HORSE HEAD SEARCH
Steve W.
people seeing it in 5 inch refractors, but I have never had much success
even with my 16 inch. Last week I was out and had the chance to try it
with a H-beta filter.
My observing site is not that dark, [maybe mag. 5 or 5.5] [about an hour
outside of Vancouver] anyway the H-beta through a 16 inch did show IC
434 quite clearly but I have still missed the Horse head.
The question to those that have seen it is, How small of a scope have
you seen it with? With or without a filter?
Steve
Donald K. Judd
news:38A61435...@intergate.bc.ca...
> I have looked many times for the horse head nebula. There are reports of
> people seeing it in 5 inch refractors, but I have never had much success
> even with my 16 inch. >
Hi:
The horsehead can be seen with a 4" refractor at low power, say 48 to 60X,
under a very dark sky. The problem with observing this object is that it is
actually much larger than one would think and the contrast is rather low.
The H-beta filter brings it out fairly distinctly. You need to look for a
row of two bright field stars trailing south of Zeta and the Horsehead will
be about equidistant in line with but south of the 2nd star.
It is harder to see at high powers because it is so large and possibly the
best views would be at less than 100X.
Don Judd
Ratboy99
to do so. But to say that you saw it is really a bit of a misnomer. Far more
accurate for me to say that I saw it not. In other words, IC434 is pretty easy
with my OIII filter, but the outline of the HH is more a lack of something,
than something, if you know what I mean.
rat
~( );>
Raycash
Don't believe everything you read (example above).
Sorry, I don't really know a polite way of saying it!
B33 is best seen with an H-beta, plenty of aperture (10" plus), dark,
transparent skies and at least 100x--enough to get zeta out of the FOV, and
then some. 222x works well with my setup (17.5, 9 Nagler) ... Based on my
experience, of course.
It ain't an easy object--and it ain't that "big"--5' of arc!
--Ray Cash
How to Build a Dobsonian Telescope:
http://members.aol.com/sfsidewalk/dobplans.htm
My Deep-Sky Page:
http://members.aol.com/anonglxy/deepsky.htm
How to Build a 13" "Travel Scope"
http://members.aol.com/radcash/travelscope.htm
David W. Knisely
I have *never* seen the Horsehead in an OIII filter, and I have some
serious doubts as to whether it can be done using that particular
filter. IC 434 has little or no Oxygen III emission and thus completely
vanishes in common apertures when the OIII filter is used. You need a
filter that passes the H-beta line, as the UHC and H-beta filters do.
IC 434 is not at all very bright or easy, but is visible (barely) in a
UHC filter with scopes as small as 8 inches, although the Horsehead
itself requires a good night to see it as anything more than a vague gap
in the eastern side, not far southwest of the fairly easy reflection
nebula NGC 2023. I have seen it several times without a filter, but
again, dark skies and excellent transparency were required. Some
inexperienced observers also mistake parts of the somewhat easier Flame
Nebula (NGC 2024) for the area of the Horsehead, and thus don't really
find it.
On any halfway decent night, I can usually see it with my ten inch and
the H-beta filter, but its often not much to write home about. The last
two times I was out observing, I picked up IC 434 and the Horsehead
using the UHC as well as the H-beta filter without a lot of trouble at
about 59x. The H-beta provided a bit better view, as it made the east
edge of IC 434 seem to brighten up slightly, making it easier to quickly
notice the dark gap in the nebulosity at the base of the Horsehead.
Once you locate the gap, averted vision will sometimes show the full
Horeshead shape, although again, larger aperture helps a great deal. If
you really want to see it easily with its full shape and detail, you
will probably need an aperture over 12 inches, an H-beta filter, and a
good dark night (but forget about using the OIII). Clear skies to
you.
--
David Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. http://www.4w.com/pac
Hyde Memorial Observatory, http://www.blackstarpress.com/arin/hyde
*************************************************
* Attend the 7th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 29-Aug. 5th, 2000 http://www.4w.com/nsp *
*************************************************
Ratboy99
I'll have to disagree with you there. I can see it easily with the UHC filter
from my dark sky site. No H-Beta filter yet.
rat
~( );>
Ratboy99
>serious doubts as to whether it can be done using that particular
>filter.
My mistake. I meant to say UHC filter. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
rat
~( );>
Ratboy99
>I'll have to disagree with you there. I can see it easily with the UHC
>filter
>from my dark sky site.
Sorry about that. Maybe 'easily' is an exaggeration. Let me say that it is
usually after my eyes are fully dark adapted that the nebula becomes
unmistakable and obvious with a well defined shape. To my eye, it is still very
faint, but not difficult at all once I have become acclimated. The HH is *much*
more difficult to make out, because it seems to be opposite to the edge of the
IC434 that is the brightest, which would better show the silhouette of a dark
cloud of matter.
rat
~( );>
Sandy McNamara
<ste...@intergate.bc.ca> writes:
>The question to those that have seen it is, How small of a scope have
>you seen it with? With or without a filter?
Spotted it as a notch in the nebula one night in our club's 16-in SCT withOUT a
filter.
My someday goal is to catch the critter in the 12.5-in I got last year but so
far this winter the thermometer reading above freezing hasn't been in sync
with the few evenings of clear skies :-(.
Cheers,
Sandy Mc.
Sandy...@aol.com (Sandy McNamara)
40d 26' N 89d 13' W
Gordon Nason
Scott Houston's Sky & Telescope column), Scotty said he saw the Horsehead
through a 4" Clark refractor and a 4" off-axis Newtonian telescope as well
as his famous 5" Moonwatch Apogee telescope. Refer to Chapter one, page 8.
I have to say that I have only seen it in 16" and 20" reflectors with UHC
and H-beta filters.
Gordon
Raycash <ray...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000213003941...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
Jim Ketchum
Jim
Ratboy99 wrote in message <20000213013912...@ng-cu1.aol.com>...
Jim Ketchum
it to me one night while observing at his shop and I was underwhelmed.
Jim
Ratboy99 wrote in message <20000213015137...@ng-cu1.aol.com>...
Rod Mollise
>outside of Vancouver] anyway the H-beta through a 16 inch did show IC
>434 quite clearly but I have still missed the Horse head.
>you seen it with? With or without a filter?
>
Hi Steve:
I've seen it with my 12.5" when conditions are good--without the hbeta. Your
problem? Filter or no filter, you'll need good skies. In addition to darkness,
dry, clean sky is just a must. Make sure you're in exactly the right spot, too.
Use a photo or a narrow field chart made with a deep sky program to find the
_exact_ location of horsey. One indicator, as I've said before, is the
visibility of NGC 2024, the Flame/Tank Tracks Nebula. If it isn't readily
apparent (sans hbeta, natch) you won't likely see Horsey on this particular
evening.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Mobile Astronomical Society
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index7.html
The Home of _From City Lights to Deep Space_:
Rod's Guidebook for the _Urban_ Deep Sky NUT!!
*********************************************************
Rod Mollise
>Don't believe everything you read (example above).
>
>Sorry, I don't really know a polite way of saying it!
Hi Ray:
True a 4" refractor at low power wouldn't be my choice for searching out this
celestial nag...but one thing I _do_ know: the easiest way to be proven wrong
is, in my experience, to say "so and so can't be seen with thus and such a
scope!" :-)
Rod Mollise
>it to me one night while observing at his shop and I was underwhelmed.
Hi:
It depends on your perspective. If you go in expecting something like a photo,
disappointment is sure to be the result. But...if you approach it not expecting
much of anything, you may be suprised at how nice this poor old mare can
look...
JBortle
>>The horsehead can be seen with a 4" refractor at low power, say 48 to 60X,
>
>
>Sorry, I don't really know a polite way of saying it!
>
observations under less than excellent skies these days - particularly on the
WWW. Likewise, I've found that observers with limited experience often "think"
they are seeing a particular object when it is really more a case of averted
imagination or misidentification. I really don't mean this to sound like a
hostile post, but from many years of personal experience I can cite innumerable
examples of obviously mistaken observations by various persons to back up this
statement.
While it is possible to occasionally spot the HH with relatively small
apertures, the necessary sky conditions are very rarely met by todays
observers. Once, long, long ago, I did see the HH with my 20x120 binoculars,
but normally it was an exceedingly difficult object to actually "see" (as
opposed to maybe just suspect with averted vision) with the excellent 12.5-inch
reflector I had at the time (no filters back then). My limiting magnitude in
those days was 6.5+.
Observers with skies of less than an honest naked eye limiting magnitude of
6.5 are deluding themselves if they think they can see the HH without a
blocking or emission filter and a moderate-sized scope.
jbortle
TWFORTE
The horsehead and "smallest aperture" question has been a test subject at our
observing site. I believe that with experience this object can be viewed at
ever smaller aperture and we have not yet hit bottom.
Not too long ago, I was unable to perceive the horsehead in a 16 inch f/6.3,
(eventually, after many tries, this same 16 was the first scope to reveal the
HH to me). My next milestone was a 10 inch f/4.5, but without luck in smaller
apertures on the same nights.
The HH is a favorite object, and I have studyied it in my 18", Kent Blackwell's
25", Pete Synder's 12.5" and Barry Ferrel's 10". One morning last December,
after viewing it with the 25, we tried it in an 8" f/6 and a 6" f/8. I was
able to clearly see the HH in the 8", although the less exeprienced owner of
the scope could not. I could clearly see IC 434 in the 6", but could not see
the HH. Kent was able to see the HH all the way down to the 6.
All of these observations were with the h-beta filter and powers between
80-120x. I have seen IC 434 without h-beta (25" and 18") but never the HH,
although I have suspected the "notch' in the 25. On the best nights, Kent has
been able to catch the nag without a filter in the 25.
My point is that seeing faint is a "learned" skill that improves with practice.
I'm surely not the only observer to notice that, even as my eyesight gets
generally poorer due to increasing birthdays, my ability to see fainter stars,
even naked eye, improves with practice.
Ted Forte
Ratboy99
>
>Jim
May be a question of semantics. A prime topic for SAA.
rat
~( );>
Ratboy99
>it to me one night while observing at his shop and I was underwhelmed.
>
Well, I enjoy looking at many a faint object, so to each his own, I guess. The
HH itself is not my favorite object. But I do enjoy looking at IC 434. It is
actually somewhat brighter than a lot of the galaxies that I've 'gone for'.
rat
~( );>
Len Philpot
wrote:
>>I have looked many times for the horse head nebula. There are reports of
>>people seeing it in 5 inch refractors, but I have never had much success
>>even with my 16 inch. Last week I was out and had the chance to try it
>>with a H-beta filter.
I'd consider myself an average "experienced" observer - I can't see in
the dark the way Barbara Wilson, O'Meara and some others can <g>, but
I've been at it about 13 years or so, so I've got a bit of experience.
I've never tried to see it in an 8" or smaller scope, but with an H-Beta
and _good_dark_skies_, I can see it *fairly* regularly with my 10". Not
that it's photographic in appearance, but I can make out the fact it's
there. The best view, ironically, was once through the 10" with a
University Optics 16mm Konig II and no filter at 88x. Generally, I try
to stay between 75x and 100x, at least with my scope. I seem to get the
best trade off between size and contrast at that power.
My personal "gauge of probability" is NGC2024 - If it's not obvious,
then I don't waste my time looking.
-------------------------------------------------------------
- Len Philpot -> lphi...@centurytel.net (personal)
---------------> len.p...@cleco.com (work)
----- ><> -----> http://www.centuryinter.net/lphilpot/ (web)
Len Philpot
>>>Rick Singmaster calls the HH the "great astronomical snipe hunt". He showed
>>>it to me one night while observing at his shop and I was underwhelmed.
>>
>>Hi:
>>
>>It depends on your perspective. If you go in expecting something like a photo,
>>disappointment is sure to be the result. But...if you approach it not expecting
>>much of anything, you may be suprised at how nice this poor old mare can
>>look...
Through Walt Cooney's 25" Obsession and the Rainwater Observatory's 32"
Tectron, it's pretty impressive. Through my 10", I'm just impressed that
I saw it at all! :)
Bill Becker
gender!
;^)))
Best regards,
Bill
Rod Mollise wrote:
>
> >Rick Singmaster calls the HH the "great astronomical snipe hunt". He showed
> >it to me one night while observing at his shop and I was underwhelmed.
>
> Hi:
>
> It depends on your perspective. If you go in expecting something like a photo,
> disappointment is sure to be the result. But...if you approach it not expecting
> much of anything, you may be suprised at how nice this poor old mare can
> look...
>
Martin Germano
through a fair amount of different scopes at this area (IC 434).
I have *easily* seen the notch of B 33 against IC 434 in a friends 18" f4.5
Obsession with the H-Beta filter from Fossil Falls, California. This site is
darker than Mt Pinos, my normal photographic station. From Mt Pinos, on the
best of nights, I have just *barely* seen IC 434 with my 8" f5, with no
filter (no B 33, though).
From Mt Pinos, were I'm told the skies are in the 6.0- 6.3 range on the best
of nights (and getting worse), I have seen IC 434 fairly easily with the
H-Beta on scopes down to 10". The only time I ever saw B 33 as an *easy*
object was with the 18" +filter+Fossil Falls.
Marty
Martin C Germano
Thousand Oaks, Calif. 91360
mailto:mcge...@earthlink.net
Astro Home Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~mcgermano/index.htm
TWFORTE <twf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000213095042...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Sketcher
refractor (with difficulty after careful preparation and planning) at
115x. I've seen it much better on a different night with a 25cm
Newtonian -- also at 115x. On yet another night, the Horsehead was
invisible with the 25cm Newtonian. FWIW, my sky is generally MUCH
better than magnitude 5.5.
I don't know what kind of conditions are sufficient to see the
Horsehead with a 16 incher and an H-beta filter. But with smaller
apertures and no filter, a very transparent (clean) sky, the absence
of light pollution, the absence of light trespass, high contrast (and
clean) optics, and meticulous attention to dark adaptation are all
very important considerations. The Horsehead is one object where
increased aperture cannot always achieve the performance of a much
smaller aperture under a superior sky.
I have sketches of the Horsehead made while observing with 13cm and
25cm telescopes. The Horsehead is very difficult to sketch due to the
loss of dark adaptation after looking at even the most dimly
illuminated sheet of paper (By comparison, Pluto with a 10cm aperture
is FAR easier! I speak from experience with both Pluto and the
Horsehead.) My red "astronomer's" flashlight with its adjustable
brightness is FAR TOO BRIGHT even on its dimmest setting to use while
sketching the Horsehead. I can go as dim as I desire with my homemade
backlit illuminated clipboard, but even so, if I have enough light to
see (barely and with considerable difficulty) what I'm putting on
paper, It will take far too much time to be able to see the Horsehead
in the eyepiece once again (after looking at the paper.) I ended up
keeping my observing eye meticulously covered when I used my other eye
to look at the super-dimly illuminated paper. With the 25cm scope I
could afford to relax these restrictions a "little." The Horsehead is
NOT an easy object!
Sketcher
My web site can be seen at:
http://www.mcn.net/~verdnalieb/index.html
Alson Wong
news:38A648...@navix.net...
> I have *never* seen the Horsehead in an OIII filter, and I have some
> serious doubts as to whether it can be done using that particular
> vanishes in common apertures when the OIII filter is used.
About a year ago, Derek Wong and I both successfully viewed the Horsehead in
my 14.5" f/4.5 StarMaster with a Paracorr, 22mm Panoptic and O-III filter.
Sky transparency was very good; with the H-Beta I could make out the
"snout," "chin," and "neck." With the O-III not as much detail was visible,
but the general shape was detectable. I don't recall if Derek posted here
about it.
--
Alson Wong
Riverside Astronomical Society
http://www.pe.net/~wpl/ras.html
32nd Annual Riverside Telescope Makers Conference
http://www.rtmc-inc.org/
Visit my Web page at <http://home.earthlink.net/~alsonwong/index.htm>
To reply by e-mail, remove ".block" from e-mail address
Herm
Herm
Rod Mollise
>gender!
>;^)))
>
>Best regards,
>Bill
>
Hi Bill:
I'd say it's pretty obvious! :-)
JosephB41
6.5 are deluding themselves if they think they can see the HH without a
blocking or emission filter and a moderate-sized scope. >>
People who accept pronouncements like this as fact risk being deluded by
observers who might not see as well as they do.
I have personally seen the Horsehead through Sue French's 4" Traveller at the
Winter Star Party. So did she, of course. At the recently concluded WSP I saw
it pretty easily with my 6" refractor and a UHC filter. My first sighting of it
was with an unfiltered 8" reflector used near Chapel hill, NC. My field
drawings leaves no doubt as to what I was seeing, either then or on other
occasions.
Joe Bergeron (JABer...@aol.com)
JosephB41
it to me one night while observing at his shop and I was underwhelmed. >>
You should have seen it at WSP with a 25" Dob and an H Beta filter. It was so
right there it was impossible to miss.
Jay Reynolds Freeman
Horsehead Nebula by way of differences in sky conditions and
differences in experience, are quite right.
My best view of it was with six inch aperture, (a Newtonian at 36x),
with no filter, but that was from about 2000 feet elevation in the
coast ranges of central California, with thick fog below to darken
artificial lights from population centers, with the sky above
sufficiently dark and transparent that the equatorial counterglow was
visible, and with several hours of dark adaptation -- it being late at
a mid-September star party, after most everyone had either left or
gone to sleep.
On another occasion, at Fremont Peak, someone with a large
Dobson-mounted Newtonian -- something in the range of 14 to 18 inches
aperture, I do not remember exactly -- was looking for it without
success. This particular observer was rather a newcomer to the hobby,
and since I was familiar with the field for the object, I offered to
step to the eyepiece and see if I could find it.
And what do you know -- he had it centered! It was, in fact, a
quite nice view. At the magnification in use -- probably 100x or so
-- it wasn't even small. Once I pointed out that the object was
rather difficult, and reminded him about averted vision, et cetera,
the newcomer could see it just fine. But until then, he simply hadn't
noticed it.
--
Jay Reynolds Freeman -- freeman at netcom dot com -- I speak only for myself.
Jay T. Carhart
I am not going to join the debate on what app or filter to use. The
first time I saw the HHN someone took the time to show it to me. It was
posted it is not so much what you can see but what is missing. At the
winter star party in the keys I had the chance to see it in a 36 inch.
Even with this size there were still people who had a hard time seeing
it untill they were told to look for what was missing. I would recomend
going out with someone who can find it easy then try it in your scope.
Jay
Lei Jiang
look at. For first time hunting, you probably need a bigger scope.
lei
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Gordon Nason wrote:
> In Stephen J. O'Meara's new book "Deep Sky Wonders" (an anthology of Walter
> Scott Houston's Sky & Telescope column), Scotty said he saw the Horsehead
> through a 4" Clark refractor and a 4" off-axis Newtonian telescope as well
> as his famous 5" Moonwatch Apogee telescope. Refer to Chapter one, page 8.
>
> I have to say that I have only seen it in 16" and 20" reflectors with UHC
> and H-beta filters.
>
> Gordon
>
> gna...@esatclear.ie
>
> Raycash <ray...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000213003941...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
David Nakamoto
this is most likely someone who has SEEN the object in question with a larger
scope and he/she knows (1) where to precisely look, (2) how big it really is,
and
(3) how bright (or not) and contrasty (or not) it is.
If you cannot see the flame nebula in the same general region, then you won't
see
the HorseHead. For such a famous object it is really quite small, compare to
people's expectations. One such object for me was the Crab Nebula, which
I thought was as big and obvious as the Dumbbell Nebula. It isn't.
Similarly, I believe the easy M42 nearby leads many to think the HorseHead
is easy. It isn't.
Gordon Nason wrote:
> In Stephen J. O'Meara's new book "Deep Sky Wonders" (an anthology of Walter
> Scott Houston's Sky & Telescope column), Scotty said he saw the Horsehead
> through a 4" Clark refractor and a 4" off-axis Newtonian telescope as well
> as his famous 5" Moonwatch Apogee telescope. Refer to Chapter one, page 8.
>
> I have to say that I have only seen it in 16" and 20" reflectors with UHC
> and H-beta filters.
>
> Gordon
>
> gna...@esatclear.ie
>
> Raycash <ray...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000213003941...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
> > >The horsehead can be seen with a 4" refractor at low power, say 48 to
> 60X,
> >
> > Don't believe everything you read (example above).
> >
> > Sorry, I don't really know a polite way of saying it!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At
best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes,
bathe, and not make messes in the house.
--- Lazarus Long
Name: David Nakamoto
E-mail: d...@blankreg.jpl.nasa.gov
--------------------------------------------------------