Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_beauty_night_skies.thumb.jpg.2711ade15e31d01524e7dc52d15c4217.jpg

EA2007

Members
  • Content Count

    868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EA2007

  1. had a little peak through it this morning, made my own 'star' with a torch and a hole in cardboard to see if focusing was okay at a distance down the garden. it seems to be back together okay and there is no noticable changes in the view. the mirrors look shiny new in the daylight : ) if it stays clear tonight then i'll give it a proper go and see if its all in alignment etc.
  2. i'd have fallen over if the primary had broken. good lesson though, I now know not to do it again. Once I had the scope open its surprisingly simple how it works, if one had the correct mirror / lens assemblies then you could make your own.
  3. lol, i didn't mean filler filler....i meant something which you guys had already suggested!
  4. yeah I might try and get some sort of filler thing for it. anyway, went against common sense and decided to clean the optics myself. not a bad job if I say so, the secondary never looked so clean, the primary is now 'blob' free and the lens is clear from any marks...although placing it back together resulted in a few smears on the lens but they are easily curable.
  5. ? A photon would take 13.7 billion years to travel the visible universe according to modern astronomical calculations. To cross the universe would never happen as there is no defined 'edge' to the universe. The expansion of space itself would limit any photons from ever reaching the exact limits of the universe...raising the question is the expansion faster than light speed, or did it just have a head start!?
  6. "Now, regarding light speed; as an object approaches light speed, time slows down for that object. Hawking usefully described it as a protection for the light speed limit. eg. on a train travelling at near the speed of light, if a person ran forward, they could break the light speed limit, but as time slows down for them, they would not be able to run forward fast enough to break it, in fact, at the speed of light, they would freeze, so they would not be able to move forward at all, thus protecting the speed of light limit." With regard to the above, surely thats relativity and not speed preservation, i.e. the speed of the train to an outside observer is the train going nearly the speed of light, however the speed of the human inside is relative not to an outside observer but only those inside the train. So the human will only be ever, relativly speaking, be going about 15mph max. Its where relativity gets its name from, if you throw a ball in the air on a train then inside observers will only see vertical movement. An outside observer will see the ball move in both vertical and lateral positions, depending on the speed of the train and the height of the throw, then the outside observer may see it go vertical for 1 metre and lateral for 40 metre's. You can't really say the ball travelled 40 metre's laterally on the train because it never happened. You can also take energy into this equation, imagine the amount of energy needed to throw the ball in the train laterally over that 40 metre's, its a lot more than throwing it vertically for 1 metre. An outside observer would probably then see the ball travel 1 metre vertically and 80 metres laterally. This is therefore not a true indicator of energy and the energy usage can only be taken from within the train. So relativity is seperate depending on the medium in which its being used. Wow, thats the most physics I have done on this forum in ages! It's probably all wrong aswell.
  7. tell me about it...i have done it before (well not dropped it obviously) and there was no problems. the secondary just fell out and i was like "what!", just stood there thinking "oh noo". I am thinking it should be okay. reminds me of when my Olympus dSLR fell from my scope and hit the paviung slabs outside, eughhh ideally all the optics need a good clean...any ideas?
  8. the secondary mirror of my Schmidt fell onto the primary...there is now an indentation as below: Yfrog Image : yfrog.com/jnimg1424jj will it affect performance much. the optics need a good clean anyway so if i get them cleaned will it probably counteract the scratch? I feel like an idiot
  9. I go with the Met Office and then the BBC. You could always try MetCheck thats quite accurate, it also has an Astronomy weather detail in the 'Hobbies' section. First night, try Saturn, M13, M92 for comparison and M27 they are all quite easy to find.
  10. Never done a proper messier marathon...probs only got about ten. That's over a 4 year period though....maybe I should get onto it tonight if its clear! Ones to date are: M 1 M11 M13 M27 M31 M32 M36 M37 M38 M42 M43 M44 M45 M51 M57 M65 M66 M71 M81 M82 M92 M110 that's actually a lot more than 10, ha!
  11. eyetest or condensation or out of focus or not Vega or other take any of the above and divide by intelligence! : )
  12. You can also buy the book. Its a very good read, written in a clever and easy to understand way. I purchased it at Uni 4 years ago nearly and its been in my 'useful' collection ever since.
  13. I am quite a big fan of Heroes, watched all the episodes (but not that much of a geek to have read the comics!), however after the first season things went downhill. The ending of season 1 wasn't what it was built up to be, however it did lead nicely into Season 2, the downfall came with the introduction of too many new characters and not enough focus on the original events. When Hiro lost himself in Japan in the 1600's and Peter lost his powers it never got its edge back again. Sylar's a great baddie, he should of used more of his powers instead of the usual telekinesis. I think they should have Season 4, Tim Kring says it will be more back to basics but maybe its left itself somewhere where it can't return.
  14. EA2007

    M64 LRGB

    thats one good looking open cluster. Shame about the nebulosity in the centre, dew maybe ?
  15. The summer objects soon come around again, we have a good selection to go for M13, M92, M57, M27 etc etc. Nice picture : )
  16. ah okay, thanks for that. I assume the focusing will still be okay? I know that on my 8inch Newt. I can't focus it as there isn't enough downtravel on the focusing housing.
  17. Will it regenerate as David Cameron ?
  18. Thanks Peter, what do you mean by 'spacing' ? excuse my lack of knowledge
  19. Thanks, I am liking the amount of colour it picks up, I still need to address the focusing issue and the alignment but that will come with time. May purchase a focal reducer...any ideas on where to get one for cheap / any ideas on where to get a good one?
  20. Object: M13 Scope: Celestron C8 Schmidt Cassegrain @ F/12 Mount: (N)EQ6 Pro Camera: Unguided stock Canon EOS 450D Settings: 9 x 30 Secs (5 @ ISO1600, 4 @ ISO800) No darks/flats Processing: Stacked in Deep Sky Stacker, adjusted in IrfanView Think my scope needs collimating and balancing properly. First real attempt at stacking more than 2 images of this object : )
  21. I am fairly guilty of buying more equipment rather than going with what I have got. However the setup I have atm is more than adequate for what I need. In my case I need to (and quite rightly) understand how it works properly and go from there. Take last night for example, I was only out for about 30 minutes and the sky was really really clear, shame on me! I jumped from aligning my scope straight to imaging without much obs. inbetween, I should have double checked my alignment and done some visual stuff first. As it happened I went to image M13, got 9 good images of 30 secs each then tried a 1 min exposure via Canon's remote shooting, this resulted in some star trails, my alignment was off a bit. Its all part of the learning process, I haven't spent much on my setup compared to others, i.e I only have the standard 25mm EP that came with the scope and I use a bicycle rear light for eyesight preservation! I can however, claim that I am an Astronomer, I have a degree in it with honours ha ha
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.