Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

chiltonstar

Members
  • Posts

    2,901
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by chiltonstar

  1. A good start - doubles are fun to image because you don't need perfect viewing conditions, which some of us in NW Europe don't seem to get very often anyway.

    I always struggle when trying to reproduce the subtle colour differences that the eye sees - these seem to work better I find with a small frac as the Airy discs are larger and fainter, and don't burn out so easily as with more aperture. Emphasising the colour contrast with PhotoShop helps!

    Chris

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, John said:

    Well done Chris :icon_biggrin:

    I managed to get the split again with my 100mm refractor at 225x and 257x earlier this week as mentioned here:

    As I said in that post, I've found that Antares from the UK, at it's low altitude can present a slightly misleading appearance due, I think, to atmospheric disperson. This "dual colour" primary star presentation can mask the real secondary which I think is more or less due west of the primary and actually appears quite faint.

    I'm sure you got the "real deal" though, with your experience, scope and observing conditions :icon_biggrin:

     

    Yes, there is always an atmospheric dispersion artefact, usually E or SE of the primary, but this is blurred and doesn't focus to a point, whereas the secondary is nearly due W and does. On previous occasions, I've used my ADC which has cleaned up the primary a lot and removed the artefact, although I didn't last night as I had such a brief observing window because of A's location.

    Chis

    • Like 2
  3. Exceptional seeing here (Oxford area) last night with Antares visibly twinkling less than usual, so I had my first serious try to split it this year. The secondary emerged from the glare of the primary for about ten percent of the time (180 Mak), appearing as a dot in the halo of the primary. Best mag was about x180, and the view was slightly better with a neutral density filter which reduced the halo a bit. I've seen it better once or twice in previous years, but it was at least a split. Maybe the Moon helped, as it sometimes does when splitting a difficult double such as Sirius.

    When Antares disappeared behind a roof, I looked at some of the more challenging doubles in Cygnus; both Lambda and Delta Cyg were split fairly easily, with nearby Epsilon Lyrae taking mag up to about x400, showing a stable Airy disk and diffraction pattern.

    Chris

     

    • Like 5
  4. 1 hour ago, Nik271 said:

    I tried with my 127 SW Mak at about 11pm. Sadly the air that low was very turbulent, Antares was sparkling in all colours of the rainbow.

    I checked  Izar and the Double Double and got superb clear views even at 250x, so the seeing higher up was good. I think Antares requires a vacation in middle East or thereabouts. Some dry desert air and no light pollution. We can dream :)

    I've managed it a couple of times in the past from near Oxford Nik, but not so far this year. It needs one of those very exceptional evenings. But maybe a holiday somewhere S of 30 degrees N is a better idea than waiting.....

    Chris

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  5. I watched it here as it rose above a tree - quite spectacular. When there was a clear patch of sky, it was so bright I could read the lettering on the front of my latest copy of AN, and interestingly, a field of yellow buttercups in front of my house did look slightly yellow. I took a quick pic with my phone at the eyepiece using my grab 'n go ED80. Sorry for the naff quality:-

    Chris

     

    moon.jpg

    • Like 2
  6. John - I wonder, did the solution above solve your problem? I too have slight movement on the azimuth axis, which isn't removed by adjusting the worm against the gear wheel - my assumption is that this is due to the gear itself moving slightly on the shaft. Clearly, I need to carry out a complete stripdown (there's a post from BomberBaz with details I believe).

    Chris

  7. 21 hours ago, John said:

    There are a couple of interesting dark patches in the ejecta from Copernicus. Copernicus H lies in the centre of one of them. It looked like a tiny bright edged pit surrounded by a darker halo of material last night. Not sure what the other one is called. I've arrowed them on this image by Andre van den Hoeven. They both stood out well under last nights illumination. At one point they were thought to be of volcanic origin but Lunar Orbiter images have showed that at least H is definitely of impact origin:

    copernicus_highres_12032014_cropped.jpg.c8d3fb2fc10d52f99e6d29080e146997.jpg

     

     

     

     

     

    The dark areas are interesting - in my image below you can see others as well, although I can't see these visually. I have always assumed (but I know very little about the subject) that they are caused by fine dust settling on a darker substrate, and that an impact removes the dust immediately round the pit.

    Chris

     

    copernicus2a.jpg

    • Like 1
  8. Clavius last night with a 180 Mak. Good seeing generally, but with some heat plume effects from a neighbours house. 1000 out of 5000 frames, processed in AS, PS and Topaz AI. More craterlet detail than will be reproduced I imagine.

    Chris

    23_51_56_g3_ap9a-x2b.jpg

    • Like 5
  9. 21 hours ago, John said:

    I've tried a couple of times with my 12 inch scope but with no joy at all so far :dontknow:

    There is no harm in trying though :smiley:

    Indeed not - always an interesting challenge, even for those of us with small scopes which are not capable of splitting the pair!

    I noticed last night that Procyon was barely twinkling, so I got my 180 Mak out and had a look to see what it actually looked like. The seeing was excellent++, so there was a stable diffraction pattern visible even at x450, with 5 rings or so as though some celestial arachnid had been at work . As the scope cooled, there were three radial bright zones which gave artefacts on the outer diff rings which looked like secondaries and could have been mistaken for them except for the fact there were three of them and they were symmetrical at 120 degrees. These disappeared after 10 minutes leaving just one bright spot at ca. PA 270 degrees which clearly wasn't Procyon B as the PA was wrong, but presumably caused by a smear on the optics or whatever. I can see how folk with small scopes often report having seen Procyon B even when it isn't technically possible.

    Chris

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.