Hi Les, interesting reading, and thanks for clarifying that
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngcles
I'm not suggesting you are lying or falsifying your reports, merely mistaken.
|
I am sure that, similarly, Alex isn't suggesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngcles
that the dozens of expert professional observers (all astronomers back then were expert professional visual observers before the age of astrophysics and lived or died on their visual acuity), using some of the finest giant refractors mostly much, much larger in aperture than a mass-produced 7-9" Mak, were clearly a bunch of mugs in failing to detect the Encke gap between the 1820s and 1888.
|
I don't necessarily agree with Alex et al. that trying to observe the Encke Gap in a 7-9" optic is a particularly good way to establish whether that optic is good or not, because it might just take a couple of decades for the seeing to eventuate that would permit an observation that is beyond doubt - in any optic. That's certainly the case where I live. I wouldn't want to wait that long, especially if the scope is still under warranty
On the other hand, I would not consider it completely impossible for a skilled visual observer like Alex to detect the drop in surface brightness in the region of said feature, even if it can't be
resolved.