|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 28, 2012 16:42:50 GMT
Looked like 2 different groups to me. I've classified one group as Dri 17. The other group didn't had a real spot in it, only pores. Today I used a 50mm refractor and projected the sun. I could only see 3 groups and 5 sunspots! R=35. Compare that to my observation with a 10cm refractor with Herschel prism: 6 groups, 40 sunspots. R=100 I was trying to count as I think Wolf would have counted. He did not count pores. |
|
|
|
Post by jcarels on Mar 29, 2012 18:57:58 GMT
wolf wouldn't have seen that group with the 40mm, with the 80mm he could have seen it....
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 29, 2012 23:03:28 GMT
wolf wouldn't have seen that group with the 40mm, with the 80mm he could have seen it.... I'll ask Thomas Friedli [who has Wolf's 37mm scope] if he can see the group... |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 30, 2012 15:11:01 GMT
wolf wouldn't have seen that group with the 40mm, with the 80mm he could have seen it.... I'll ask Thomas Friedli [who has Wolf's 37mm scope] if he can see the group... Here is his answer: With the 40/480 mm Parisian Refractor at 21 magnification I saw 4 groups with a total of 15 spots, e.g. I saw Locarno group 80, 77, 81 and 71. Thus, the answer to your question is yes, I coud see the group and even smaller ones! The optical quality of the historical refractor is really amazing regarding todays "scopes". |
|
|
|
Post by jcarels on Mar 30, 2012 17:54:40 GMT
Thanks for posting his answer  . By "that" group I meant group 72, I should have been clearer on that in my post. Group 71 was easy to see, 72 had only pores at the time of my observation. Could it be that this is an observation from today? Because group 80 was almost at the solar limb the 27th. Edit: 71 was visible with projection the 27th. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 31, 2012 2:17:26 GMT
Thanks for posting his answer . By "that" group I meant group 72, I should have been clearer on that in my post. Group 71 was easy to see, 72 had only pores at the time of my observation. Could it be that this is an observation from today? Because group 80 was almost at the solar limb the 27th. Edit: 71 was visible with projection the 27th. The observation is from today [30th March, morning in Switzerland] |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Mar 31, 2012 19:38:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Mar 31, 2012 19:40:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 31, 2012 21:37:33 GMT
Nice find justsomeguy. thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Apr 7, 2012 3:36:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 7, 2012 4:46:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chris123 on Apr 9, 2012 21:30:54 GMT
Hi Dr... would you be having a gut feeling that a magnetic reversal is about to occur? With the lack of sunspots, is there a dynamic field building rather than localized fields?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 10, 2012 3:21:34 GMT
Hi Dr... would you be having a gut feeling that a magnetic reversal is about to occur? With the lack of sunspots, is there a dynamic field building rather than localized fields? The North pole has already reversed. The South pole has at least another year to go. The field reversal comes from sunspot fields drifting up from lower latitudes. for the south pole to reverse we need some activity in the South. |
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Apr 10, 2012 8:28:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by neilorourke on Apr 10, 2012 22:46:37 GMT
Hi Dr... would you be having a gut feeling that a magnetic reversal is about to occur? With the lack of sunspots, is there a dynamic field building rather than localized fields? The North pole has already reversed. The South pole has at least another year to go. The field reversal comes from sunspot fields drifting up from lower latitudes. for the south pole to reverse we need some activity in the South. So the sun currently has two south poles? |
|
. By "that" group I meant group 72, I should have been clearer on that in my post. Group 71 was easy to see, 72 had only pores at the time of my observation.
