John

That was a fantastic display wasn't it ? I'm not much of a photographer but managed to get something of it. With Neowise hanging in the sky it was a truly memorable sight.

A 2 inch diagonal does provide a more stable base for a fairly large eyepiece such as the Hyperion zoom. You are correct though that the principle benefits of having the 2 inch option come when true 2 inch eyepieces are used.

I think those figures relate to the use of the optical element of the barlow with the Q Turret or one of the Baader Classic range of eyepieces. The amplification figure when it's used with other eyepieces might vary depending on the length of the eyepiece barrel. Not hugely, but it won't be precisely 1.3x. The exact amplification that is delivered depends on the focal length of the barlow lens element and it's distance from the lowest lens in the eyepiece. Not always easy to calculate ! Any eyepiece that the Q barlow is used with needs a more or less empty barrel so that precludes a lot of designs that have a lower lens group within the eyepiece barrel.

Sometimes there is ! My other half has a habit of walking behind me just when I've got a pic of a nice scope on my laptop screen and saying "Oooh - thinking about buying another dear ?"

I'll always look at adverts for Vixen's even though I really don't need another scope. The proportions of a Vixen refractor and their mounts just seem to be "right" somehow plus they evoke very nice memories of drooling over them during the 1980's for people, like me, of a certain age

If you are going to put it on the Skytee II then do ensure that the mount dovetail clamps are upgraded from stock. The stock ones are not very robust ! If you are going to use a Losmandy dovetail plate (which does seem sensible) you will need to upgrade one clamp on the mount to take that anyway.

Personally, over the years, I've found it helpful in maintaining collimation to understand that very small / tiny adjustments to the collimation screws make quite a large difference to the tilt of the optical mirrors and also not to tighten things down. The locking screws on my 12 inch dob are not used at all unless I'm taking the scope in the car.

I have an old Celestron branded chinese 90mm F/11.1 OTA knocking around which I think cost me £30 a while back. The star test on that is not that great but it does split the "double double" quite easily despite that, as practically any 90mm should. Many years back I acquired one of those 76mm "bird jones" type catadioptric newtonians. Despite being made in Japan that was an awful scope I'm afraid and could barely split Mizar as I recall. The star test with that one was "can you see that it is a star ?" One of these, if anyone else has tried one:

It's been so long since I observed it with the Tasco, I can't recall to be honest with you I'll have to get the scope setup again sometime and give it a go. Theoretically a 60mm should make a 2 arc second split so it's possible. When I was messing with the ED120 stopped down to 52mm I was surprised how close that got to splitting both pairs and also how high powers were still working OK - 225x and even 257x, while dim, were useful.

I'll be interested to here how you get on Stu Incidentally, I used to have some of those Vixen Orthos which I took apart to clean once. I found that they had an optical configuration of two doublets like a plossl or symmetrical eyepiece rather than the singlet + triplet configuration of the classic abbe ortho. They were very good performers though. It's going to be difficult to beat a £5 scope that will split Epsilon Lyrae I would think. My old Tasco 60mm F/13.3 cost me £45 about 40 years ago but that did include mount, tripod, eyepieces etc. Hope the skies clear soon so you can have a go !

Apart from the 17.3mm and 14mm Delos which reach focus around 8mm further inwards.

I have a large washer between the secondary bolts and the secondary holder to stop that happening. I have also added the milk carton washers to the arrangement: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/446178-secondary-mirror-milk-jug-washers/?p=5775875

I didn't find the fixed focal length Hyperions that well corrected towards the field edges in scopes with focal ratios of F/6 or faster. From what I've read (I have not used them personally) the Morpheus are much better corrected eyepieces in scopes of those faster focal ratios. This was sometime ago though so they may have improved the fixed focal length Hyperions since then ? I've owned a couple of the Baader Hyperion zooms and found them generally sharp and contrasty eyepieces - they seemed a bit better corrected at the edges of the field of view than the fixed focal length Hyperions but the zooms apparent field is somewhat narrower through most of it's focal range of course. I found that the Hyperion zoom lost a little in light transmission when viewing deep sky objects but this was comparing them with fixed focal length and much higher cost alternatives. I reviewed the Baader Classic Ortho's a while back for the forum: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/175014-baader-classics-the-story-so-far/

I own a couple of Delos and 4 Pentax XW's. On balance I prefer the twist up and down eyecup approach that the XW's take but I don't have that sliding issue with the Delos at all. Once locked in the position that suits me best (longest extension) they are locked solid and I've never experienced any movement. I've just taken my 17.3 and 14mm Delos out of their case and tried to move the eyecup assembly and there is no movement at all even with some force being used - until I loosen the tension and then it slides smoothly again. I leave all my eyepieces that have adjustable eyecups in the position that I observe with them when they are in storage. I wonder if I was extending retracting the Delos eyecup regularly during use or before putting them away, if the tension might loosen over time ?. I'm not going to experiment to find out though !

Do you mean better than the Hyperion fixed focal length eyepieces or the Hyperion zoom ? They are quite different.

Nice report Very cloudy here so no observing. I got Pi Aquilae a couple of nights ago with my 120mm refractor. But then, it should. Great piece on this binary from John Nansen at the Star Splitters website: https://bestdoubles.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/a-slice-of-aquiline-pi-pi-π-aquilae-σ-2583/

Is the design the same as that used with the Delos ? I have a couple of Delos and the mechanism works really well and is rock solid once tightened. I've not used a Delite though.

Thanks. I didn't notice a red tint either though. If it's still visible when next clear, I'll try the 12 inch dob on it.

I agree with this. You need to step up from the stock EP's to get the best from most scopes. Once you have made that step though, the law of diminishing returns starts in earnest but whether there is a point where you get NO noticable return from an increased investment is an interesting one.

It started about an hour ago here. My other half tells me that the garden needs it though .....

If you can catch a period of nice steady seeing, I'm sure that the Vixen will deliver Steve.

Nice images ! I'm happy that I can see Triton visually. It is probably the most distant rock / ice world that I can see. I'm not holding out any hopes of seeing any of Neptune's other moons I'd still like to see a couple more of Uranus's brighter moons though, which should be possible under the right conditions.

It's down to the individual to decide what they are prepared to spend I think. The qualities of eyepieces from budget ones to some of the most expensive, and their respective performance in different scope types and specs are widely discussed on forums such as SGL, sometimes at great length !, so there is plenty of information out there. Trying for yourself, if at all possible, is very important as well - eyepiece preferences do seem to be quite personal. I guess we all decide whereabouts along the cost vs performance line we are prepared to be. What is good today is that very good eyepieces are available at a reasonable price (ie: around £50 each). These are good enough to enable most scopes to really show what they can do, when conditions allow. I've probably spent far to much on eyepieces over the years but I have, and still do, enjoy using them a lot so I tend to think "what the heck " Eyepieces are not that high up the list of factors (Suiters "wobbly stack") that impact the views we get to be fair: 1 Seeing (not transparency, but the level of atmospheric disturbance which distorts the image moment to moment). 2 Quality of the primary optics. 3 Central obstruction size. 4 Alignment of the optics (collimation). 5 The diagonal being used. 6 The ability of the focuser to deliver critical fine focus. 7 The eyepiece. 8 The skill and fatigue level of the observer and their eyes.

That is a truly splendid result assuming that you are at around my latitude (Bristol-ish) rather than much further south. With my Tak FC100-DL, which has superb optics, the secondary star was pretty dim and hard to see. It lay more or less due west of the primary star - ie: the direction of drift with an undriven mount. Prior to this only my 130mm triplet had managed to give me the split so I was delighted to get it with the 100mm Tak.

You should be able to get an elongated or even a notched pair at 1.4 arc seconds if everything else comes together.