Moonlit Knight

Having just re-read what Mark said 25 and 20 mms plossls should be ample if I have understood correctly.

Thank you all for your input, it's really very much appreciated.

I was thinking of an WO one and TeleVue plossls, how does that sound? I am very open to suggestions. I think the WO comes with a x2 Barlow, so perhaps 15 and 11 mm for solar system objects? I use a manual AZ, a Gibraltar btw, does that change anything?

Many thanks 

56 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

If you go for one of the tracking dobs they are a doddle. I had a 10" Flextube for a while and you can lift the tube with one hand  The base is more awkward than heavy.

I finally settled on a 12" StellaLyra and an EQ platform. All the tracking convenience, but, the size! I have to keep it in a shed next to the patio where it is used. I couldn't move it any farther.

As for 250mm v 130mm - 3.7x the light grasp and it's a whole new universe up there!

What is the build quality like on 12 inch 

Has anyone any experience of using binoviewers with a fl7 4 inch refractor, purely for solar system objects you understand. 
Do they help with floaters and what are the pitfalls with this type of telescope? Do I need to use them with a Barlow and what are your eyepiece selections? I intend to use them with a manual AZ mount. 
 

Floaters are starting to become very annoying. I like my outfit very much and would hate to get into reflectors, bigger scopes less floaters I have read. 

18 hours ago, jetstream said:

I challenge you to an astro duel Sir!!🙂

We'll leave the red torch and Turn Left at Orion at home and we'll use a 1 deg TVOV and go find some stuff- you in?

Of course manually, no goto ,push too, just skill.

What scope(s) do you use ?

Absolutely 

11 hours ago, Louis D said:

what other choice does one have?

A red torch, a copy of turn left at Orion and an attention span longer than that a ferret might possess 

7 hours ago, adyj1 said:

 

I got the impression you viewed the outcome of this poll as confirmation of your opinion about the use of goto. I guess I assumed you were extrapolating the number of people who 'bother to learn the night sky' from the poll. 

Anyway, I use goto exclusively now but when I was a novice I learned the night sky and can star-hop proficiently. 

Good god no, absolutely not. I would have thought it would have been exactly the other way around, I couldn’t believe it. I think it’s all very sad. 

2 hours ago, adyj1 said:

Be wary of confirmation bias... 

Confirmation bias occurs when one is actively looking to find a particular outcome. The evidence demonstrate a clear preference for the use of goto over traditional methods of finding astronomical targets. What the research doesn't show, without a thematic analysis of why this appears to be the case. As John said it's a blunt tool.this poll.

There is a paper in this for someone, but not from me, I am up to my neck in it as it is, and I have a deadline too.

It's a symptom of a culture that wants evening now, instant gratification at the experience of experience and rote learning. The different between Stargazing and Astronomy...

Hey Ho

Interesting, more people use goto that bother to learn the night sky.

A couple of years ago I was doing an outreach, loads of astronomers there too, some of whom brought their scopes with them. While I was locating a target a couple of the group made a comment something like "Oh, he's one of those blokes who knows where everything is " like taking the time to learn the night was a bad thing, showing off even. When I think about it now lots of people have been surprised when I was able to locate something quickly. I had always assumed that the most be visitors or not into the hobby very long. It seems I was wrong, it looks like most people don't bother to learn the first place. That's come as something of a revelation.

I am not knocking goto btw, live and let live.

Clear skies...

Be interesting to see what the consensus is.
 

10 - 15 years ago you would have been ridiculed and accused of cheating for even suggesting using goto. 

Never used goto. I had considered getting encoders to see what its like, but decided against it, I have done well enough for decades without them. I’ll save my money. 

Simple question, as anyone retro fitted an encoder set onto a Gibraltar HD4 or 5? If you have were there any issues doing so and was it a worthwhile upgrade?

That’s more than one question isn’t it!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/155401860997?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=GPUltlyGSgG&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=913qj9xFSeS&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY
 

Actually it is the fl 11 number now that I look properly 

I was an early adopter of these KUO refractors, I have owned mine for just over 3 years. I had the same dilemma re 51 or 53 glass. I stumped up the extra 300 quid in the end, I was fortunate enough to be able to do so. Well I still have the scope and no intention of getting anything else. I have always had my eye on the next scope, but that changed when I bought that refractor. I still think it’s incredible value for money. Altair has been out of stock for months, FLO bought 50 of them and now have 13 left. The Technosky badged version is 11 quid under a grand now and with the way things are (Skywatcher prices have jumped up again just this week) I would be surprised if they are all not a grand a piece universally when everyone restocks. There is a fpl 51 number on eBay for 350 quid right now if I remember right if you are interested. Now that is a bargain. The build quality is extremely good on these scopes and are, in my opinion one of the few scopes that no one has a bad word to say about them 

On 07/02/2023 at 15:55, FLO said:

They can be removed, but only because what is assembled can be disassembled. Removal of the focuser and dew shield for travelling isn't a feature. 

HTH, 

Steve 

I don’t suppose you know how to take the dew shield off do you. I was considering getting it power coated black.
 

Proper old school me.. 

On 07/02/2023 at 20:34, mikeDnight said:

 Lovely scopes Roy!  I have to confess that I have a soft spot for the R, which I think stands for Rough

Yeah, very agricultural. The tubes weren’t even round and as for the baffling…

Still the optics were very good and I have very fond memories of mine, my second proper scope, my first was the rather wonderful Towa 339. 

https://astro-baby.com/reviews/TAL 100RS/TAL 100RS Review.htm

9 hours ago, Highburymark said:

Not from you they’re not.  I’m out.

Me too. I was a lurker for a long time, I don’t do social media as I can’t deal with conflict, there is too much of it in the world. Some great advice, mostly I think, but it’s just too much like Facebook or Twitter or something.

Be kind to each other. 

Clear Skies to you all.

Thank you to those that answered my question. I am still a little confused. I have been lurking for a long time before I signed up. The standard response to anyone thinking about buying a refractor seemed to be you really need to buy a Takahashi. The impression you get is that everything else is a bit sad and people are just trying to be nice about buying the other brands, except TeleVue perhaps.

But then I have always found stargazers to be very nice people anyway. 
 

Anyway thanks again, I wouldn’t want to take up anymore of your time, appreciated. 

Interesting thread. If I have understood this right then a Takahashi is really the only refractor really worth having and everything else is just a stepping stone until you can afford a Tak? I would love to look through one one day, they really must be incredible things. Kudos to those of you lucky enough to own one, epic 

4 hours ago, Xilman said:

A Newtonian is a (type of) reflector!

If you meant a refractor, I'd personally go for a reflector in that they are purely achromatic and you tend to get more aperture (i.e. light collection) for a given price.

That said, I strongly advise spending perhaps 50% of your budget on an adequate mount.

Reflectors are not achromatic 

Tack so mycket Lars, du ar valdigt velkommen har. 

2 hours ago, Shed9 said:

I think I responded to your question on a FB page somewhere Ian. Definitely not mould, it would take far, far longer to develop and looks branch like in appearance. Mould is rarely symmetrical as its organic and besides, even when caught early mould is not that serious either. It's only when mould is left on optics for long periods of time that  it can attack coatings. UV light (even leaving out in the sun), ammonia and hydrogen peroxide will tackle optical fungus, I used to do it all the time with camera lenses. Get a desiccant cap for the focuser and, as advised by others already, keep the transition between temperatures in check.

True

Also an excellent reason to get into white light solar 

I found this in Sky and Telescope

The most destructive dewing happens when a telescope is in storage. No telescope should be closed up and put away until it is thoroughly dry. Water that has nowhere to escape may attack optical coatings and ultimately etch the glass itself. So may condensation that forms and evaporates repeatedly in a sealed environment over long periods of time.

How, you may ask, does water get into an airtight space that was dry when you sealed it? The answer is it was there all along. Air contains water vapor, and if your telescope gets colder than what the dew point was when the air was sealed in, water will condense. This is why so many puzzled telescope owners discover water stains on the inside surfaces of their corrector plates and refractor lenses.

Several approaches can prevent this. Don't move a sealed telescope from warm to cold storage. In fact, sealing may be a bad idea altogether. The best telescope covering is cloth, which can "breathe." It keeps dust off while letting water vapor out. And you might want to leave the eyepiece holder covered only with cloth — just enough to keep dust and spiders out.