Barnards Loop

[jetstream]

Just a short report - I just captured Barnards Loop in the SW120ED/LVW42/UHC and the stock SW diag. Earlier attempts failed, the EP is the difference, come to think of it I used the prism before... the 90mm APO so far has failed to show it too, more obs required. Months of trying and finally success

[FenlandPaul]

Wow, that's an impressive bag, Gerry.  What do you suppose was different about you skies this time round that made it visible?

I can't imagine anyone in the UK, certainly the southern half, being able to capture Barnard's Loop other than on a chip.  Although we often have a lot of red glow around!!

Paul

[YKSE]

Great work Gerry, it shows sky's condition and dedication trump everything, and right tools for right targets helps too

[Stu]

Great stuff Gerry. How did it appear in the eyepiece, very subtle I guess? I presume you had to grab an edge as it were to pick it up to make sure you weren't looking through it?

[Piero]

Wow! I didn't even know it was possible in visual! Great achievement! Clear sky over here now! Time and weather permitting I'll be out tonight!

 

[FenlandPaul]

54 minutes ago, Piero said:

Wow! I didn't even know it was possible in visual! Great achievement! Clear sky over here now! Time and weather permitting I'll be out tonight!

 

Looking a bit ugly for later, unfortunately, Piero!

[ollypenrice]

I've read that parts of it were recorded visually before photography. Which parts were you able to spot? Must give this a go. Photographically the brightest part is probably just NE of M78.

Olly

[jetstream]

Good morning everyone!

Well, the report is short the story is long I have an interest in faint objects obviously and try many things each session. After reading Reiner Vogels great work on dark adaptation (thanks for the link YKSE) and visiting his site I noticed he had a great set of Sharpless maps, with some notes in there. The maps are overlayed with areas that can be seen, with indications of the most visible- this is a huge help.

Olly you are right- the area to try first is as you say and the map indicates this as well.

So...

I joined deepsky forum a while back and found the reports of great value there, whats possible with what etc. Some threads there indicate why I'm having a hard time with the Cone nebula

Anyway, I figured I needed an EP in the exit pupil strike zone, with a huge TFOV- enter the Vixen LVW42mm. The 32mm TV plossl did not work. I tried with the 90mm F7 Raptor and the Baader prism diag using the 42mm- nothing-even on a HH night with the reflector.SW120ED/prism diag-nothing. Last night was 21.6 mag and great trans and the scope was cooled and the cell not pinched in the -20c.

When I spotted something my reaction was NO THIS CAN'T BE! I'm seeing something else! its on the wrong side and curved the wrong way..... Back into the house, printed off the map and remembered if you view the map from behind, through a light the image will be correct- and it was!! Back out for another hour after ruining my eyes with the map and obs it repeatedly.

Using M78 as a reference, a large, huge curved shadow could be seen, curving up to the left (frac/diag orientation)? I could follow it for a bit and my FOV could bridge the Loop. A larger TFOV is needed IMHO- I must try the 90mm again, with its 4.2 deg TFOV, the 120ED gives a 2.9 deg TFOV.

It appears the prism might be a factor in not seeing Barnards Loop... not positive yet. Stu, you are correct, I always look for shade edges.

 

One last thing- I don't see a lot of the objects I pursue... Cone, Jellyfish.... but I DO  love to report on my success

 

[ollypenrice]

Great, thanks. I'll be sure to try this out. Having spent 400 hours imaging Orion with Tom O'DOnoghue I think it's time I really tried to see parts of the Loop.

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

That is n amazing achievement. I might some day try to do that with my APM 80mm F/6 and either the LVW 42 or the Nagler 31T5 (exit pupils 7 and 5.17mm, TFOV 5.7 and 5.3 deg) with suitable filters from a seriously dark place. Perhaps a winter visit to Olly is in order . I also check out shadows or darker areas and edges. They tend to stand out better than the nebula itself in many cases

[Stu]

Thanks Gerry. Interesting regarding the prism. They are excellent for higher powered stuff but I wonder if the extra absorption of the glass could make a difference on really faint stuff?

I recently ordered a T2 version of the Baader BBHS Sitall diagonal to try, supposed to be good, though you would need the full 2" to avoid vignetting the LVW 42

[jetstream]

Great news about the BBHS, can't wait to hear your report! Tonight I tried the 90mm, an hour later than last night. The 90mm/mirror diag shows the Loop, the prism almost kills M78 and the Loop was barely visible. The 120ED showed the Loop better last night- maybe the higher elevation helped. I want one of those little 8" f2.8 newts for this stuff...

After looking at Mel Bartels scope I just might ask OOUK if they can make me a little wee dob with a nice mirror, just a thought.

[PeterW]

I'd like a crazy fast mirror too, turned down a 12" f3 a few years back.... Regret!! 

barnards loop is a really amazing sight, I have seen it from the Isle of Wight several times. The way it loops round Orion, an object that needs no magnification, makes all other nebulae look small, even the valifornia. The icing on the cake (if the seeing allows) is the Meissa nebula just on Orions head, another big nebula. As you guys say the eyepiece is what counts.

 

Cheers

 

peter

[Stu]

6 minutes ago, PeterW said:

I'd like a crazy fast mirror too, turned down a 12" f3 a few years back.... Regret!! 

barnards loop is a really amazing sight, I have seen it from the Isle of Wight several times. The way it loops round Orion, an object that needs no magnification, makes all other nebulae look small, even the valifornia. The icing on the cake (if the seeing allows) is the Meissa nebula just on Orions head, another big nebula. As you guys say the eyepiece is what counts.

 

Cheers

 

peter

Is that with your image intensifier Peter?

[PeterW]

Yep, I know it is cheating a bit, but for these monster nebs there really is no other alternative. Again transparency is everything. One night easy, next night invisble, same SQM reading. Mel with his crazy scopes have seem things I have tried in vain to look for... I need a slightly longer focal length optic ft a bit more zoom.

 

cheers

 

peter

[Stu]

Just now, PeterW said:

Yep, I know it is cheating a bit, but for these monster nebs there really is no other alternative. Again transparency is everything. One night easy, next night invisble, same SQM reading. Mel with his crazy scopes have seem things I have tried in vain to look for... I need a slightly longer focal length optic ft a bit more zoom.

 

cheers

 

peter

Not cheating at all Peter, just worth mentioning so you don't depress the rest of us by thinking we have rubbish eyes ??

It's interesting that you still need good transparency to see it even using the intensifier. Am I right in thinking you use Ha filters too? It's a very interesting approach, assisted live viewing I guess you would call it.

Which intensifier do you use?

[PeterW]

You need the best you can find and yes a narrow imaging halpha is needed for nebulae to be visible. It's really got to be gen3 for it to be worth it. There aren't many of us and we lurk on Cloudynights Electronically Assisted forum, there are many posts about specs etc. 2nd hand is really our only option outside the US. You still suffer badly from transparency, you need very fast optics and you still need some "averted vision" to pull things from the background scintillation. Living in a city it can really help show anything! Of course if it is cloudy I can go out and see what the local wildlife are upto, badgers, foxes etc. Happy to answer questions, but you guys who graft hard under good skies get my respect.

 

Cheers

 

Peter

[jetstream]

Peter, I think you guys are pioneers in this area... and many innovations and improvements are yet to come with these things.Keep the good work and try many things. Hats off to you guys!

[PeterW]

Technologically there isn't a lot more to be gained, the newer tubes are not much better in certain important specs. The best tubes (film less) are hard to get hold of regardless of where you are. The military are going into longer wavelengths and thermal where it is all electronic image sensors- Intensifiers are a niche mature field.

The pioneer was Bill Collins (1998) with the original intensifier eyepiece who knows how long ago, but actually almost any monocular will do, just change the front lens... Many are c-mount! The addition of narrow filters to massively enhance nebulae was a good call (2007 thank you  Lindy Williams, only took me 4years to find one!) as previously many people had complained of not seeing what all the fuss was about. It's good to see I am not all alone....

 

cheers

 

peterw

[Stu]

Peter, I haven't searched on the forum but have you ever posted up details of the setup you use and how you went about sourcing it? I'm sure it would be of interest

[acey]

Pardon me for being sceptical of any visual claim for an object so faint as Barnard's Loop (no disrespect intended to the OP). It was first discovered photographically by Pickering in 1889; Barnard photographed it in 1894 using a 1.5 inch lens from a "cheap (oil) projecting lantern". It was given its Sharpless designation in 1959. I've heard it suggested that Herschel may have seen part of the loop, but I don't know of any source in his writing for this. Orion was just about the most looked-at region in the sky, but nobody mentioned any part of the Loop before its photographic discovery. Of course that doesn't mean it can't be seen visually, but I'm intrigued that the Wikipedia article says "observers under very dark skies may be able to see it with the naked eye". Hyperbole like that just shows how rare dark skies have become, and what exaggerated expectations they inspire.

Successfully viewing an exceptionally difficult object comes down to three things. One, obviously, is the right observing conditions and appropriate equipment. Second is very considerable experience in detecting very difficult objects. Third, equally important, is extensive experience in *thinking* you've seen something and then realising you haven't. I of course cast no aspersions on the OP who is probably a lot more experienced in all this than I am, but personally I can attest to having *thought* I saw lots of killer targets when I started out in deep-sky observing, and later realised it was wishful thinking.

Barnard reported that in his photograph the Loop was brightest near 56 and 60 Orionis. This is probably the best area to start searching. And of course don't be fooled by the Milky Way, whose edge runs almost exactly along part of the Loop as marked for example on the S&T Pocket Atlas.

Herschel himself was fooled on a number of occasions. He "saw" a nebula around Alnilam (Epsilon Orionis) which he recorded as "exceptionally large" and which became designated as NGC 1990, described as "!!!" meaning "magnificent or exceptionally intrresting". It has a Wikipedia entry (with a photograph) and is in the second Herschel 400 list. The NGC/IC Project website says that various amateurs have reported seeing it. I've looked for it myself,  and almost thought I could see it. But it doesn't exist. At the limits of visibility we enter what might almost be called "paranormal astronomy"...

[estwing]

great food for thought here^^^

[Daniel-K]

2 hours ago, acey said:

Pardon me for being sceptical of any visual claim for an object so faint as Barnard's Loop (no disrespect intended to the OP). It was first discovered photographically by Pickering in 1889; Barnard photographed it in 1894 using a 1.5 inch lens from a "cheap (oil) projecting lantern". It was given its Sharpless designation in 1959. I've heard it suggested that Herschel may have seen part of the loop, but I don't know of any source in his writing for this. Orion was just about the most looked-at region in the sky, but nobody mentioned any part of the Loop before its photographic discovery. Of course that doesn't mean it can't be seen visually, but I'm intrigued that the Wikipedia article says "observers under very dark skies may be able to see it with the naked eye". Hyperbole like that just shows how rare dark skies have become, and what exaggerated expectations they inspire.

Successfully viewing an exceptionally difficult object comes down to three things. One, obviously, is the right observing conditions and appropriate equipment. Second is very considerable experience in detecting very difficult objects. Third, equally important, is extensive experience in *thinking* you've seen something and then realising you haven't. I of course cast no aspersions on the OP who is probably a lot more experienced in all this than I am, but personally I can attest to having *thought* I saw lots of killer targets when I started out in deep-sky observing, and later realised it was wishful thinking.

Barnard reported that in his photograph the Loop was brightest near 56 and 60 Orionis. This is probably the best area to start searching. And of course don't be fooled by the Milky Way, whose edge runs almost exactly along part of the Loop as marked for example on the S&T Pocket Atlas.

Herschel himself was fooled on a number of occasions. He "saw" a nebula around Alnilam (Epsilon Orionis) which he recorded as "exceptionally large" and which became designated as NGC 1990, described as "!!!" meaning "magnificent or exceptionally intrresting". It has a Wikipedia entry (with a photograph) and is in the second Herschel 400 list. The NGC/IC Project website says that various amateurs have reported seeing it. I've looked for it myself,  and almost thought I could see it. But it doesn't exist. At the limits of visibility we enter what might almost be called "paranormal astronomy"...

Very intresting. Thanks for sharing.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Good points by Acey. I tend not to look at photographs of faint targets before looking for them, so I do not have some preconceived ideas of what I should be seeing. I then make a description of what I see, and compare my mental image to photographs. If I think I see a faint smudge reminiscent of a face-on spiral, and subsequent checking shows that the target is indeed a face on spiral, I am pretty sure I must have seen it. If the photographs tell a different story, I must be wrong.

I can well imagine that the loop is visible using intensifiers. Not sure I could spot it without. I may still give it a try should conditions ever be really favourable

[Stu]

All I would add to Acey's post is that I reckon Gerry passes all three of his test criteria in terms of observing ability ??