John

As long as the finder is aligned accurately with the main scope it can be placed where you like.

It is useful to have the finder / finders close to the eyepiece though so that you can move your eye quickly from the finder to the eyepiece. Right angled finders are much easier to use on a dobsonian, and other scope designs for that matter.

On my 12 inch dobsonian I have my two finders close to each other and also close to the eyepiece:

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Congrats John! A big thank-you from all of us for all of your help and experience shared over the years 👍👍.

Any memory of how many members SGL had when you joined?

Thanks very much Stu

I don't know what the membership was back then - maybe 100 or so ?

I guess members like @Ant,  @GazOC or @russ might know - they were here before I was.

Thanks to those who have found and linked to an archive version of the original article

I don't use a tracking mount personally. Others might though ?

As a lifetime visual observer I have often found myself wondering the opposite - am I missing something by not doing some imaging as well ?

I think the main reason that I have not done more than some very, very basic stuff is that I much prefer using telescopes with little or no tech attached to them. Undriven alt-azimuth mounts, no GOTO, no electric apart from the batteries in my torch and my RDF.

But I do enjoy looking at the outputs from those who do image so I sincerely hope you all keep doing it, despite the challenges

41 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

I've read so many differing views on the XW14 and XW20, that it's clear to me that it's very scope dependant and also depends how well the observer can accommodate any field curvature. At my age (54) I may fall into the camp where I find it obtrusive or may be lucky. Therefore, I've concluded that it's very much something I need to try for myself and see how they perform in the small range of scopes I now have.

To that end I've also today ordered the XW14 so I can try both focal lengths. I do have the option also of using the 2x TeleExtender on the XW30 which is effectively the same focal length, but with different (better?) eyepiece characteristics. This is only useful in the dob though, as that setup is big and heavy, so ideally I'd like the XW14 and XW20 around to use in the StellaMira etc too....

 

I agree. There is no substitute for finding out for yourself if at all possible

I was very lucky that FLO loaned me all those eyepieces over the years. It would have been an expensive business assembling the various sets that I've been able to try out and report back on.

31 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

The Pentax family continues to grow... an XW20 to join its siblings (XW30, 10 & 7) 😃

I've read that this (and the XW14) are not as well favoured (field curvature 😬), but as I love the view, form factor & usability of the others, I'm going to find out for myself how well these perform in my scopes🤞

I'll be very interested to see what you think of the XW 20

I went for Tele Vue's in the focal lengths above 10mm because of the field curvature reports in the longer XW's but I have not actually used the 14 or 20 so they might not be a problem for me.

I have owned the 8.5mm and 12mm Pentax XF's which did show FC so those might have swayed my choices as well.

It's interesting to see how the optical properties of the XW range vary across the focal lengths:

Generally you need around 100mm of inwards focuser travel to be able to focus when using a binoviewer without adding a barlow lens element or similar to the binoviewer.

SCT's and mak-cassegrains tend to have lots of focus travel so this is more straightforward on those designs. Refractors and newtonians can struggle.

I have owned all the Ethos eyepieces at one point apart from the 10mm. I still own the 21, 13, 8 and 6. I've found them all be of superb quality. The differences that Don mentions are very slight I suspect. I didn't really notice them to be honest.

Glad we got off the subject of dodgy 1970's fashion

I have used my 1.25 inch Lunt wedge with my ED120 refractor a number of times without any problem. The heat sink gets pretty warm but that is what it is meant to do.

I use a single polarising filter on the eyepiece so control the final image brightness. Some folks love the Baader Continuum filter as an alternative to the polarising one.

I take the finder off my scope when using the wedge and never leave the scope unattended.

5 hours ago, Jiggy 67 said:

It really is personal preference, some people prefer a Cheshire, others a laser, I’ve tried both . I prefer a laser (HoTech, which I think is a premium bit of kit) and you’re right, a laser is quick and easy in the dark if you need it. 
The Cheshire V Laser argument has been repeated a hundred times before on this forum and will repeat a hundred times again, it never gets resolved because it’s all about preference 😀

The quandary begins when you get what you think is good collimation with one device then find that the other does not agree. You then get the scope collimated with the other device only to find that the original one thinks it is off

At least you can use a star test to act as a "referee"

Great post Neil

I wonder what it is like for those who live under skies that are clear for many nights of the year ?

Here we grab whatever is going and make the best of it. I guess if you have many clear nights at your disposal you get more picky and look for a certain degree of transparency or steady seeing before setting up ?

Nice one Stu - congratulations

4 hours ago, HollyHound said:

Same here, I have a wonderful collection of boxes for shipping out anything I sell... some of them do indeed contain clouds too unfortunately 😬🤣

Me too. Explore Scientific gets the award for the biggest box though - I could store quite a few of my Tele Vue and Pentax boxes in the box that contained the ES 17mm 92 degree whopper

8 minutes ago, goodricke1 said:

Well it's now approaching 30 years since the last British meteorite fall, which is the longest span since Aldsworth-Rowton from 1835-76. You'd have to say that's surprising, considering the ubiquity of cameras of every sort, compared to earlier times -

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=*&sfor=names&ants=&nwas=&falls=yes&valids=yes&stype=contains&lrec=50&map=ge&browse=&country=United+Kingdom&srt=name&categ=All&mblist=All&rect=&phot=&strewn=&snew=0&pnt=Normal table&dr=&page=0

Interesting info on UK and Ireland falls here:

http://www.meteoritehistory.info/UKIRELAND/INDEX.HTM

The fun continues for a week here by the look of this. I'm sure there was some more green showing a couple of days ago

Mars will be a tiny pink dot next time I see it at this rate !

You have had some great advice in this thread already.

My advice is, whatever you decide to go for is to:

- Keep it simple to set up and take down

- Keep it reasonably portable

It is much better to have a 6 or 8 inch scope that can be deployed quickly and easily, moved around as needed to get the best views / darkest sky, and reasonably easy to pop into a car if you need to than it is to have a larger scope that, after initial enthusiasm, gathers dust because it's hard work to set up and move about.

Avoid stuff with complex power requirements and lengthy setup times.

11 inch SCT's are big, heavy devices - I've helped set up a few and their owners quite often are still setting up and aligning their SCT's at our society events half an hour or so after I've set my non-GOTO 12 inch dobsonian up and I'm moving from target to target.

Even the 9.25 inch ones are quite a handful !

Imagine the "For Sale" advert

- some signs of wear from normal use but some TLC will soon sort these out.

- buyer must make own carriage arrangements.

- buyer to provide suitable topography for mounting the instrument.

- strictly no returns ......

I've come across this photo (scanned from a print) from 20 years ago of me with my brand new TAL100RT. I bought this new in February 2000 as a 40th birthday present for myself having managed nearly a decade without a decent scope after our children arrived. I think it cost £250 delivered from Siberia.

They supplied the scopes in huge custom made wooden trunks back then. Rather like a coffin !

Fine scope that TAL was

16 minutes ago, Ships and Stars said:

..... The TALs are well-regarded it seems, but I don't know much about them....

 

Some reading when you get time:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/317902-the-history-of-tal-telescopes/

14 minutes ago, John said:

A little research into Thomas Harriot seems to indicate that the telescope he used, his "dutch trunk" as he called it, magnified around 6x. Maybe the 6 x 25 non achromat finder of my old Tasco might not be far off

It would be interesting to see how the Moon looks though that, when examined carefully, compared with Harriot's map

 

Apologies for deflecting your observing report thread Stu

I can always start a new one on replicating the views of the early observers.

A little research into Thomas Harriot seems to indicate that the telescope he used, his "dutch trunk" as he called it, magnified around 6x. Maybe the 6 x 25 non achromat finder of my old Tasco might not be far off

It would be interesting to see how the Moon looks though that, when examined carefully, compared with Harriot's map

At the top end, projecting out over the corrector lens:

Good question actually - it will help others too I reckon

I'd like to get hold of something that has a similar spec and performance to the scopes that Galileo used. It would be fun to see what he had to work with (albeit under darker skies I guess) and see what can actually be seen today with such an instrument.