John

10 minutes ago, joe aguiar said:

Yes the short tube models are good for what they r made for, wide field lower powers views.  I have had a few different ones in my lifetime. Right now I have the skywatcher 102f5 but I dont use it for the planets....

 

The original poster is asking about a 70mm F/7.1 refractor rather than the F/5 variety.

3 minutes ago, GazOC said:

I don't think the 24mm Hyperion is compatible with the fine tuning rings. The rings "work" by increasing the distance between 2 sets of lenses to give higher magnifications. The 24mm doesn't have the second set of lenses 

Yes I think you are right Gaz.

I prefer the older ADM knurled knob design to their newer lobed one.

Good to see a manufacturer at least thinking about how to improve the operation of their stuff for a wider range of users.

9 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

John, this was built in late 2007 it is number #245 🔭

Mine dates from April 2006 and is #20. Not so many of the 130 F/9.2s have been made. Markus Ludes reckons the total run will be less than 150 units.

12 minutes ago, Saganite said:

Hi Ade,

I bought this scope from Dave (f15 Rules ) just over 5 years ago. and it was he who had the polished chrome Moonlite done, and it is pretty gorgeous. The tube is 6" diameter and 1930mm long, and with such a long moment arm, even on an EQ6 it takes 2 to 3 seconds to settle, which is not bad, but I get the same waggle when focusing even using the 10;1 reduction, and on high powers it is frustrating. Now I will not have to touch the scope to focus so I am pretty excited at the prospect. I will let you know.

Similar experience here with my Istar 150mm F/12. Even an EQ6 with Meade Giant Field Tripod could not tame the tube vibrations. That one had a focuser that would have proved hard to motorise and the whole rig weighed too much so I gave up and moved to shorter refractors.

My 130mm F/9.2 is also challenging for a mount but the T-Rex seems to have the measure of it

Hyperions are nicely made eyepieces but are not that well corrected at the field edges in faster scopes such as F/6, F/5 etc. The fine tuning rings concept is interesting but it does involve opening the optics up (there are optics in the 1.25 inch barrel in all but the 24mm Hyperion) so there is a risk of dust entering the optics.

Another review that I did for the forum was Hyperions vs Vixen LVW's:

Hyperions V LVWs10-10.pdf

6 hours ago, Geoff Barnes said:

Well, mixed emotions really. Despite the warm sultry conditions the seeing was exceptional, rock steady and clear as a bell, so that was wonderful. The disappointment  (if you could call it that) was that splitting both 32 and 52 Orionis proved a bit too easy. I had geared myself up for a bit of a challenge and they both exposed themselves a little too readily. My goodness they're both jolly tight doubles though, if it weren't for the incredible seeing I think I would have struggled.

Started with my usual EP the Baader 8-24mm zoom up to 187x and moved up to the Morpheus 6.5mm for 230x. Could just about see the split with this but decided to go full bore with the SW Planetary 4mm for 375x and the splits were clear.

Followed this triumph with some slightly easier splits E &F in the Trapezium, very clear even with the 8mm zoom. Rigel B was too easy, but surprisingly Sirius Pup proved problematic, I eventually found it hiding directly behind one of the diffraction spikes, but once located I could see it even through the spike!

Put on the HB filter in the vain hope of spotting the Horsehead but no go, I don't think I'm going to see it with our skies here.

Nonetheless, had a bit of a grand tour of some old favorites our southern skies, Carina Nebula, Pearl Cluster, Southern Pleiades, Wishing Well Cluster, Tarantula Nebula.

If I only got one session as good as this a couple of times a year I think I would be content!  

I guess the thing is Geoff, that what challenges us here in the UK may not trouble the southern observer. However other stuff we find mundane might be closer to the limit or beyond it for you because of that geography.

Saying that, a 1 arc second split is not an easy split normally, wherever you are

The maximum magnification that proves useful on various targets will vary depending on the seeing, the placement of the target and a few other factors. So its difficult to state what will and will not be useful with any certainty.

What you need is a range of high power options, more so than low or medium power options.

The XW 10 and Panoptic 24 is an excellent start towards a top eyepiece set

By the time it is complete you may well have spent significantly more than your scopes have cost of course !

I tested some of the Skywatcher SWA's a while back. The 32mm was OK but nothing more. The Aero ED 30 is better corrected. I guess the 32mm Panaview lies somewhere between the two ?

Here is a link to my report on the SWA's:

I assume that you used the Aero ED 30 that you had with the eyecup in the uppermost position ?. That reduces / removes the kidney bean effect more or less completely for me (non glasses wearer).

Nice ADM dual Vixen / Losmandy clamp for my T-Rex Alt-AZ mount. Really substantial piece of kit so I wasted no time in fitting it to the mount

On 11/02/2020 at 08:47, Sergey said:

John, are there quasars, achievable for moderate apertures (e.g. 100mm)?

The brightest is 3C 273 in Virgo at magnitude 12.9. It depends how dark your skies are but while it might be theoretically possible with a 100mm aperture but practically 130mm would stand more of a chance.

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

Still waiting for clear skies here in Canberra...... first it was smoke for two month, now its rain every day......

The TMB152 has a new hiding place under the seats of the motorhome..... waiting.... waiting  for a decent night....... here's a couple of pics from clearer skies before the summer fires started...

Your 152 / F/8 must be a similar age to my 130 / F9.2 LZOS Matt - it has the TMB APO logo on the sticker

Using a barlow lens with a medium focal length plossl actually improves the eye relief a bit so is worth considering as an alternative to short focal lengths in that design.

When I had a Lunt LS50 I found a 7.2mm - 21.5mm zoom eyepiece worked well. I think this is the same thing as the Lunt zoom but under different branding and at lower cost:

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/ovl-hyperflex-7e1-72mm-215mm-high-performance-zoom-eyepiece-125.html

It works well for nighttime observing as well.

Lovely country, wonderful place to visit

We were there in 2017. I had a few good views of the sky with binoculars when we had clear nights.

Fantastic place for wildlife - huge variety

Hope you enjoy the rest of your trip Mike !

The packing looks much better than the early examples that I was sent. Glad Skywatcher have listened and learned

Generally I take a pretty relaxed approach these days. Occasionally I get motivated by a particular challenge but not often to be honest.

I guess I'm just "coasting" now with the hobby

I've seen it on successive nights now with binoculars but I'd have to take a scope upstairs to see it and that's not really feasible just now.

Nice to see it with binoculars anyway.

19 minutes ago, JOC said:

Maximum theoretical magnification may not be what you get the best view with.  I have a 5mm in my box (1200mm focal length) giving me potentially 240 X magnification.  I try it and rarely succeed.  Many times smaller is sharper and far nicer to view the planets with.....

 

This is very, very true in my experience.

Theoretical maximums assume that a host of factors (including the seeing and other non-scope factors) are spot on. In practice they almost never are !

Lately I've been enjoying observing relatively straightforward targets such as open clusters and double stars etc and then finding out more about them, when they were first observed and by who, theories and discoveries relating to them, quirky information etc, etc.

Armed with a little bit more information, a familiar target seems to take on a whole new level of interest I find

Reading old accounts by well known (and not so well known) historic observers then examining the subject with your own instrument and eye is also absorbing.

48 minutes ago, Captain Magenta said:

....I vaguely recall reading that on some Russian scopes the adjusting screws are the tiny ones and the locking ones the big ones, but I can’t find where I read that!

I have read just the same and when I had an Intes MN61 mak-newtonian that was the case - it was the small ones that moved the mirrors and the larger ones that locked things.

I agree with the above posters. I've owned an AVX and an HEQ5. The HEQ5 the heavier duty and better all-round mount.

The table you posted is incorrect on the motors (maybe other things as well ?). The HEQ5 motors are integrated within the body of the mount.

The ED150 flange is different from the Evostar achros and the other ED Pros. I think the white body of the focuser screws into the 1st black flange. Hopefully Moonlite will release an ED150 compatible flange soon. Maybe they have already ?

For my 1.25 inch set I went for:

24mm Panoptic

17.3 and 14mm Delos

10mm, 7mm, 5, and 3.5mm Pentax XW's.

I also have a 2-4mm Nagler zoom but that won't get much used in a 12 inch F/5 scope.

I opted for the 17.3 and 14 Delos over the Pentax XW 20 and 14mm because of the field curvature. The 17.3 and 14 Delos have focal points close to the XW's whereas the other Delos reach focus around 8mm further outwards.

Optically and for viewing comfort the Delos and XW's are very similar indeed.

Using a barlow does not overcome the limitations on useful magnification that the scope and seeing conditions impose. It's a device that is an alternative to using a short focal length eyepiece.