I am very impressed with the image from Roland's 10 inch MakCass and
would love to own one. I can see lots of Trapezium members in addition
to E and F in Rolando's image.
But something occured to me as I read these posts about splitting
clsoe doubles. Long long ago,before you all were born, in a faraway
land that still protected habeas copus (R.I.P 1215-2006) Edmund
Scientific Co. in its Mag 6 Atlas, spoke of a "comfortable split" of
double stars.
The meaning was the use of sufficient magnification (and now we know,
aperture as well) so that seeing the companion(s) would not require
squinting.
This seems such a relaxing, though archaic, way of viewing the sky.
and it has always appealed to me. I have been little concerned with
barely spotting close stellar companions, and indeed with anything
else barely discernable. Instead I have concentrated on comfortable
splits and with beautiful views rather than bare discernment of DSOs.
I am sorry that this approach seems to have fallen into utter disuetude.
Clear skies,
Bill Meyers
would love to own one. I can see lots of Trapezium members in addition
to E and F in Rolando's image.
But something occured to me as I read these posts about splitting
clsoe doubles. Long long ago,before you all were born, in a faraway
land that still protected habeas copus (R.I.P 1215-2006) Edmund
Scientific Co. in its Mag 6 Atlas, spoke of a "comfortable split" of
double stars.
The meaning was the use of sufficient magnification (and now we know,
aperture as well) so that seeing the companion(s) would not require
squinting.
This seems such a relaxing, though archaic, way of viewing the sky.
and it has always appealed to me. I have been little concerned with
barely spotting close stellar companions, and indeed with anything
else barely discernable. Instead I have concentrated on comfortable
splits and with beautiful views rather than bare discernment of DSOs.
I am sorry that this approach seems to have fallen into utter disuetude.
Clear skies,
Bill Meyers
