John

34 minutes ago, johninderby said:

I used some flocking off cuts for this purpose.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/misc/black-velour-telescope-flocking-material.html

Yes, I've done that.

It looks like a William Optics scope, or a clone of one.

There is no special tape sold for this purpose. I don't know what scope the dust cap is from but they are all different so it is a case of finding something suitable in a DIY store that give you the fit that you want over the end of the scope.

3 pieces of tape will give a more even fit than 2.

27 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

That Orion one was the ‘must have’ in a write up I read somewhere - interesting. You do build up stuff in time, for sure. I’ve nearly got most of what I think I need for the year ahead. There’s always something though...

There are different classes of filter. It's worth finding out a bit more about which filters fall into which class and the impact that they have on various types of target. This is worth a read:

https://astronomy.com/-/media/import/files/pdf/8/c/7/0805_nebula_filters.pdf

3 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

@John one last question, have you found light pollution filters of any use?. I’m in a bortle 5 area and whilst there’s LED lanterns being installed gradually, there’s still a lot of sodium around?

I've tried a few and some broadband filters (eg: Orion Skyglow) but found that they made little or no impact, at least for me.

Just now, Stardaze said:

Thanks John. I hate scrimping but when you need to build a system, there’s lots of things that start to add up initially. I think I’ll do that and get the ES UHC, I’ll then add a quality O-III when a little more comfortable again.

It took me many years before I ever owned a filter of any type to use on deep sky objects 

Building stuff up gradually is definitely the way to go. These objects will be there year, after year, after year so there is no hurry

3 hours ago, Stardaze said:

Im still dithering over £200 for an O-III @John. I could do with two EP’s next month to fill the gaps, so an astonomik on top, is pushing it. I know you said that the ES one will work to an extent but, in your opinion, how much better is the Astronomic? If it’s above 50% I’ll have to swallow it. Want to see the veil next month ideally and I’d also like to capture the owl nebula and see what effect it has on the ring too whilst they’re all in favourable spots. 
As an aside, and thinking well ahead, what filter is best for M42 later in the year, assume a UHC? 

Any UHC or O-III filter will show the Veil somewhat better than it appears without a filter.

I first saw it with a 100mm refractor and the Baader UHC-S filter which is a rather "mild" UHC filter but it still showed the Veil with that scope whereas removing the filter left nothing to be seen. It still took me a while to "learn to see" this large object, even with the filter.

I've since tried lots of UHC and O-III filters and they all worked on the targets you list, and others to some beneficial extent.

I would say get a mid-priced UHC (such as the ES) and at least you will be getting some benefits. You can decide later if exploring these objects are something which really grabs you.

I ought to say that there are many nebulae that I prefer to observe without a filter as well, M42 and M57 being a couple of those. It is actually interesting to have a UHC and an O-III in the tool box (eventually) because they bring out different aspects of the objects.

I use the Baader Wonder Fluid applied via their micro fibre cloth. Never apply the fluid directly onto the glass.

I don't so this often though - perhaps a couple of times a year ?

I have a manual blower to puff off any dust and loose stuff. I always do this before applying the fluid / cloth clean as well.

Some eyepiece designs have the top surface of the eye lens more exposed than others. It's the top surface that gets the dust etc. Rarely need to clean the field lenses (the bottom ones) I've found.

Some eyepieces have large glass surfaces as well but those are easier to clean than the ones that have tiny lenses.

My "game changer" has been my 12 inch dob which was a 2nd hand tube and a mount made by the good hands and mind of @Moonshaneof this fine forum

It's the scope that has cost me the least and yet has shown me the most

I'm not sure that investing heavily does help much

I've always had totally separate funds for my hobbies and have never taken a loan out to fund anything. So it's never been a choice between domestic and astro equipment expenditure.

Before the lockdown I was going to have a massive clear out of gear and cut right down. Ironically, due to the generally fine weather that we have had since March, I've actually done a lot of observing and I've used most of what I have so I can see the point of it more now.

I had a big spend in 2016 and got a couple of top end scopes that I would only have dreamed about in years gone by.

It has been great to own and use them and to see what "premium optics" actually look like at the eyepiece but I don't feel that they have been game changers in the hobby for me.

One of the things that using a premium optics has shown me is just how good the standard of more "ordinary" equipment is today

36 minutes ago, Stu said:

.... The two larger spots in the rectangle are split in two themselves....

I thought that was the case when I was observing them. Good to have it confirmed

Cloud has thickened here so no more observing just now

My mobile phone efforts were rather poor too. The best is below and that barely shows the group

6 minutes ago, markse68 said:

How does it get away with the smaller secondary John? Is it because of the lens?

http://www.ianmorison.com/the-maksutov-newtonian-telescope-discussion-survey-and-an-image-of-the-10-day-old-moon/

Like everything in astronomy, compromises.

- Very small secondary and no secondary supports so very low diffraction.

- 30% the coma that a normal newtonian has.

- A "niche" design so expensive and made to high quality.

Despite all that, I don't have one now. I went for a refractor instead

I reckon this might beat it (just about)

https://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=162161

I used to have the 6 inch version - it was a brilliant planetary scope.

Lambda Cygni is 1.5 arc seconds. Magnitudes of 4.7 and 6.2.

Delta Cygni is wider at 2.8 arc seconds but the magnitudes are 2.9 and 6.2 so that can make it a bit tricky.

The separation of Zeta Herc is around 1.36 arc seconds isn't it ?

I guess the limit for an 80mm aperture is around 1.5 arc seconds ?

I reckon getting a "touching pair" would be a good result for an equal brightness pair.

Zeta Herc is not an equal brightness pair so that adds to the challenge.

It's not all that close this time is it ?

I thought the figure was around 5 million KM ?

19 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Thanks for the confirmation John, if it's considered a good eye piece in your opinion then they can't be bad. 👍

 

Er, I've not actually used a Morpheus, but from the reports that others have made, they would be on my short list.

I'd certainly like to try one someday.

As soon as there is something to observe until I'm tired or the weather intervenes.

Anywhere between 15 minutes and several hours.

I'm retired so I don't have to get up for work, which helps.

If I was starting a quality eyepiece set afresh the Morpheus would be high up my list I'm sure

Hi Jim,

The Tele Vue's are better performers than the Celestron will be, whatever eyepieces they are used with.

The Powermate's in particular are superb - probably some of the best image amplifiers around.

The foam in my cases is "pick and pluck" as well but I don't actually remove any.

I've found that depressing sections of the foam around the eyepiece shape and then using the foam in the lid to hold the eyepieces in their depressions works fine. If I change an eyepiece (which I used to do rather often ) I could then pull the depression back up and make a new one that fitted the new arrival.

My cases and foam have survived many changes of occupancy over the years and still look reasonably neat.

Here are some earlier iterations of the same case and foam. These cover about a decade (earliest first):

With a 10 inch scope you will find magnifications between 150x - 250x work well on the moon and planets as long as the seeing conditions are reasonable.

So eyepiece focal lengths in the range 8mm to 5mm will be useful. Using a good barlow is certainly one way to achieve that.

Maybe John in Australia is referring to keeping the magnifications more modest at outreach events, which does make some sense because higher powers can be tricky to use for folks who have never observed with a scope.

The 10mm plus the 2.25x barlow in standard form would create a virtual 4.44mm eyepiece so quite a lot more magnification than a 6mm - 270x vs 200x. Seeing conditons and target would come into play more than optical differences I think.

The barlow + 10mm combination would deliver more eye relief than the 6mm on it's own. Barlow lenses lengthen eye relief a little and the 10mm ortho already has longer eye relief than the 6mm of course.

The Tele Vue 2x barlow is excellent but it's been a long time since I owned one. I would guess that the performance is similar in quality to the Baader barlow but the Tele Vue is better built.

Nothing is ever 3x as good as anything that costs 3x less. The performance differences are incremental and get smaller as the quality / cost increases. The step between the stock eyepieces and the next step up (eg: £50 eyepieces) is the largest (even then not 3x whatever that means !) and then improvements get smaller from there.

If you look at the eyepiece section you will see that people are still happy to spend a lot of money on these small gains though