An expensive night out

[Ags]

I was wondering whether to do visual or imaging tonight, but decided on visual as the skies looked less than perfect. I waited til midnight for dark and when I went out I nearly gave up - the sky was still inky blue. I had an observing plan consusting of the northern Caldwells east of Polaris and I flew through C1, C2, C4, and C6 finding nothing. Went back to C4 and still nothing. Tried C6 again and bingo - a fuzzy star, a definite fuzzy star! Ironic I should finally find C6 with my C6 telescope! Time to up the magnification and do some observifying!

I must be "well padded" as I felt absolutely nothing as I sat down to observe Caldwell 6 and utterly crushed my spectacles. C6, the Cat's Eye Nebula is a new one for me and I had no idea I could observe it at all. I think in my years of observing and hunting for planetaries I have only had definite observations of M27 and M57 (I might have spotted the Little Dumbell once), so to see C6 plain as day was a real thrill. It is really bright and looked a bit greenish to me. I could see no structure in it though so I had the idea to screw the lens unit of my Revelation barlow into my Explore Scientific 6.7 mm to get it down to about 4.5 mm.  This was the point I reached for my glasses on the eyepiece tray and did not find them, then checked the chair with a sinking heart, and picked up all that was left of them - twisted, snapped wire!

After a few minutes of staring futilely at the broken glasses, I got back to the important business of C6. I really like the ES 6.7 with the Rev barlow screwed in - it feels sharp and precise. C6 was bigger but no structure to be seen. I should have tried a full 2x barlowing, but somehow that did not occur to me. Perhaps a bit of context might be needed here - my SCT has a 0.63 reducer so the 6.7 mm eyepiece gives an exit pupil of about 1.1 mm and with the barlow 0.7 mm, so the magnifications aren't really extreme.

I tried to have another go at C2 - the Bow Tie planetary. I did find something but not sure what - a magnitude 10 star with faint puffy nebulosity around it visible in averted vision. Not having Seen Mr Bow Tie, I don't know if I can chalk this one up.

I had another go at C4 (Iris Nebula) but still nothing. Never seen this thing... Is it a hard one or do I just not have the Right Stuff? I have a suspicion that the faint fuzzy I found when looking for C2 was actually C4 and I had simply got confused when entering the coordinates! It would kind of sum up the evening i was having.

Fireworks Galaxy - C12 - was the next target and another failure, but it did lead me to NGC 6939 nearby - a small star cluster, new for me. 

I paid a visit to M57 because I always do. It's actually much fainter than the Cat's Eye.

Around this point I decided the skies were just too bright and went in to find my emergency spectacles.

This was my first visual outing with the AZ GTi counterbalanced with 2 kgs for a total load of 6 kgs (but balanced). Not too sure it is an improvement - the counterweights introduce vibrations and maybe I will change my counterweight shaft from a longer threaded rod (which feels springy) to a shorter bolt which feels much more stiff but obviously provides less balance. Vibrations aside, tracking was much better with the counterweights.

I spent the night switching between a Nirvana 16 mm and Explore Scientific 6.7 mm, and the Nirvana did not fare well in the comparison. Stars are just not sharp across the field in the Nirvana - a real problem when looking for fuzzy stars that might be planetaries. On some night I enjoy the Nirvana but on most nights the view feels poor, perhaps my eyes are more tired and can't adjust for field curvature.  The apparent field of the Nirvana also seems smaller and harder to take in than that of the Explore Scientific 6.7 mm.

All in all, a very unsuccessful evening with the awful disaster of my glasses, but still feels like a high because I got a good look at the Cat's Eye.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Ags

[Rob]

We all have them don't we!... take the positive of the Cat's Eye, sorry to learn about the spec's... grrrr

Rob

[Alan White]

I feel for you and your glasses.

A year or two back, at the dark site with Astro club. Battery on red torch failed after several seasons use, then lens falls out of my glasses (distance), while searching I trod on something, you know what it was.

I had the warning the session before as the same happened, found the lens and reassembled glasses when I got home.

As to sitting on glasses, I don’t know how many times my Mum used to do the same, it has made me focused on not sitting on them myself, but failed on the treading on a lens.

[Ags]

Thanks, I guess I was due a new prescription anyway as I think I need bifocals now. 

That Nirvana 16 mm is bugging me. The off axis blur can't be field curvature from the telescope as the .63 reducer is a flattener. Despite liking it on some nights I think it has to go, it just doesn't work with my eyes. Maybe the Morpheus 17.5 is what I need. Or for less weight and money the ES 20/68...

Edited June 20, 2020 by Ags

[Jiggy 67]

I viewed C6 back in February (though I know it as NGC6543) A beautiful planetary which I found to be surprisingly bright. I found the UHC filter made it jump out of the background skies. These were my notes at the time:

Reasonably bright nebula with a bright disc which has a blue/green haze to it. unable to see central star but a beautiful nebula which is still visible under a light polluted and moonlit sky.
astronomix UHC filter used to provide contrast.
 

Lovely object and well worth a look for anyone who hasn’t seen it yet 

[Ags]

Really please I found it too, the sky was uncommonly bright last night and "normal" is Bortle 8 for me. C6 seemed almost too bright to be a nebula, and the pale green color was quite apparent. Will definitely revisit this one on the next clear night, and would love to image it. Good it is quite northerly so it will stay in my skies for longer. Would love to see it under a dark sky, but travel is out of the question for now...

[Solar B]

C6 I thought you were talking about a Celestron 😅 , I best stick to Solar 

As for specs , have dropped and scratched many pairs (ave life expectancy 3 yrs)

Brian 

[DaveL59]

1 hour ago, Ags said:

Thanks, I guess I was due a new prescription anyway as I think I need bifocals now. 

That Nirvana 16 mm is bugging me. The off axis blur can't be field curvature from the telescope as the .63 reducer is a flattener. Despite liking it on some nights I think it has to go, it just doesn't work with my eyes. Maybe the Morpheus 17.5 is what I need. Or for less weight and money the ES 20/68...

not everyone gets on with bifocals, either regular or the wider join occupational type. For me every time I turned my head it felt like the floor/table was being whipped away from under me, leaving me feeling very nauseous. Thankfully my optician got the 2 pairs re-made as 2 separate prescriptions at no cost so I ended up with one pair of each mag. Only need them for reading/close work, being long-sighted and I guess I too am due another check/prescription, when I can be bothered to go and have my eyes tortured once again that is, hate those test machines they use nowadays.

[Trikeflyer]

1 hour ago, DaveL59 said:

not everyone gets on with bifocals, either regular or the wider join occupational type. For me every time I turned my head it felt like the floor/table was being whipped away from under me, leaving me feeling very nauseous. Thankfully my optician got the 2 pairs re-made as 2 separate prescriptions at no cost so I ended up with one pair of each mag. Only need them for reading/close work, being long-sighted and I guess I too am due another check/prescription, when I can be bothered to go and have my eyes tortured once again that is, hate those test machines they use nowadays.

Not all opticians use those machines - called phoropters - I am an optician and I use the traditional trial frame approach - God forbid anyone who comes to me thinks that we are torturing their eyes! Glad your optician sorted out the bifocal problem for you though.

Steve 

[Ags]

I hope bifocals will work for me. I am short-sighted but for the past few years can't see close up with my glasses on. I think my lenses just aren't flexible any more - which might also be why I don't get on with the Nirvana 16mm. I am forever putting my glasses on or taking them off...

Seriously considering the Morpheus 17.5 mm now.  And thinking the Morpheus 12.5 might be a nice companion for it. Last night's outing was very expensive in more ways than one!

The Morphii are a bit pricey for me but seem to justify the cost based on every single review I've read. Aside from price concerns, the other two things that give me pause are (1) the Morpheus line are just about the ugliest quality eyepieces out there and (2) they are pretty heavy.  The alternative would be to get the ES 68 degrees 16 mm and 20mm, if these are anything like the 24 mm I know I would be happy with them. The only thing I don't like about the 24mm is the weight (same as Morphii).

Edited June 20, 2020 by Ags

[DaveL59]

50 minutes ago, Trikeflyer said:

Not all opticians use those machines - called phoropters - I am an optician and I use the traditional trial frame approach - God forbid anyone who comes to me thinks that we are torturing their eyes! Glad your optician sorted out the bifocal problem for you though.

Steve 

ahh was more thinking of the ones blowing jets of air in your eyes etc for the extra testing they do these days. Shame you can't opt out of those as that really does deter me from going unless I've broken my glasses so have little choice. Thankfully I can get away with ready readers in the main worst case  

[Ags]

I also struggle at opticians. Just thinking about going for a check-up makes my eyes water.

[Gina]

I tried bifocals some years ago and couldn't get on with them.  Went for single vision ones after that - distance, reading and computer.  Last time I went they suggested varifocals so gave them a try - I was fed up with changing glasses all the time, not being able to find the right pair and sitting or standing on a pair and breaking them.  Took a little while to get used to but a big improvement.

[DaveL59]

was suggested that too Gina but wasn't keen after the bifocal experience. Problem - well argument with optician more like - I've always had is reading distance. For "work" or computer use, my screens are arms length or a bit further away normally and of course they insist that's too far away! Sorry but I ain't using flat screens and having them at the front of the desk, wasting the workspace I could be using for paperwork etc, so they tend to have to make a pair for regular reading distance and a pair for screen working. So much for the customer always being right huh  

[JeremyS]

46 minutes ago, DaveL59 said:

ahh was more thinking of the ones blowing jets of air in your eyes etc for the extra testing they do these days. Shame you can't opt out of those as that really does deter me from going unless I've broken my glasses so have little choice.

I hate the blowing air jets too. I either opt out (they can't make you have it!), or ask them to do it right at the end of the test, when they've fiddled with all the lenses. If they do it before, it leaves my eyes streaming and no good for testing.

[Tenor Viol]

I have moderately complex requirements for specs... although it has simplified in recent years.

I've worn glasses for distance vision and a weak left eye since eI was 16. I got to just past 40 and needed reading glasses as well. I quickly decided multiple pairs of glasses was not a good idea... I went for vari-focals. At the time I wasn't playing any instruments, but I was doing a lot of choral singing. This means I needed an intermediate reading zone to read music at arms' length and to be able to see the conductor etc. That means deeper lenses so that you don't end up with a narrow letterbox for one of the 'zones'. 

I never had problems with varifocals: I am told that some people do, but I never have. 

Move forward to my mid 50s. I now play various instruments in orchestras and bands and I work with computers all day. So I need to be able to read things that are beyond arms' length away. I then discover I have 'sudden onset' cataracts and have replacement lens surgery on both eyes. The plus: the Bausc and Lomb lenses in my eyes are corrected for my distance vision. I now only need reading glasses. 

However, I need the 'enhanced' distance reading ability as well as 'standard' reading. I don't need a full vari-focal as I don't need distance, so I have 'occupational' lenses which have the intermediate reading zone. These have good depth-of-field as looking at say the conductor in rehearsals, he's in focus despite the distance. 

Down side - they're much more expensive lenses than single vision lenses, the plus side - a lot cheaper than full vari-focals and like variations-focals they've never given me a problem.  

[Stardaze]

I have 3 ES 82's now (6.8, 11, 24) and the 16 nirvana. I really have taken a liking to the 6.8, it's really got something about it. I'm also starting to feel similar as yourself about the nirvana, it doesn't have much wow factor to it. Just bought an APM 13 and although they're very large, if it's as good as I hope, I can see me buying the 20 and 9mm version. Agree with you about the look of the Morpheus 🤣

[Solar B]

I honestly do not find the Morphi unattractive at all and I’m big on aesthetics as I do my observing during the   day 😎 a truly stunning EP to use & behold is the Vixen SSW (even better In the flesh) I can’t think of any more appealing than them 👑

Brian 

 

 

[Ags]

@Solar B Aesthetics is a religion not a science, so we'll have to respect our diversity of opinion 🙂 ... I do like the top of the Morphii with their dinner-plate eye lenses.

@Stardaze I think it's a 6.7 not 6.8? But it is a special eyepiece - looking through the ES last night I kept thinking "I want more of these" and when I looked through the Nirvana I couldn't help thinking "I want less of these".

I'm thinking of adding the ES 82°4.7, 8.8 and 11, and the ES 68° 16 and 20 (I have the 24/68 and it is superb)... How do you find the 11?

[Stardaze]

41 minutes ago, Ags said:

@Solar B Aesthetics is a religion not a science, so we'll have to respect our diversity of opinion 🙂 ... I do like the top of the Morphii with their dinner-plate eye lenses.

@Stardaze I think it's a 6.7 not 6.8? But it is a special eyepiece - looking through the ES last night I kept thinking "I want more of these" and when I looked through the Nirvana I couldn't help thinking "I want less of these".

I'm thinking of adding the ES 82°4.7, 8.8 and 11, and the ES 68° 16 and 20 (I have the 24/68 and it is superb)... How do you find the 11?

You are right, 6.7. I used the 11 a bit more last night and seems just as good. It might get squeezed out a bit given the new 13. But, it’s a nice barlowed option too without buying a 5. It probably stands out a bit if I get the 9, but the ES 8.8 could cover that gap too. My little collection is growing quickly, but I’ll slow down now and use what I’ve got see what suits me best. 
If anything, I’d go wider in the low mag options. Really like the 24 82! 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Stardaze

[Ags]

My setup (C6 with reducer) doesn't really support 2 inch eyepieces, so the 24/68 is as wide as I will go.

Just had another session, still couldn't tease any structure out of the Cat's Eye. Had a look at the Dragonfly cluster (C13) which is very nice with some colored stars and the Double Cluster, again seeing lots of color in its stars tonight with the ES 24/68. 

Finished off with a quick peek at Albireo, which was so lovely I thought why not have a quick look at the Double Double. Went on to look at Zeta Lyrae, 61 Cygni (a personal favorite, I really like equal strongly colored pairs), Eta Cass and finally Sigma Cass.