JamesF

2 minutes ago, John said:

Still got the fog here

I wonder if we're perhaps above it (125m above sea level) for the moment?  That does sometimes happen.  If so I can't see the situation lasting very long.

James

2 hours ago, Paul M said:

That's a beauty. One thing I notice is that the terminal flare is very sharp and doesn't so much fade as disappears. My memory of most other Bolides is that there at least some noticeable fade.

Maybe something to do with the material the body was composed of?

I wondered about that, too.  I don't know much about these things, but perhaps if it broke up at that point then it may not have been bright enough to capture on camera afterwards?  I'm struggling to believe that, but I'm a bit short of other plausible explanations.

James

It has been foggy to some extent here all day today, but as the Sun set it really started to draw in to the point where an hour or so ago visibility was getting down to around the ten metre mark.  I couldn't actually see the observatory from the house.  I've just looked out of the window however and noticed that it's quite bright and clear in the garden so I stepped outside to find the sky completely clear and the Moon lighting everything up.  The seeing is appalling though.  The stars are wobbling all over the place.  I think therefore that I shall skip getting togged up to go outside for tonight.  Hopefully better skies will be along some time soon.

James

30 minutes ago, Jilly said:

Crikey I just looked at your link for the bortle where I live ( at the edge of the Brecon Beacons) and it’s class 4 so that’s probably not good? But yes at least I have mountains at hand

As far as I'm aware you do need to take those maps with a bit of a pinch of salt.  I believe they're partially based on assumed information that may well not be true.  I grew up a few miles outside Crickhowell and my recollection is that it was very dark, though I know things have changed over the years.  Where I am now (about 60 miles due south of the Beacons, as it happens) is also classed as Bortle 4, yet some of the things that are listed for Bortle 3 on the page that the Bortle number on that map links to still apply here, even with my slightly older eyes.  If you're away from the larger towns you may find conditions better than that map suggests.

James

1 hour ago, Seelive said:

My first telescope became the finder on my third and last. This was taken around 1982, sadly I no longer have either nor the observatory they were house in.

That's an absolute beast of a mount!

James

1 hour ago, lukebl said:

I did a Google search and amazingly found a contemporary photograph from almost exactly the same location. Nice to see it hasn't changed at all.

That's because for many places out this way, it still is fifty years ago

James

4 minutes ago, andrew s said:

If Netflix The Crown is to belived one family still does even at breakfast.

I can actually imagine the Queen at breakfast in a tie and cardigan, packing her first pipe of the day.  I bet Philip would have more hair if it weren't for her tapping the previous contents of the bowl out on his head.

James

33 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I've had packages from Amazon where the "packaging" was just the address label.

I don't know if it was here, but I do recall being told recently that someone had ordered something like a wheelbarrow online and it had turned up just with the address label stuck to it.

James

7 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

What a bunch of cool cats! Did you start a band by any chance Mark?

It actually started me thinking about how long ago it was when people actually wore ties when they were "off duty", as it were.  My maternal grandfather was a fitter at Scunthorpe steel works and to the best of my recollection wore overalls to work, but I'm fairly sure he had a shirt and tie on underneath.  And when he was at home he still wore a shirt and tie, often with a pair of metal "suspenders" to stop the sleeves riding down his wrists, and almost always with a cardigan (pipe in one pocket, baccy tin and matches in the other).

But then I recalled the owner of a local farm where I look after a few beehives.  I'd guess he is in his late 50s or early 60s at the most and still wears a shirt and tie even when working on the farm.  He must be close to the last of a dying breed

James

Always fun to get something like that happen

James

I think Amazon warehouse staff actually have a competition to see who can pack something in the most inappropriately-sized box.

James

There are a number of ways around this problem.  A shorter T-adapter might work depending on how much extra travel you need.  Or a lower-profile focuser.  Perhaps the most intrusive is to move the mirror up the tube by enough to achieve the backfocus required, which may possibly be combined with using a larger secondary mirror.

James

Prior to fitting a motorised focuser I used a clothes peg on my 127 Mak.  Clipped over the focuser knob it made almost vibration-free changing of focus very easy -- just push the peg in the appropriate direction with one finger.

James

6 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

It can be done in post processing and I would say - that should be preferred way of doing it rather than messing with on camera color balance controls.

I think I'd agree with vlaiv here.  But I would check any colour balance controls on the camera before starting a capture run to make sure that they're in a "neutral" position too.  I'd hope that would be the case if the camera has been powered up from cold, but I'd not trust the drivers not to set some strange defaults.

James

Ah, Omegon 2000C   The penny just dropped.  It's another Touptek rebrand.  I think it may well have blue and red colour balance adjustment in that case.

James

If you have any colour balance controls on the camera then you might be able to adjust the colour with those.  Otherwise I'd use Photoshop (if you have it) or GIMP (which is free) to adjust the colour balance afterwards.

I'm not familiar with the camera, but I'd guess it's just a bit more sensitive in the yellow/green wavelengths than in blue or red, resulting in the colour cast that you see.

James

4 hours ago, John said:

This is the only pic I have of me with any of my telescopes.

I could swear I'd seen a photo of you cradling a large refractor in your arms posted on SGL.

James

It really depends on what you're trying to achieve (for example, is this just for visual or for imaging?) and which mount you're looking at modifying.

James

That's quite a compact one, certainly (Vixen do a cheaper model as far as I recall, but it's longer).  However, with a dob it's possible you might still struggle for sufficient backfocus to get the camera and eyepiece to focus.  Unfortunately it may be that the only way to find out is to try it.

James

Assuming you mean AstroEQ, my impressions are that it works very well and is relatively easy to set up.  Earlier this year I rebuilt my EQ3-2 installation pretty much from scratch and it seemed very straightforward in testing, but I've not got around to using it in anger since, as my priorities were changed by events.  I shall be returning to it very soon though.

What mount were you considering converting?

James

That's a bit of a shocker, and not something that would necessarily occur to me as a likely problem.  Hopefully your plugs will do the job.

James

I didn't think orientation mattered, I have to admit.  The two I have sitting here on my desk (SII and Ha) have no indication of required orientation.  They're not ZWO filters however.  I don't think I have any ZWO ones.

James

Oh, regarding halos on the OIII subs, I believe that's a common criticism of Baader filters if that's what you're using?

James

I think it's much easier to see in this orientation:

but the "beak" is chopped off the bottom of the frame.  Rotating the camera by 90 degrees would possibly help?

James

I'm thinking it might be awkward to see because of the image scale.  And perhaps because it is in an unfamiliar orientation?

James