Do You Feel Wet Before Your Period

magnitude of the telescope (2) Update statistics


Some time ago I wrote an article in which he explained that the extended magnitude surface of an object seen through a telescope is less than the magnitude of the surface with the naked eye. This fact, contrary to common sense, può essere facilmente dimostrato con dei semplici ragionamenti di tipo fisico e matematico, come nell'articolo citato.
Non sono solo io a dire che le cose stanno così e non sono nemmeno stato il primo. Fra chi, prima di me, ha riflettuto su questo cito Bill Ferris , Roger Clark , Mel Bartels e Nils Olof Carlin .

Sebbene la matematica e la fisica non lascino scampo, sembra però difficile accettare la realtà che le immagini al telescopio abbiano una intensità superficiale inferiore a quella ad occhio nudo. La parola "superficiale" è in grassetto non a caso, perché spesso chi obietta che le formule devono essere sbagliate, in really did not understand the concept of intensity surface and forms part of the integrated intensity. Objections such as "the moon to the naked eye and dazzle telescope no" or "M51 is seen through a telescope but not to the naked eye" should be the intent of those who object, clear evidence that there is something wrong with the formulas .

people literally believe what they see "and it is difficult to convince them that we do not see reality, but the result of a complex process of visual signal processing. The interpretation and attribution of meaning to what we "see" alters our perceptions. Colors, shapes, etc.. as it is not a transposition of what the human eye receives, but the result of an unconscious interpretation.
In this case, the impression we have of an object, or see it or not, depends on the surface inetnsità, but by contrast with the background and the apparent size. This "discovery" of the need to Richard Blackwell, who in his study " Contrast Threshold of the Human Eye " Half a century ago revealed (it's appropriate to say) as the recognition of an object depends more on the size and the apparent contrast of surface brightness. And fortunately, otherwise the telescope would be useless!

a telescope M51 is less bright to the naked eye, but much bigger to the point that the brain recognizes it, because it "believes" the information that comes from a large number of receptors (rods), whereas very few receptors to the naked eye and brain perceive it does not consider it significant.

Gia ... but ... Back objection: "dazzles the Moon through a telescope," "M42 is brighter, and so on. etc..

But is this really true? Surprisingly it is quite easy to verify that the accounts are correct. To do this simply rely on a digital camera, which does not "influence" from the processes of signal processing in the brain.

I took a photo of the Moon (click to see better) with the following settings: focal length 55 mm, F5, 6 (9.8 mm entrance pupil), ISO 100 and exposure time 1 / 60 second. It obviously has been captured in RAW. Then I photographed the image seen in the 15x70 binoculars. Of course the camera did not have the "conscience" of the fact that the new image was the binoculars, and saw the brilliance of the new image.
is not difficult to see the new image has an intensity lower surface. Just read the levels on the moon on the right and left. The relationship between the intensities of the two moons, estimated on RAW images, is about 4.4 (The Moon has a small intensity 4.4 times the Moon's surface large).

But it should be according to formula della "teoria"? Secondo la formula della "incredibile teoria" l'intensità al binocolo, senza contare le perdite di luce, dovrebbe essere il rapporto al quadrato fra la pupilla di ingresso della fotocamera (d nella formula) e la pupilla di uscita del binocolo (che è 70/15=4.66 mm). Fatto il calcolo risulta: (9.8/4.66)^2=... 4.4!!

Accidenti: la sperimentazione conferma la teoria!

E ora come si fa a sostenere che le immagini al telescopio sono più brillanti e che (una delle conseguenze) si possono vedere i colori con un diametro sufficiente?

Images Of Decks With Small Ponds

SQM


Ho aggiornato il grafico relativo alla statistica del buio a Casera Razzo. Seems to notice a trend: the spring and summer months (from February to August) are on average the darkest of winter months (October to December).

Giro Fuse Helmet Ipod

Starmap Pro: field test!


10, 11 and 12 June I did a more thorough test of Starmap Pro . Place of trial: the field behind my house (waiting for the dark sky).
But first things first.

1) The preparation of the list. I made the list by looking at the Sky Atlas and choosing some objects. If you have NGC or IC using the search function in the internal catalog, or using the search function on the network that operates in the SIMBAD catalog and adding them to the list of favorites. Sometimes I gave look at the photos on SIMBAD. In the picture (click to enlarge) you see in Sky Atlas vdB126 and watch list (imported from SIMBAD). You can add any thing in the picture you see other exotic objects such Sh2-64, SN 1671, PN Na 1 exc. Just knowing the identity and the search function in Internet download all data, including the location of the object, which in effect becomes an object of Starmap Pro
This is the list made for the occasion:

NGC6229 , a globular cluster in Hercules from the parts of M92, but much smaller.
NGC5446, a galaxy in Bootes (just to see how it feels under a sky of the plains).
NGC5375, a galaxy in CNV.
M3 (at least a globular star show) a little 'hard to tracing.
NGC4565, galaxy in Coma Berenices cutting.
M63, the galaxy "sunflower" in CNV.
M94, another galaxy of 8.2 mv in CNV.
M99, the galaxy that I remember seeing the three spirals CR, mv 9.8.
M5, in other globle Snake.
M12 and M10 in Ophiuchus globular.
NGC6309 (Box Nebula), planetary in Ophiuchus.
NGC6572, another planet in Ophiuchus.
IC4565, open cluster in Ophiuchus.
NGC6426, a globular cluster in Ophiuchus 11.2 mv.

and then I decided to switch to more exotic things:

PN VV 171 (PK 038 +12.1), a 12th planet in Ophiuchus.
SN 1671, in Supernova Remnant Cefeo (questa mi è scappata, non volevo osservare in Cefeo).
Sh2-64, nebulosa a emissione fra Ofiuco e Scudo.
vdB 126, stella con nebulosa (quella in foto, cliccare per ingrandire).

e poi sono ritornato a oggetti più "normali":

NGC6823, ammasso aperto in Volpetta.
NGC6813, nebulosa in Volpetta.
NGC6834, ammasso aperto in Cigno.
NGC6842, planetaria in Volpetta.

Facendo la lista si ha l'impressione di avere tutto a portata di mano, tanto è facile inserire qualsiasi oggetto e importarlo. Bn presto ci si rende conto che è meglio fermarsi, perchè la lista è fin troppo lunga.

2) Sul campo ho voluto provare to target an object with the traditional system (enhanced map finder). Suffering .... should be around here ... a bit 'more about ... stelleina that there is but you should see this ..

3) Forget it. first object NGC 6229. The software offers a departure from beta Draconis. The aim beta draconis in a moment. It switches to the finder and you see the field around a beta. Wow is the same as in the finder vero.Il course shows a line drawn from beta and will end on 6229. Damn this is not in
seeker. Patience ... follow the stars along the line and hop hop hop ... the line ends. Just put the field stars as they appear in the thing. It goes to the eyepiece and BANG! E' là.

4) Trovare le planetarie con aspetto stellare è un gioco da ragazzi.Volendo si
fa star hopping anche all'oculare. Ho inserito in lista anche cose elusive: galsssiette che non si vedevano ma si riconoscevano i campi stellari.

5) Avendo l'attrezzo finisce che si prede appunti. Click e compare oggetto,
altezza, azimut ora e si è pronti con le note. Ovviamente si finisce per perdere un sacco di tempo a prendere note.

Ecco le mie note, nelle due sere:

10-11/06/2009

22.23 NGC6229 Alt 66.17° Az 72.51° Granuloso 172x SQM 18.20 260x Nucleo con alone vagamente granuloso.
22.39 mv 4.8 (52 Her) Alt 68-09° Az 77.33 ° 52.40 °
22:52 NGC5446 Alt Az 201.56 is practically invisible. 23:23
mv 4.9 (Stable) Az Alt 78.30 ° 102.56 °
23:38 NGC5375 Alt Az 63.38 241.38 Vaga 86x
23:45 M3 Alt 59.40 ° Az 247.12 · Fixed 170x 260X (best) 360X.
00:05 M12 Az Alt 41.84 ° 167.50 ° star brightest resolved. Alone diaphanous. 172x best. 18.64 SQM. 00:25
NGC6572 Alt 45.60 ° 142.76 ° Small Az 260X 360X NNW elongated elliptical.
00:32 IC4665 Az Alt 47.55 ° 154.42 ° a few scattered stars 86x. 00:53 BSI
126 ° 52.38 Alt Az 114.62 only the star is visible. 12/06/2009 22:56



mv 4.7 (6U-Her) Az Alt 80.58 ° 81.94 ° 18.66 SQM.
23.09 NGC6229 Az Alt 75.43 ° 74.46 ° 260X granular core alone. 23:19
NGC4565 Alt Az 256.25 49.88 ° is visible elongated NE 172x 86x LPS filter useless.
23:34 M63 Sunflower Galaxy Az Alt 62.76 ° 276.32 ° core, faint elongated halo.
23:40 M94 Az Alt 57.05 ° 278.92 ° bright core and two concentric halos 130x. 23:53
Box Nebula Az Alt 29.59 ° 160.83 130x LPS filter is visible. 23:56
mv 4.9 (Stable) Az Alt 84.53 ° 129.46 ° 19.75 SQM

Chemical Names Of Degreasing Chemicals

StarmapPro for iPhone and iPod touch



I learned of this application for iPhone and iPod touch a week ago. The Pro version of the video was so convincingly, that within a week I bought an iPod touch and the Pro version

Starmap Pro combines the functions of a planetarium, with over 2.5 million stars and the entire NGC and IC catalogs, and Assistant to the observations. In my opinion, has almost nothing in less than desktop applications where the cost is higher than the total cost of software and iPod touch. But there is no small advantage: it's all in the palm of your hand. It's not just the fact that there are more leads on the field computer (with the battery-that frost could also ruin-, table, chairs), or the three volumes of Uranometria, or Sky Atlas, which is so wide open we do not know where to place it. Already these advantages alone are worth the purchase, but there are others.

Last night I tried it at home with a horrible sky. Here are my impressions.

object fits in the palm of your hand. It has the ability to define fields of view finder and different for each telescope eyepieces. Looking at the "thing" you see what you would see in the finder, and while this is the eyepiece of the finder (or telescope). Not to mention the possibility of having the Telrad circles overlap.

born a new way of doing starhopping. Traditionally starhopping you this: you look to the naked eye a path of stars that come close to the object and try to identify the point in the sky where is the object. You point there, perhaps with the help of the circles of the Telrad. It pounta that an empty space at a precise position relative to the stars around. Then you look in the finder and, if the object is not visible, try to put the crosshair in the right place with the help of the stars visible in the field. At this point, very often you have to leave the telescope back to the table where is the computer, save the stars around the object (which often have a completely different scale, orientation and intensity), back to the finder, try to recognize the field of stars and point. It is not unusual that needs to be done fro 2:00 to 3:00.

With the "thing" style changes. You look a star visible to naked eye and is close to the object point. You place that is a point where we see something. Then, with the thing in hand to the eyepiece, you look at the simulated star field around the star (see the first figure) and he is recognized immediately in the field of the finder. At this point you navigate with the finder of star in star, helped by the fact that the cross-roads and the fields are oriented right, follow the navigation in the "thing" and voila, that's got it right. The style is different because instead of making the path to the naked eye and point the direction of the object, you point a star becomes visible and the path to the seeker. The difference is enormous.

You can then take notes (as in figure below). Time and date are automatic. By the way, is also very easy to determine the limit mv (you try and you click the little star in the thing).



Here are my notes from last night (the hole between 00:45 and 01:39 is due to clouds): 06/07/2009 00:44

NGC 6210, 360X, elongated EW, nucleus with feathered edge, UHC 260X less. 06/07/2009 00:45 17.97 SQM
mv 4.3 (at 60 degrees altitude). 06/07/2009 01:39
mv 4.8 (zenith) 18.03 SQM. 06/07/2009 01:50 M92
resolved 86x 172x 260X, pinpoint stars at 172x.


Addendum 09/06/2009

There are two features that deserve to be remembered in especially:

1) Importing objects from SIMBAD database. Starmap has a function "web search". You insert the identifier of an object (eg PK 080-06.1) and the system accesses the database SIMBAD creating a new object (in this example Cygnus Egg) with related data and location. The object can then be found with the usual methods. In practice, you can build a customized list by selecting between 4 and a half million objects in the database. A convenient way to plan the observations is to take the identifiers at the table at home, or by starting from Uranometria Sky Atlas. Using the browser at home you can also see pictures of the object you will see (If you want you can do with Safari from the iPhone, as long as there is coverage).

2) The "path finder" draw a line of junction between the star most appropriate next to the object and the object itself. This line is visible even in simulation mode of the finder or telescope. In practice it's a kind of guide that provides direction to find the object starting from the star. It 's really useful, a TOM TOM sky. You place the star and follow the line to the object.