where the supernova is located. I also split the images into RGB images and compared those, but found no significant brightness increase in any of the images. There is a brighter cloud region just above where the SN is located that you do have, but I personally don't see any indication of the SN in your very nice photos. Ken -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+killerken=killerken.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+killerken=killerken.com@mailman.xmission. com] On Behalf Of Kim Hyatt Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 4:23 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN? Joe: I haven't looked at your photo, but if you think it shows the SN, then by all means, you should send it to the appropriate clearing house for such discoveries. Sorry, I can't say who that would be, but maybe Patrick could help. Your photo may be more important than the "discovery" photo. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <bau@desnews.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 3:58 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN? | Well, if I got it, it is BEFORE the official discovery photo -- so I | wish I had studied it more carefully, so I could have claimed | discovery! IF I did get it, I think I know how I happened to get one | quite a bit earlier than others. It could be a SN that is visible for | quite a few days. I was so eager to try for a galaxy photo that I went | out on a night when the moon was in a very bad phase for astronomy -- | it was pretty close to full. So I waited until something like 3 a.m., | when the moon set, before I could get some pictures. I took a slew of | M51 views. Then, again assuming that it really is the SN, nobody else | was photographing M51 during the full moon stage and for a while | afterward. Then came the discovery view. Anyway, that's a theory. I | may submit the photo to the web site that shows the SN. Thanks, Joe | | On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 astrodeb@charter.net wrote: | | > Joe, | > | > I clearly see a spot in the spiral arm where it was discovered. You | > got it! I guess it teaches us to be more observant with our photos. I'm taking my 4" refractor out tonight. It would be interesting to see if I can see it in a 4" scope. | > | > Keep up those astrophotos, | > | > Debbie | > > | > > From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> | > > Date: 2005/07/06 Wed PM 03:33:35 MDT | > > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> | > > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN? | > > | > > Joe, on both of your photos there does seem to be a bright object | > > at the location of the supernova, to my eye at least. | > > | > > C. | > > | > > --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote: | > > | > > > I'm resending this because, as pointed out, the previous heading | > > > sounded like one of those Internet scams. | > > | > > | > > | > > ____________________________________________________ | > > Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - no fees. Bid on great items. | > > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ | > > | > > _______________________________________________ | > > Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | > > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | > > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | > | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | | _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I'm not laughing, Ken. I have had to learn Photoshop for professional reasons, and now that I'm using my digital camera almost exclusively, I use it for fun, as well. On occasion, though, I still miss film. I also miss drawing by hand instead of CAD, too. Ken wrote: | Joe, | I copied your images and several of the comparison images and made a | negative of the images with the white background so I could compare them | in | Paint Shop Pro (I know Kim will laugh at this, but it's a great tool and | I use it professionally).
Ah, Maybe that's it -- a star cloud that is both in mine and anyone else's -- well, anyway, it's an interesting exercise. I thought that in some of my pics the blob is brighter relative to the adjacent blob than in other views I took, but it's very possible I can't distinguish that with varying exposure times ... Thanks so much. -- Joe
--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Ah, Maybe that's it -- a star cloud that is both in mine and anyone else's -- well, anyway, it's an interesting exercise.
SN in other galaxies are fascinating. Max zooming in your image - http://www.utahastronomy.com/Joeb/m51color and looking at the arms of M51 in detail, there are pixel points-of-light in each arm. Comparing those pixel points-of-light to detailed Hubble image - http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040905.html - amazingly, each one of those pixel light points probably represents an entire open cluster of several hundred OB type stars similar to the Orion Nebula. Makes you ponder just how powerful a supernova is when you compare your image to the relative brightness of sn2005cs at its brightest - http://astron.berkeley.edu/~bait/2005/sn2005-m51.gif (brightest) Glad that SN is over there in M51 (and in the past) and not over here. Pretty cosmic. Enjoy - Canopus56 (Kurt) P.S. To max zoom in on Joe's image, you'll have to right click on the picture and save it your desktop. Use a desktop paint or image utility to view and zoom. The current light curve (v14.3 and dropping) for sn2005cs is at - http://www.astrosurf.com/snweb2/2005/05cs/05csCurv.htm __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Canopus56 wrote:
The current light curve (v14.3 and dropping) for sn2005cs is at -
Due to my ignorance of the finer points (and even the not-so-fine points) of light curves, I can't make heads or tails of this diagram. What do the various dots represent, and what should the graph, overall, be telling me? Thanks, Chris
Chris asked -
What do the various dots represent, and what should
the graph, overall, be telling me? [ http://www.astrosurf.com/snweb2/2005/05cs/05csCurv.htm ]
The dots tell you the brightness in magnitudes of one star - supernova sn2005cs in M51 - seen through a clear eyepiece and through various colored filters. The significance of the curve is you can use it, and similar curves for other supernova or for variable stars, to make a rough guess of whether it is worth it to try to look for the variable star using the aperature and light gathering power of your scope. The "x" axis is in Julian Days. Use the AAVSO Julian Day Calendar for 2005 and calculator as a decoder ring to convert to standard calendar dates. Day 3560 is July 8. To find a particular day, go to the left from 3560, counting backwards. http://www.aavso.org/observing/aids/jdcalendar.shtml http://www.aavso.org/observing/aids/jd2005.pdf The "y" axis is brightness of star in magnitudes as seen unfiltered and through various standard filters. The color codes for the filters are at the bottom of the graph are at the bottom. Here is a decoder ring for the various codes: Filter Photometry type VSNET Code None "R" USNO CR None "V" Uncalibrated C R "R" USNO R R "R" Calibrated Rc B "B" Calibrated B V "V" Calibrated V I "I" Calibrated Ic Looking at just the clear circles - the unfiltered "V" magnitude points, at the left hand side of the graph the supernova is observed at mag 16 on Julian Day 3548 (June 26). Two days later on June 28 (Julian Day 3550), it has brightened to mag 13.4. By Julian Day 3558 (July 6), the supernova has passed its peak and has dimmed to mag 14.4. Although 14.4 is pretty dim, in a related thread on this listserve, titled "M-51 SN picture" and posted today by Patrick, he was able to capture the supernova on a photograph on July 7 (Julian Day 3559) using a camera and 14 inches of aperature. The supernova is much dimmer than a 13.9 reference star to the left of galaxy (in Patrick's picture). Patrick's picture << http://www.trilobyte.net/paw/temp/M51SN001.JPG >> The other color filters are used to measure the brightness of the star through standard passbands of light. By tracing the curves for each set of colored dots, you can see that the supernova was brighter in the red and infrared bands than in the more energetic blue light band. The differences between the bands and the time-shape of the curve is used by professional astronomers to determine the type of supernova. For amateurs, primary use of the light curve is to decide if the variable star (a supernova in this instance) is too dim to bother with using your available aperature. Enjoy - Canopus56 (Kurt) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Thank you for the great information. Do you think I might be able to photograph it tonight with my 12"? Best wishes, Joe
--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Thank you for the great information. Do you think I might be able to photograph it tonight with my 12"?
I don't know for sure, maybe someelse in this listserv can jump in. For the visual (not photographic) limit, by playing with a Schaefer limiting magnitude calculator (assuming we're treating this as a point object and not an extended object), it looks like the stellar magnitude limit in a mag 5.5 sky for a 12" SCT is around 14.1-14.3 at 100x. In a 6.0 sky, it drops down to around 14.4-14.5 at 100x. Patrick's 14" reaches a little lower to mag 14.8. See Schaefer limiting magnitude calculator at: http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/astro/maglimit.html Photographically, you get more light grasp as compared to the human eye. (Up to 1 or 2 mags more.) I do not have the equation for photographic limiting magnitude in front of me. If you have a copy of Covington's _Astrophotography_ handy, there is a table in the back and an equation. I'd have to look it up and post later. My speculative guess is - no - the sn will have dimmed more as compared to Patrick's picture on Wednesday night - and it is at the (visual) limit for 12" of SCT aperature. - Enjoy Canopus56 (Kurt) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[I posted this yesterday but it somehow never made it to the list; apologies if you however get this twice.] Saw the new movie Wed. night; very much enjoyed it, and the feel stays close to the (50's? 60's?) classic, with one big storyline variation that I thought was somewhat inconsistent/flawed (but I'll not spoil it for you; contact me off-list if you want to know/discuss that). The look is of course state of the art -- CGI effects that sometimes make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. Very intense. Decent acting job by Cruise and especially Dakota (she's an amazing small person). Kudos (again) to Spielberg. Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Please, no-one discuss this movie yet- I'm not planning to see it for a few weeks. If you do, drop me a note first and tell me, and I'll delete any postings with this subject line- or stick them in a folder for reading after I've seen it. I have misgivings. I've never enjoyed a Cruise performance to date, don't think much of his views as expressed in public, so he's not really a draw for me. Too, Rich's is the only overall good review I've heard yet- most go something like "excellent special effects, but that's about all it has going for it". The story's premise of the alien's strategy seems farfetched. But I guess I'll find out for myself soon enough. Thanks, Rich! C. --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
[I posted this yesterday but it somehow never made it to the list; apologies if you however get this twice.]
Saw the new movie Wed. night; very much enjoyed it, and the feel stays close to the (50's? 60's?) classic, with one big storyline variation that I thought was somewhat inconsistent/flawed (but I'll not spoil it for you; contact me off-list if you want to know/discuss that).
The look is of course state of the art -- CGI effects that sometimes make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. Very intense. Decent acting job by Cruise and especially Dakota (she's an amazing small person).
Kudos (again) to Spielberg.
Rich
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I saw this with one of my best girlfriends today, we decided to have a girls afternoon out and play hooky from our jobs as moms and business owners. My friend liked it a bit more than I did, though she did think it kind of dragged on a bit in the set of scenes with Tim Robbins (not Robbins fault). The special effects were great and all, and hey - I love explosions in films, but the premise of the aliens strategy just didn't really work completely for me, the only way I could think to reconcile the whole thing was to think that maybe they needed a certain volume of humans to be around and they were waiting until that volume was reached before they attacked. If they just wanted the planet they could have easily gotten that thousands of years ago with much less resource output on their part. I found the alien attack premise/reasons behind the unofficial remakes of Independence Day, Mars Attacks and even the cheesy original War of the Worlds movie more plausible. I don't remember the alien machines already being here under the ground in the original film, I thought they came down in the "meteors." I recall reading the HG Wells story as a teen but honestly I can't remember enough details to compare it to either "official" films. The effects are spectacular for sure and the film generally moves at a pretty good clip, but as for Tom Cruise, in some parts he was believable as the blue collar father, in other parts he was just too staged and melodramatic in my opinion. And while I understand the little girl seemed to have a panic disorder, I really could have done with a bit less screaming from her. It just got old and really annoying and for me, detracted from the rest of the film. I do really like the incorporated idea that bacteria and other microscopic lifeforms that have become benign for us on this planet could be deadly to any extraterrestrial lifeforms. I've seen the reverse mentioned in plans for theoretical missions to other planets of course for years and even the movie's premise of defeat used in other films, but I like it because it is simple and it seems plausible. It's more plausible than the premise behind SIGNS - that aliens who can't tolerate water would come try to conquer a planet that is mostly water. Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote: I have misgivings. I've never enjoyed a Cruise performance to date, don't think much of his views as expressed in public, so he's not really a draw for me. Too, Rich's is the only overall good review I've heard yet- most go something like "excellent special effects, but that's about all it has going for it". The story's premise of the alien's strategy seems farfetched. But I guess I'll find out for myself soon enough. Thanks, Rich! C. --- Richard Tenney wrote:
[I posted this yesterday but it somehow never made it to the list; apologies if you however get this twice.]
Saw the new movie Wed. night; very much enjoyed it, and the feel stays close to the (50's? 60's?) classic, with one big storyline variation that I thought was somewhat inconsistent/flawed (but I'll not spoil it for you; contact me off-list if you want to know/discuss that).
The look is of course state of the art -- CGI effects that sometimes make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. Very intense. Decent acting job by Cruise and especially Dakota (she's an amazing small person).
Kudos (again) to Spielberg.
Rich
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hey! Cheesy! Whaat? I love the orginal WOTW. I think the story line was better in that version than the latest, though I too loved the special effects in the new one. Also, I thought Tom C. wasn't all that bad. But back to the plot: in the original, you are (mis)led into thinking it's a typical SF movie where the hero finds a way to save the world. Everything revolves around the scientists' efforts to analyze the Martians' weakness, obtaining the TV-eye, etc. Then when the mob wrecks their truck, it's just devastating -- assuming you hadn't read Wells' book, you start wondering how they could possibly pull it off before the movie ends. And they don't! Then Wells' twist takes over you have a satisfactory ending. I enjoy the way the old version plays with your expectations. -- Thanks, Joe
Hi friends, Tthree photos I took Saturday morning in the San Rafael Swell are posted on the gallery (address below). They are M51 with the supernova showing -- you can see it even in the thumbnail, when you compare it with the earlier views I posted; a small part of M8, and M27. Best wishes, Joe
Joe, I agree, the old version was a masterpiece (if a bit on the short side), a terrific adaptation. Even the special effects still look good to me, half a century later. I can't stand it when Hollywood remakes a classic masterpiece, simply because they smell money. Remakes don't get me to rush out to the theater- I'll wait on this one- might take a theatrical pass completely, catch it on video this winter. My girls don't seem too interested in it so it's not likely to get to the top of the list anytime soon. If anyone is interested in a fantastic musical adaptation of WOW, get "Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of the War of the Worlds", on the Columbia label. It is faithful to Wells' original, and is narrated by Richard Burton (yep, the same) who plays the part of the journalist. Justin Hayward of the Moody Blues lends his magnificent, 'hope for humanity' voice to the production. On 2 CD's (I have the original release on vinyl, as well). Some fantastic artwork was produced and released with it, by artist Geoff Taylor. Now, it does have a disco beat since it was made in the '70's, but don't condemn it for that. The artists actually pull off the whole thing and it is very well-done. Terrific eyepiece music, especially during Mars oppositions. C. --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Hey! Cheesy! Whaat? I love the orginal WOTW. I think the story line was better in that version than the latest
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi Chuck, That musical version sounds really cool. Where can we find it? Thanks, Joe
Hi Joe, I got my vinyl copy from the Cosmic Aeroplane in 1979, my CD copy came from Amazon.com just a few years ago. C. --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Hi Chuck, That musical version sounds really cool. Where can we find it? Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Great, when I get back from Florida I'll check with Amazon. There's another CD I want so maybe I can find them both there. -- Joe
Morning Joe, Joe Bauman wrote:
Thank you for the great information. Do you think I might be able to photograph it tonight with my 12"? Best wishes, Joe
As your post came on the heels of Kurt's post about the nova in Sagittarius I'm not sure if you're talking about that or the supernova in M-51. However provided you can put the object on your CCD chip the combination of your scope and CCD should easily image the nova and the supernova. My scope isn't that much bigger than yours and I was able to pick up the mag. 14 SN in less than a minute. Of course all of that is assuming you intend to image it with CCD. Using film is a whole 'nother thing. No problem filming the nova but the supernova will take a loooong exposure. A bigger problem with the nova is its location. Even when on the meridian (about 00:40) it's still only about 18 degrees above the horizon as seen from here in N. Utah. Patrick
--- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
As your post came on the heels of Kurt's post about the nova in Sagittarius I'm not sure if you're talking about that or the supernova in M-51.
We're still talking M-51 and sn2005cs. For Joe - Using a common sense approach, and comparing your photo - http://www.utahastronomy.com/Joeb/m51color with http://www.astrosurf.com/snweb2/2005/05cs/05csHome.htm there is a common reference star in both photos with a V-band magnitude of 13.7. Looking at your photo, it seems there are stars going down to 14.5 (or dimmer), so its looks like sn2005cs would be within the reach of your scope and CCD setup. Spend a some time with your planetarium program and identify the dimmer stars in your photograph. That will give you a good feel for the photographic limiting magnitude of your specific telescope and camera combination. Joe, one of the variables, as Patrick pointed out, is the increased atmospheric extinction because M51 is now lower on the horizon. Your initial photo was taken in June. Other variables include that the sn is now fainter and its is inside a spiral arm of M51 that has its own surface brightness.
From the light curve of the sn, it is brighter in the IR and R (red) bands then in the V (visual) and B (blue) bands. So, if you use an IR blocking filter with your CCD, you might want to try taking it off for an exposure or two.
Let us know what you capture. - Enjoy Canopus56(Kurt) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
A bigger problem with the nova is its location. Even when on the meridian (about 00:40) it's still only about 18 degrees above the horizon as seen from
here in N. Utah.
Now we're talking nova AAVSO 1811-30N Sgr 05#2. For normal amateur apetures, mag 8.5 at 18 deg altitude and the meridian is do-able at a darker sky site like the gravel pit or a true dark sky site like the Uintas. Using outrageous aperatures, like the Big Scope with an LPR filter, a couple of weeks ago at the SPOC suburban sky site, Mark was able to bring up M22, a few degrees north of gam Sgr, in amazing detail and limiting magnitude well past v8.5. - Enjoy - Canopus56 (Kurt) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Canopus56 wrote:
The dots tell you the brightness in magnitudes of one star - supernova sn2005cs in M51 - seen through a clear eyepiece and through various colored filters. [ lots of other interesting info ]
Many thanks for that detailed explanation. :-) Chris
Good work, Ken. "Close" just doesn't count. Thirty years ago you would have used a blink comparator instead of a computer! C. --- Ken Warner <KillerKen@killerken.com> wrote:
Joe, I copied your images and several of the comparison images and made a negative of the images with the white background so I could compare them in Paint Shop Pro
____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Aloha Joe Comparing the 'Discovery photo' by Kloehr to your earlier photo. Joe ............... you got it !! I am glad to say "I knew him when ........" ;^). Yokwe yuk Rob
participants (11)
-
astrodeb＠charter.net -
Canopus56 -
Chuck Hards -
cpclark＠xmission.com -
Joe Bauman -
Ken Warner -
Kim Hyatt -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney -
Rob Ratkowski -
South Jordan Mom