How much of viewing galaxies by averted vision is wishful thinking?

[AndrewJ]

I periodically look for galaxies with my cheap binocs. The most distant I have seen is M51 in the bottom of my eye. My concern is that because all I would ever see is a faint blur anyway how can I be sure that I'm not imagining it? The same goes for M82. M81, by contrast, I can make out a definite shape. Any hints or solidarity would be much appreciated.

(I am slowly saving up for a 'scope; even my imagination cannot produce anything where the Leo Triplet should be).

[Ronald Brak]

I guess you just can't be sure. Although the human eye is sensitive enough to detect a single photon, it has a habit of continously detecting photons that aren't there. With a friend you could try testing your peripheral vision and see how good you are at detecting objects peripherally, but that still won't rule out imagination unless they are tests so rigorous and cunning it would be much easier just to buy a telescope.

[RickJ]

We joke about averted imagination but the averted vision is real. Our eye has virtually no rods in the center where our color vision is centered. The rods are far more sensitive to light so show dim features far better but at lower resolution. It helps a lot to gently move the scope while using averted vision to see detail otherwise lost in a static image due to the loss of resolution in that part of the retina.

It takes time to train the eye/brain to use this process. Don't expect results without some time as your eye/brain learns the process. When viewing a new object, usually a galaxy, I try to avoid seeing a photo until after viewing it visually. This eliminates the imagination aspect. Once learned you'll be surprised how much of the detail in photos you do see.

Rick

[AndrewJ]

Thanks for the advice, gentleman. After posting last night I went and had another look at M51 and am now convinced I've seen it. I'm really a distance junkie and the only solution is for me to get a 'scope.

A couple of thoughts on bino galaxy viewing for anyone interested:

1) Aside from using the side of the eye, I find relaxing the eye aids detection - maybe it's like tinkering with the focus on your optics. I have a tendency to try and peer across the megalightyears when it seems to be more effective to let the photons come to you.

2) The further and fainter I look, the brighter closer galaxies seem. I was not convinced I'd seen M33 when I first had a look, now it stands out as obvious.

3) Astronomy rewards those with unusually good eyesight who will thus tend to write the guides. The great Sir Patrick Moore amits to never having seen M82 with binoculars which I find encouraging.

Clear skies!

[RickJ]

Moore must have lousy binoculars or not at a dark site. I find both M81 and M82 easy in 10x50 binoculars. Though now in my 7th decade the eye's aren't what they used to be but I can still see them in my 8x50 finder, just not as well as I did 40 years ago.

Sounds like you are starting to train the eye/brain. Starting small like you are is the best way to do it I've found.

Rick

[AndrewJ]

Rick - I also find M81 easy in 10x50s even with moonlight, mainly because there is an arc of stars next to it which I can centre my gaze on allowing M81 to pop up at the side. There doesn't seem to be any such obvious "anchor" for M82 although I detect a presence to one side of a line passing through the length of M81 (as I see it) and within the same field. However, the ghostly "presence" is in the vicinity of two stars parallel to the orientation I am expecting for M82 so it may be that I am blurring those. If you are observing in Minnesota we should be at a similar lattitude.

Don't know about Sir Patrick's binoculars. I have seen a photo of him with a hands-free shoulder mount that presumably eliminates arm tremor. I have searched to no avail to find such a mount.

[mahesh]

......
Don't know about Sir Patrick's binoculars. I have seen a photo of him with a hands-free shoulder mount that presumably eliminates arm tremor. I have searched to no avail to find such a mount.

Perhaps this may help a bit?!

http://www.garyseronik.com/?q=node/9

but going by your post, your extensive search etc.,
you are probably aware of it.

happy hunting the skies.

[mahesh]

Ah Mr J!
I love your words of wisdom.

Thank you for your encouragement, on cloudy days/nights, I shall definitely take advantage of my averted imagination!

[AndrewJ]

Perhaps this may help a bit?!

http://www.garyseronik.com/?q=node/9

Thanks very much for the tip, Mahesh. If anything, the idea shown in the link would perhaps be a bit too stable for my needs. I have a galaxy fixation, partly because they are so remote and elusive, and find quickly scanning over and around the idenified area is necessary to stimulate recognition. On the other hand, any kind of mount would be useful for finding Jupiter's moons etc.

[mahesh]

....Don't know about Sir Patrick's binoculars. I have seen a photo of him with a hands-free shoulder mount that presumably eliminates arm tremor. I have searched to no avail to find such a mount.

Perhaps a question to Sir Patrick / his assistants, may find you an answer about the mount, here....http://sirpatrickmoore.com/

Hope you get a result.

m

edit:
yeah...a few moons ago, had fun locating M31 through pulsing (heartbeat) binocs