John

This Starfield 102mm F/7 seems to be the 2021 equivalent to my circa year 2000 Vixen ED102SS F/6.5 One day it would be very interesting to see how far things have come in the 21 years between the scopes Refractors of this specification are just so versatile, with the ability to go from a 4 degree true field to 200x plus with just an eyepiece change and so many affordable mounts will hold them solidly and stably, at least for visual use. A combination of a 10 inch dobsonian and a refractor like the Starfield 102 F/7 can provide a lifetime of observing potential

I watched the moon rise behind thin cloud over the reed beds in the Somerset levels earlier this evening. Quite atmospheric. Mobile phone did not really do it justice but it's better than nothing:

I have used an older HEQ5 mount with my 9.5kg 130mm triplet refractor, on a Berlebach UNI 28 tripod and it worked OK for visual. Some vibrations that needed a few seconds to dampen down at high magnifications but it was just about manageable. With the APM 140 doublet being shorter than my F/9.2 triplet, you may well find that a newer HEQ5 is more stable than it was with my 130mm triplet. The use of a Losmandy dovetail bar will help as well.

It's a great looking scope and big refractors always get a lot of attention at star parties and shows, quite understandably. Having owned a few 150mm refractors I'm not sure that I could comfortably handle a 180mm though I believe that one of our members is waiting for a 200mm plus triplet refractor in due course - that will be something to marvel at as well

Once you have tried an optic that seems a noticeably better performer than other alternatives you have, it's quite difficult to give the others much use I've found

Very surprised by that. My Panoptic 24 is pin sharp right across the field with my F/5.3 12 inch dob

Yes, I do have all the equipment (and a bit more ) that I need to enjoy the hobby as a visual observer. In fact I could probably shed 30%-50% of my gear and have just as much enjoyment. I'm just worried that I might miss some of it .......

With my 12 inch F/5.3 Orion Optics dob, I've flocked a 10 inch deep section of half the tube wall opposite the focuser (ie: behind the secondary mirror) and about 12 inches of the tube wall above the primary mirror, all around the tube. With my 8 inch F/6 Orion Optics (recently acquired) I've yet to do that. I didn't see a big difference when I did my 12 inch to be honest but it gave a bit of peace of mind anyway. The big difference with that scope was putting a light shade around top of the tube to keep stray light off the drawtube end and secondary which are positioned close to the top rim of the tube. That made a lot of difference to deep sky contrast.

Why didn't it work with your dob ? I find mine works very well with my F/5.3 12 inch dob

Nice report Kon It is quite inspiring to observe the areas where mankind has walked on the moon. 1972 seems a long time ago now though I guess we will be back, someday.

Algieba (Gamma Leonis) was the very 1st double star that I observed with a scope. 40 or so years ago with my Tasco 60mm refractor. I was very thrilled to see those two golden spots of light so close together Iota Leonis is a tight and unequal brightness pair I seem to recall. Quite challenging.

I have used the GSO ED version of that 2 inch SL barlow (I'm pretty sure that GSO make the SL one as well). It was decent but not as good as a Focal Extender / Powermate, in my opinion. To be fair though I have not actually used the StellaLyra version.

Of those I've owned the Baader and the ES Focal Extender. I currently use the Baader with a zoom eyepiece to create a high power zoom and it works pretty well. I don't use it with my other eyepieces though - I've enough focal lengths without needing to barlow them. I compared the ES 2x Focal Extender to the Tele Vue Powermate 2.5x and the ES was very good indeed. If I relied more on a barlow / extender more extensively I would go for the ES Focal Extender over the Baader 2.25x barlow I think. The Focal Extender has much less impact on focus position and eye relief than a barlow and does not vignette the field edges of eyepieces with large field stops like a barlow does.

Congratulations on the 24mm Panoptic I've been on the same journey and felt the same regarding the ES 24mm / 68. I did end up with a 24mm Panoptic even though I don't binoview. Must be dedicated to the brand I'm sure that I could have quite happily lived with the ES 24 / 68 though, or for that matter the Maxvision 24 / 68 that I had before it. Both excellent in all my refractors.

Apologies - sloppy wording from me !

Well done ! Simple designs such as orthos and plossls with their 4 elements in 2 groups designs are not too bad but the lens elements are small with the shorter focal lengths so the process can be fiddly. If the one you did is one of the Starbase orthos, I think they are a 2 + 2 design more like a plossl, as you found. The "classic" abbe ortho design is a 1 + 3, ie: a single element eye lens and a triplet field lens. A 2+2 design can still be orthoscopic though, as I understand it. With the 2 + 2 designs generally the convex lens surfaces face inwards, towards each other, and the flat surfaces face outwards but it sounds like the elements in yours were concave on one side ? The older Vixen made "Or." eyepieces are also a 2 + 2 design I seem to recall when I took some apart to clean many years back. I think I would be very wary of taking apart one of the more complex designs !

And, of course, we have the winter "Sirius splitting" season nearly upon us

I've assumed that I was seeing the mag 2.95 and 5.40 stars. The split can be an odd one to get though - when I first observed it I was seeing what looked like a thickening in the 1st diffraction ring around the brighter star - rather like a thin snake which has swallowed a tennis ball !. It did seem to be at about the correct position angle at that time. As I observed it more often the stellar nature of this "lump" became clearer / better defined - I guess my eye was getting more practiced ?. My 130mm refractor does a really good job on this one but, now I know what to look for, I can do it with the 100mm as well, when the seeing is decent.

Hello and welcome to the forum Try and keep your eyepieces a little warmer than the outside temperature. That will stop them getting condensation and fogging up from the heat from your eye if they get really cold. Pockets can be useful for this ! To stop scope optics misting up a dew shield or heated dew bands are usually used. If your optics do mist up, don't wipe them. Use a hairdryer as advised above or let the mist clear by bringing the scope inside and letting it warm up.

One thing that I'd be interested in regarding the Nirvana's is whether there were any optical changes made from the original "flat top" UWAN / Nivana shaped versions to the latest ones : Original: Latest:

When you consider that the BCO 10mm was placed somewhere between the Delos 10mm and Zeiss ZAO ortho 10mm in the very top tier for deep sky observing by some leading very large scope / dark sky observers in the USA a couple of years back, that's a considerable bargain I reckon

I'm envious that you got some views - very cloudy again here The pale bands tend to be known as zones:

This one has sold but at least you can ID the seller - he / she may well put some more up or maybe could do you one specially ?: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Telescope-EQ5-CG5-Mount-Top-DEC-Motor-Cover-Kit-Black-or-White-/143984702485?nma=true&si=HaPXw%2BNjoJiLKCmMP33yxqr%2Flw0%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

A great idea, if you can. Eyepieces are such a personal choice. What really works well for one person might prove not so suitable for another. It's take me years and plenty of experimenting to come up with choices which I feel suit me and my scopes optimally

I don't record much but I did do a couple of sketches of Zeta Herculis which are separated by nearly 4 years and show the position angle change. Zeta Herc is quite a challenge with a separation of 1.5 arc seconds and a fairly large difference in the brightness of the components.