FreeLists / az-observing / [AZ-Observing] Re: Cherry Rd last night - WOW!

[AJ Crayon <acrayon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We have had many-a discussion on this very topic, including \Brian's 
recommendation of using close equal doubles.  In fact I have a list from 
\Brian somewhere on my hard-drive.

What I'm wondering about and maybe I'm missing something, is trying to 
split these kinds of stellar objects with different aperatures and focal 
ratios.  If the instruments are significantly different they'll give 
different results, assuming the same about of observing time is give.  
The larger will have less troubles than a smaller aperature. 

Now to get around this situation would giving the results of the split, 
along with aperature, aid in providing the more consistent estimate?

Clear skies,
aj

Brian Skiff wrote:

>     I don't know that there's much need for an absolute calibration,
>since we'd want things done without instrumentation, but I would argue
>(and have in the past on this list) that it's not that big a deal to 
>actually find limiting stellar magnitudes (I would do them telescopically,
>not naked-eye), and also to get a fair estimate of the seeing in arcseconds
>using close, equal double stars.  For a specific observer/telescope/site
>combination, such numbers would provide a more consistent estimate of
>the quality of a night.  An added benefit, and perhaps the main one in fact,
>is that by doing this sort of estimating, you will gain some very useful
>visual skills, and thus see more stuff when you're doing oridnary sorts
>of observing.  And that's what it's all about, que no?
>
>\Brian
>--
>See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please 
>send personal replies to the author, not the list.
>  
>


--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please 
send personal replies to the author, not the list.