Visual observing, from a scientific view, mostly ended as a significant contributor to the science? in the mid to late 19th century or early 20th century as astrohysics became more the dominant method of astronomy. Of course there were exceptions contributed by amateurs and others but this became the exception rather than the rule. But there is still value in visual work from a personal satisfaction aspect and contributions within an amateur's grasp. It would be a shame to lose the art form; and it is an art form, gained over many nights of considerable effort. That is good enough for me. History and tradition do count. I still love to occasionally? use my 70 year old, F/13, planetary refractor, vice my modern scopes, which are a lot easier to use, on many nights of lunar or planetary observing. Keeps you in touch with where we came from. Seeing the quality of the optics in the old scope makes you also appreciate the old style craftsmen and their pride of product before the factory system and mass production. They are gone now but their creations live on. Same for visual work. It's good to keep the old ways alive while we can.
On Monday, April 7, 2025 at 10:51:46 AM EDT, Ted Forte via groups.io <tedforte511@...> wrote:
That¡¯s still true today. I wonder for how much longer, though. ? ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of jimcoble2000 via groups.io
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 7:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BackBayAstro] Herschel Objects ? It is quite an achievement. The entire business is bottomless. I just finished reading what was considered the standard reference work (up to 1950's) on the history of the telescope by H.C. King. At the heading of the last chapter is: ? "In whatever directions the professional of the future may be forced to develop his methods, we may be confident that the great company of amateurs will never allow visual observations to become a lost art." W.H. Stevenvenson ? On Monday, April 7, 2025 at 10:34:18 AM EDT, Ted Forte via groups.io <tedforte511@...> wrote: ? ? Thanks Jonathan. ? You¡¯ll see that all of the objects done with the 8-inch were in the 90¡¯s when that SCT was my primary scope.? I wasn¡¯t making any statement as to what is or isn¡¯t visible at that aperture.? There are many more Herschel objects that should be visible in an 8-inch that I never got around to trying. ? As our mutual friend Mark O is fond of saying, you can¡¯t get a ticket for trying. ? Ted ? ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jonathan Scheetz via groups.io ? I see that you observed 69 objects with your 8" SCT.? I will check those against my logs and add any that are missing to my TODO list to see how many I'll be able to see over the next few years! Sometimes we treat lists like this as infallible and your comments about the "anomalies" in the list were very interesting.? ? Thank you Ted! |