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.

Brainstorm

Members
  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brainstorm

  1. ..But if the dob has tracking, then surely in theory, it should be no different to an EQ with tracking, no?
  2. My next telescope will probably be a Skywatcher 10", but I'm not sure whether to go for a 10" Dobsonian with auto tracking, or an 8" on an Equatorial with a clock drive, at around the same price bracket. Compared to a Dobsonian, is an EQ mount any better when both scopes will auto track the same? I'm primarily interested in astrophotography, if that makes any difference. Has anyone got an auto-tracking dob they're doing astrophotography with? If so, I'd like to hear your views, and hopefully see your photos.
  3. here's a couple of photos of the focus wheel.. I sent them over to the shop I got them from, and they said the following: which is fair enough, but still unsure what to do. and rotated away from the flat spot..
  4. I'm learning all the time, and this forum has been a wealth of knowledge already. I don't think the post count is relative though, for example, someone like Brian Cox could come on here and probably sum it all up in one post. Please understand, I'm not putting my rationalisation across as fact, nobody has the hard and fast answers, hence 'theory'. I asked the question to hopefully gain a better knowledge of the inner workings of it all. I'm sure there are many scientists across the globe with alternative views on it too. Of course I'm keeping an open mind too, hence my initial question, I'm open for debate on the whole thing, and yes I've learnt plenty from this thread alone. However, the BB theory still does not account for all the mass that appeared out of nowhere. So, lets say everything is expanding, including mass, this would of course back up the Neal Adams Expanding earth theory.
  5. I got my bins today, but on closer inspection, it seems there's a flat spot on the focusing ring, like they have possibly been bashed. One would assume this should be completely round. Also, there's quite a bit of movement on the eyepieces too.. I can easily move them with my fingers up and down like the whole assembly is loose.. I'll phone the shop I got them from tomorrow and see about getting them replaced, but I wanted to check here first to see if that might be the way they have all been manufactured, or if they are actually defective.
  6. The redshift looks interesting, that's something I need to look deeper into for definite. I had a brief look on wikipedia and it appears it's a light frequency version of the Doppler effect. Are there any web-links to data taken over a substantial period of time for a single celestial body anywhere? Although, one would need to account for distortions of data due to atmosphere, which is known to affect frequency propagation across the whole spectrum. I assume the readings are measured via satellite to avoid such atmospheric distortions, which would mean no more than around 50 years worth of accurate data has been recorded, which has been echoed in this thread, is only a mere femtosecond in space-time. Still not convinced on the big bang though. If there was nothing there before it, what caused it, and where did all the matter come from?
  7. Exactly! The things closer to us come and go in our field of view, and further objects appear more stationary. That is a perfect way to exemplify my point. The expanding theory would only work if everything was a fixed distance, but it isn't. None of the closer celestial objects move in or out of our field of view, as a tree would when you pass it on the motorway.
  8. Who's to say TV programs are correct? I've seen some stuff on the National Geographic that is absolute tripe. And just because someone has achieved high educational standards, it doesn't necessarily mean their point of view is absolute. It just means they have skills retaining acquired knowledge. Don't believe everything you're told, when it is still only a theory. Think outside the box, because the big bang theory has its flaws. As I said, if everything was moving equally, we would have to be in the centre for nothing to change visually. But we know we're not. There's 88 constellations, surely if everything was moving at such speed, these would not have retained their shape for the thousands of years they have been mapped. If the egyptian pyramids don't line up, that's probably due to a shift of the earth on its axis. The tsunami in Japan last week "shifted Earth's figure axis by about 6 1/2 inches (17 centimeters)", a lot has happened in the 5,000 years since the pyramids were built, although nothing has happened to the stars fixed positions.
  9. I understand the mechanics of the solar system, but the stars are static, and have been since we started mapping them. ie, constellations haven't changed one bit over thousands of years. The theory of everything in the universe expanding would surely pull all the constellations out of their geometry to such an extent that nothing could ever be mapped, yet we have ancient maps drawn thousands of years ago depicting exactly the same constellations as are evident now. The big bang theory surely defies some very basic laws of physics, otherwise celestial objects would be flying around at varying speeds & directions. Unless of course we are right in the centre of the universe (hmmm!), and even then everything would be getting dimmer as it moves away. If, as the theory goes, everything is moving equally at great speed through the void of the universe. But with no fixed point to base this on, that surely cancels the theory of movement out once again Seems to me the solar system has its rotational mechanism, but the stars & the rest of the universe is not moving outwards as the big bang theory suggests. But as it says, it is only a theory. Discuss..
  10. Thank you. It's various circuits, some are buchla clones, some ARP, some just made on stripboard, basically clones of the best parts of my favourite classic synthesizers. the only thing missing here is the oscillators, and that's purely down to the availability of tempcos. the suitcase synth in the pic is one of my contraptions too, which does have oscillators. Anyway, back on topic, I just picked up the Sky @ Night mag, and that has a led torch tutorial on page 76, although it does look rather bulky with all the terminals. I guess that way is better for folk without a soldering iron, although I find most people have a soldering iron in their tool box these days. I wouldn't recommend Maplin for components either unless you want to spend twice what a manufactured torch would cost for a DIY one. For example, metal film resistors singularly in Maplin are 24p, whereas Rapid stock them at 99p for 100 (less than 1p each), which makes it more than 2400% more expensive at Maplin!
  11. I'm now thinking of converting a bicycle rear light, bypassing the circuit that makes it flash. I'll have a go with a few configurations, 2x5 LEDs might be too much drain on the battery for a start. I didn't think about wiring in series, since all the circuits I've built so far have never needed multiple LEDs wired to the same source. I was thinking about the enclosure and the reflective shield (you don't want the LED glaring in your eyes, that needs to be hidden from view, so I'll attach a reflective box around them, that way it will direct the beam and shield the direct light from your eye. They sell disposable roasting trays in Lidl for 49p, which are made of very thick tinfoil. I was thinking of cutting up something like that.
  12. Hi, I got my kit from the local astronomy shop, Paradigm Shift in Edinburgh. The ring was £12.50, and the T-Tube adaptor was £25. I mentioned a friend in Cambridgeshire wanted an adaptor for his Pentax, he offered to ship it for around £1, so he's very reasonable with pricing. I've been thinking of sawing a bit of the focusing mount away to give me the extra few mm, if I unscrew the eyepiece mount the tube sinks in a good way beyond its normal minimum, so there's plenty room for chopping a few mm off. I'll see how it goes when I get the new ring. Does the focusing issue apply when the tube is mounted? Because at the moment that's what I'm having a problem with.
  13. Really well done clean work. What are the advantages of a 2" eyepiece though? I'm presuming bigger and better optics.
  14. I'm thinking of building a red LED torch, this should be a very simple design, but I want to ask anyone who has an LED torch already if they are super-bright LEDs or standard red LEDs? I already have a bulk amount of various coloured LEDs in my component collection, as I'm in the process of building a modular synthesizer. I don't have any super-bright ones, hence the above question. I was thinking of soldering 2 rows of 5 LEDs on a couple of pieces of stripboard in parallel and attaching a 9V battery clip. With 2 individual rows of LEDs, I can also have it switchable between 5 or 10 LEDs (low & high power). I'll do a build over the next week, put it into an enclosure and document it here with a list of materials needed.
  15. What's the biggest scope I'd fit on the back seat of a VW Polo? I'm trying to gauge this from the pics, turning my head sideways isn't helping either.. I'm thinking maybe an 8-10" newt?
  16. So, basically, without modifying what I have (which I really don't want to do), I will not be able to do any astrophotography with my kit. I think I'm going to have to send the T adaptors back and give up on the astrophotography, it's clearly not as straightforward as one would think it should be. Oh well, it was worth a try.
  17. I'm more interested in deep space stuff, but I would like to photograph the occasional planet too. Although I get the feeling my clock drive won't be going at the right speed to track planets, so deep space stuff is all I'll be able to get with my setup. Is that right? I guess I don't need the T adaptor tube (the left item in the photo in case I named it wrong). These are the items I bought:
  18. I'm trying to attach the camera to the telescope, and have an adaptor tube that the eyepiece fits inside, but apart from the ring being the wrong sort and not fitting, there is no useable picture when I place the camera on the adaptor tube. Are you suggesting I've bought something that will not work on my telescope? If so, how are people doing astrophotography with their SW 130s?
  19. Here's another UK map which may be useful to some CfDS: Maps of Light Pollution
  20. Look up 'Stuff' by George Carlin on Youtube, his comprehension of this phenomenon is the most accurate I've heard. Be warned though, knowing Carlin, there may be the occasional expletive, so best heard out of earshot of the more delicate folk.
  21. Thanks for all the warm welcomes, this is a great forum full of really nice people and a wealth of knowledge, I'm really enjoying my time here already. Does anyone in my vicinity know of any local astronomy groups I could join?
  22. Would the right T-Ring correct the issue with the picture being only visible around the edges of the frame too? I've put my camera on a similar mount on another telescope (also without T-Ring Adaptor) and can see everything clearly. I wonder why this isn't the case with this one?
  23. I bought a 48mm Canon EOS T-ring today, along with what I believe is a T-adaptor tube.. This is to fit my SW 130M eyepiece so it allow me to use my eyepieces in the T-Adaptor tube. The adaptor tube fits the telescope, but the 48mm canon EOS T-ring does not fit either the thread of the telescope, nor the T-Adaptor tube. When I place the camera over the T-adaptor tube (the part that fits the telescope) with my 25mm eyepiece inside, the view is blurred (I can see the image in the eyepiece, but not through the camera), it just shows the image around the outer edges of the picture. Any ideas what's going on, or what I need to fix the problem? Apologies if my terminology is a bit muddy; newbie alert!
  24. After reading the reviews and people's results, I'm now tempted to get myself a 10" dob, and I haven't even had a clear night since I bought my s/h SW 130M. So I'm now starting to see how addictive this desire for multiple scopes is. Thanks for all your replies, these forums are a wealth of indispensable knowledge.
  25. I'm not sure how reliable this test is, but it seems this could possibly be another good way to check for collimation in store..
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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