[AZ-Observing] Re: Recording Seeing Conditions (was WOW!)
- From: <rtejera@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:49:30 -0400
What Thad said. Couldn't have put it better.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Thad Robosson
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:31 AM
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: Recording Seeing Conditions (was WOW!)
>I have some questions about this measure. For example, the "fainter
> stars, equal to mag 6.0 are seen"? The way this is written, my
> interpretation is that you need to look specifically at mag 6 stars.
> This would be very difficult to do unless you know the sky extremely
> well because if you cannot see them, it would be difficult to know =
where
> they are supposed to be using a star chart. Also, although much more
> numerous, it almost seems you would have the same problem finding mag
> 6.0 stars, or where they are supposed to be if you could see them, as
> you would finding doubles.
It really isn't that stringent to utulize the scale, although that also=20
means
that it lacks a scientific value that one may be seeking.
For example....
Sky Atlas charts go down fainter than 6th magnitude, and thus it's much=20
easier
to view a chart with a conveniently placed constellation and compare =
than to
get a telescope trained in on a double star. And dare I say that some on =
this
list already have a pretty good map in their memory of where the =
"fainter"
(ie 6/6.5 mag) stars reside in most constellations. This is but one way =
of=20
getting
a general idea of transparency conditions. (key word being general.)
Also, imagine the night where you saw the Milky Way at it's best. =
Remember
how it went all the way down to the horizon, and how the dark lanes were
so prominent and sharp? Remember how the Zodiacal light ticked you off
because that new comet was inside of it? Now go to a less than perfect =
night
and compare. It doesn't take a chart and stack of scientific data to=20
conclude
approximately where a particular night falls within the boundaries of =
the=20
scale.
(key word being approximately.)
Seeing conditions are (for me) generally made through the eyepiece based
on how the image appears at various powers. (Most useful =
magnification...)
Is this method person dependant? You bet.
Is it perfect? No way.
Is it scientifically beneficial? Not particularly.
Is it simple to use? Yup.
Does it give a "reasonable" idea to others how the night was? Yes.
Bottom line is this....most of us that enjoy the night sky have to do so
at the schedule of our lives. We go observing to relax and enjoy the =
view,
and adding extra tasks to the already too-cramped observing list may not =
be
conclusive to having fun.
I'd be interested to hear from people who are doing more serious study
than others, and using more "scientific" methods to rate the conditions.
Please note....This is only a discussion. I'm not trying to convince =
anybody=20
to switch
methods, nor am I trying to berate any methods used. Please feel free =
to=20
use any
method of quantifying the night sky as you see fit. I take no=20
responsibility for any
offense taken by the reading of my post. :-)
And Brian, thanks for taking the time to be on this list. Your =
knowledge=20
and opinions
add something that other groups can't possibly have.
Thad
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and =
please=20
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.
Other related posts:
