Posts Made By: Inge Skauvik

The number of gaseous nebulae (planetaries and diffuse) is surprisingly low. I have a total of four in my observing records, the most impressive one by far being the Eskimo nebula, NGC2392.
The second brightest nebula in Gemini must be peanut shaped NGC2371/2372. It isn't awfully hard to detect with an 8-inch telescope, and can probably be seen with a good 4-inch (less?). It is smaller and fainter than M76, and its interesting shape is best seen with a magnification of 100x or more. I have not seen its central star, but it should be detectable with a 12-inch.
The third of my recorded Gemini nebulae was a very nice surprise in my 12.5-inch. This is the large planetary, PK205+14.1 . It took some effort to find it. I used Lambda Geminorum as a guide to the cluster NGC2395 (which I didn't find very impressive - just an enrichment in the background star field). Just a degree to the south-east a faint haze could be seen without a filter. The O-III filter worked wonders on this planetary, also called the Medusa neubla. It has a very unusual shape, more like a crescent moon, large and much brighter than I would have expected for an object listed neither in the NGC nor the IC catalogue. I think it can be seen with a smaller aperture.
The last nebula in my records is the supernova remnant, IC443, located near the difficult double, Eta Geminorum. I'm positively unable to see anything without a filter. With an O-III an elongated, extremely faint haze can be made out. I would never have detected it if I didn't know its exact position. It is definitely the most difficult nebula in my observation records.

Inge S

I consider myself an experienced observer, although a 10 year period here in Norway is needed to make up for a couple of months in the Arizona desert. I feel relatively comfortable observing low power DSO's as well as double stars and planets at high power. However, I sometimes encounter problems when I want to use high magnification to make out detail in small planetary nebulae and galaxies. The main problem is focus. I have never owned a set of perfectly parfocal eyepieces (not even my new TeleVue line satisfies that criterion), and therefore I have to re-focus when I increase the magnification. Focusing on a planet or a double star of decent brightness is no problem, but to get a diffuse object perfectly focused can be a bit of a challenge. If there is a bright star in the same field of view, I can use this to get perfect focus. However, this is not always the case.
I also find that I have to make a slight change of focus if I apply my O-III filter. The filter steals much of the light from the field stars, making focusing even more difficult.

Any good suggestions?

Inge S

I haven't been active under this forum for quite a while, and possibly the William Optics refrators have been discussed. But I take the chance to raise this issue, hoping for quick feedback.
These refractors are now offered by a Norwegian dealer (at Norwegian prices), and four different models (looking much alike) come at four highly different prices.

I use the 80mm Megrez II (achromat) as a reference. Compared with this one, we have the following alternatives:

ZenithStar 80: 18% cheaper.
Megrez 80 II ED (triplet): 67% more expensive.
Megrez 80 APO: 270% more expensive.

I'm looking for a scope for viewing objects like the Hyades, Pleiades, M39 etc, and intend to use my other scope for high power work. I'm not really interested in a larger aperture. My immediate impression is that the standard Megrez II would be the right choice for such objects. Is the ED triplet worth the extra money. The APO is out of the question - I don't want an 80mm scope that costs me more than my 12.5-inch PB.

Inge S

Until a couple of years ago the biggest scope I ever looked through or touched with my hands was a 10-inch SC. Lately I have got hands-on experience with 12.5-inch truss scopes (an NGT and my own Portaball), and I still consider these as pretty big scopes. Last Friday, however, I visited a friend who showed me a home-built 18-inch Dob.
That thing was HUGE! I regularly see photos of scopes bigger than that one, but such photos never give the right impression.
Pity that we couldn't try the scope. I did, however, learn one thing. An 18-inch scope is not for me. I wouldn't be able to transport it with my car, and if there was space for it, moving it into the car would cost too much effort.
The 12.5-inch lightweight Dob (particularly the Portaball) seems to be the optimum size for me. I'm generally satisfied with the views in such a scope, and I can easily handle it all by myself.

Inge S

I'm in the possession of a very good 12.5-inch telescope bought second-hand a year ago. I get very sharp images of double stars and planets at high powers, indicating that the mirror figure is just fine. However, comparing my images with a newer telescope there seems to be some scattered light in my telescope not present in the other one. I also notice that images look bluer in the other scope.

I admit that I haven't paid much attention to cleaning the mirror. I see some dust on it, and wonder if it's time to give it a wash. Or perhaps I should have it recoated? How should I decide which action to take?

Yestarday at about 10:30 p.m. I looked outside, and found that the clouds were about to disappear. Half an hour later I assembled my Portaball at a dark site, for a DSO session, the first one after a three month period with hopeless weather conditions.
The sky transparency was very good, but there was some disturbing light from some clouds over nearby town, Stavanger (some 50 km away),and a few cloud patches moved across the sky. It was COLD, -5 centigrade combined with some wind. And I didn't plan the session beforehand, and didn't bring a star map. I therefore decided to spend the time reviewing some of my favourite galaxies.

I didn't stand the cold for more than 45 minutes, during which I observed 4 open clusters, one emission nebula and 45 galaxies, many of which were members of groups, making it possible to observe 3 - 4 objects at a time.
I'll not list all these objects in this post, but just mention some of the most interesting ones.

In the northern part of Coma Berenices there is a nice group of fairly bright galaxies forming a triangle, but with one of the "corners" being a close galaxy pair, NGC4278/4283. The other corners are made up by NGC4272 and 4314. Strangely enough, I observed another group arranged in a similar way in Ursa Major, just north of Gamma UMa. Here NGC3990/3998 form a pair, while NGC3982 and 3998 make up the other corners of the triangle. The Ursa Major galaxies are fainter than those in Coma, but easy in the 12.5-inch.

I observed The M65/M66/NGC3628 group, and was impressed by the brightness of the Messiers and the size of 3628.

Also this galaxy group has a miniature "edition" further north in Leo, formed by the pair NGC3607/3608 and NGC3599 a bit more distance. No problem to observe all three together in the 24mm Panoptic.

I reviewed the beautiful, easy-to-find galaxy pair, NGC4485/4490 near Beta CVn. I have my own "personal" name for this pair, just because they remind me of a pair of "Playing Goldfish".

Another fine galaxy pair, NGC3226/3227 is located just east of Gamma Leonis. As seen in the 12.5-inch a suited name for this pair could very well be the "Exclamation Mark".

A very uneven pair (probably not physically connected) is made up by the grand galaxy NGC4258 (M106) and much smaller and fainter edge-on galaxy, NGC4248. observing these two galaxies together really demonstrates that galaxies vary a lot in brightness, size and shape.

I always try to observe a few new objects every session. This time I didn't have the chance to prepare, and therefore I recorded only one new object this evening. This was NGC2832 in Lynx (Near Alpha). Absolutely not an impressive object, it was nicely grouped with foreground stars. I should probably have scrutinised the field at higher power, because this galaxy is the brightest member of galaxy group Abell 779, and some of its fainter members should be within range of my aperture.

Finally, I would like to mention the bright emission nebula, NGC1931 in Auriga. There is a multiple star involved in this nebula. I clearly could see three stars forming a triangle (almost equilateral), and as such it qualifies as a decent triple star. It is too faint, however, to be listed in the Struve catalogs, and I know no designation of this triplet (possibly quadruplet).

Inge Skauvik
Haavik, Norway

Last night I made a few observations from one of my local dark sites. It cleared up late at night and the wind was a bit stiff, but I decided to make a short observing session.
Seeing was good in spite of the wind. Using a 9mm Nagler (167x) the companion of Theta Aurigae was well separated from the glare of the primary, and a very nice, clean split of 57 Cancri was achieved. Double star observation at higher power was, however, hopeless, since the wind affected the telescope.

I spent some time hunting for 12th magnitude fuzzyballs (found quite a few, including NGC4889/4874 in the distant Coma cluster), before turning to the brighter galaxies. Light conditions were fair, but not excellent. High air humidity and a pretty bright aurora were disturbing factors. I used the 9mm nagler to make out detail in M51, M101 and the M81/82 pair. This evening I made out some of the emission nebulae in M101, and the spiral pattern of M51 was quite prominent (obvious also at 63x). I noticed another faint galaxy not far from M51/5195, presumably NGC5198.

The highlight of the session, however, was M81 located near zenith. At 167x the galaxy filled out much of the field of view, including the two foreground Struve doubles, both of which were delicately resolved. The spiral arms were most easily seen with averted vision, but could even be traced with direct vision. Moving from 12-th magnitude galaxies directly up to one which is 100 times brighter is pretty effectful.

M82 was also very rich in detail, with many dust bands visible. I'm always impressed by the surface brightness of this galaxy, but last night I found it particularly striking.

Inge S

I recently made a post about some difference in the visual impression of objects when comparing my scope with another one.(12,5-inch vs. 10-inch Dob) I suspected that my mirror needed cleaning or even re-coating. However, it just occurred to me that the problem simply may be that I seldom use the light shroud. My telescope is an open truss Portaball, while the scope I compared with was a solid tube Dob. The particular evening I made the comparison the moon was interfering.
Experienced dob users: How important is the light shroud? Should it be used even when no ambient light is present?

Inge S

Your opinions please!

I really enjoy to observe galaxies showing some detail visually, and I have found quite a few objects that have an interesting appearance with my aperture(12.5 inches).

I'm interested in your opinions about the best objects, but to make it more interesting, I would like to split the galaxy population into several groups.

1: Which are the most interesting face-on spirals (like M51)?

2: Which are the most interesting edge-on spirals showing an equatorial dust lane (NGC4565 type)?

3: The most interesting irregular galaxies showing irregular dust patterns (like M82)?

4: The best barred spirals?

5: The best spirals seen on an oblique angle (hints of dust bands, or dust bands clearly visible)

6: The best examples of completely irregular types.

Inge S

Galaxies come in many different shapes and sizes. Experts: To get most of the elusive detail, which magnifications would you use on the following galaxies using a mid-size Newtonian (10 - 14")?

M31
M33
M101
M51
M81
M82
NGC4565
M100
M99
NGC1023
NGC7331

????