saac

Nice write up, I enjoyed that.   You did better than me  I only managed the more obvious Venus and Mars, I'd left it too late to spot Jupiter and Mercury.

Jim 

4 minutes ago, FrenchyArnaud said:

I will tell everyone everywhere when it's due on, don't you worry 🤭 Even if you tried to miss it I won't let you, everyone needs to be told about my unfathomable genius 🤣🤣🤣

Quite right, I think this is brilliant.  

Jim 

23 minutes ago, FrenchyArnaud said:

The reason seems to be the creativity and long term dedication - and of course the pictures themselves. 

 

It's for "The One Show", bbc1&2, 7:00pm daily. Prob a 3 to 4 minutes bit. I will know more soon. 

It was the name of the show I was looking for so I can watch out for it  

Jim 

That is so cool. What was the reason for the filming, is it for a particular show? 

Jim

1 hour ago, Rossco72 said:

This has been a miserable winter for clear nights that weren't under a full moon, but also my most productive period to date. Having the gear set up in the Garden under a 365 cover has really provided more opportunity than ever for me and ASIAIR has been a game changer in not requiring a PC and what have dragged out and set up. I spot clear weather, I plug in the mount and ASIAIR and flick 2 switches and I am up and running. Great.

Now if only my Pixinsight learning process could catch up... 

I'm sure there is enough data to get more from these but I will maybe have to revisit in PI once I (hopefully) become more proficient.

Still my best 5-6 months in this hobby I have been doing on and off for 12 years now!

Cheers

Stuart

 

Stuart, great set of images, I particularly like your Rosette image. I share your thoughts on the ASiAir;  one of those great astro products that "just works" and make things so much easier/productive.  Like you I felt a step change in what I was achieving.  Here's to a better season next winter  

Jim 

22 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

Blooming heck.  That's practically an art piece!

Lol thanks ratlet. That is what I was aiming for, something that would make the kids say "what is that".  And that is exactly what they say when they see it first time - "is that a cannon?"  You know for all its weight, it is a delight to use , it is perfectly balanced. The view of M42 is mindblowing, it is like you are falling into the nebula and walking inside it.   My classroom is on the ground floor so it is easy enough to get it outside. If the moon is out during the day we can easily have it out and setup in about 15 minutes.  For the next modification I'm toying with the idea of putting some graphic design onto the mirror lid, maybe laser cut or route the zodiac constellations with their symbols. 

Jim

10 hours ago, Ratlet said:

That looks phenomenal.  Do you have more pictures of the complete scope?

Here's a few more. It's our school telescope, made possible by @andrew s'  kind donation of of the glassware.  There is a build thread some where.  The setting circles are a relatively new addition, about 3 years ago.  It has encoders on both  axis, these were really added just as vehicle to explore arduino programming for a lunchtime astro club. In the field we have good enough success using the manual setting circle and a wixi for the alt coordinate. It is a big beast, heavy with it, but I wanted a design that would provide a bit of theatre and catch the kids eyes; maybe inspire them a little.  The design itself is a salute to telescopes made by John Waite of Waite Research . 

Jim.

3 hours ago, Kev M said:

and we think the average person in a crowd uses this method........ ? 

 

I wasn't in the crowd.  I left early with the smarties having won  

Jim 

Fantastic image; well done.

Jim 

Here's how I did it. The base is made from the same 18mm birch ply that I used for the main body. The setting circle is made from thinner cheaper ply (B&Q) 6mm.  The 6mm ply was cut into a ring onto which the protractor segments were then glued. The protractor segments were 3mm ply.  Rather than using varnish I stained then oiled everything. So far it's holding up well although there are always some modifications being planned   

Jim

Number of smarties in 1 litre - it's a kind of Feynman problem mentioned in a different thread - focus on order of magnitude, ignore true geometry and the likes of packing efficiency etc.

Make an estimate of a smartie volume , say 12 mm in diameter x 4 mm thick (forget it's an oblate sphere , simplify it to a cylinder) 

so Vol = Area x depth,   3 x (6 x10^-3)^2)  x 4 x 10^-3  =  3 x 36 x10^-6  x 4 x 10 ^-3

= 3 x 144 x 10 ^ -9   , approximates to  432 x 10 ^-9 

let's make it a bit easier and call that 400 x 10 ^-9  m^3

1 litre = 1 thousandth of a m^3

so Number smarties in I litre  =    1 x 10 ^ -3   /  400 x 10 ^ -9

 = 1/400  x 10 ^6

= 2500 smarties !

if you want to bet go for something either side by say 5 % 

* of course the smart ass answer is, "depends on how big the smarties are"  

Jim 

Nice find  

Jim

1 hour ago, Ratlet said:

Just in for a cup of tea and a warm up.  The Dob is an absolute beast.  The digital inclinometer is absolutely brilliant.  Did some clusters in auriga.  Going to get some to the east before the devil's flashlight gets up. 

Those inclinometers are really easy to use and work really well, especially with a low power eyepiece to get a first acquisition on  a target. I've got one (Wixi style) which uses a remote sender unit mounted permanently on the mirror box - the display is then mounted up on the OTA  connected to the sender via a ethernet type cable.  Hey congrats on your clear sky, it's rubbish across here in Fife   

ps - edited 

scratch that - started to clear, only patchy cloud. Time to roll roof off for quick visual session, brrr it's ccccold. 

Jim 

That is so cool, and with your contribution to the AAVSO database, impressed  

Jim 

14 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I have a simple rule. I respect and enjoy those who put the subject first and themselves second.

The beauty is in the topic no matter what that might be not the presenter. 

Regards Andrew 

 

Exactly, all we can do is read the book, the beauty is already there. Funny, I always describe Physics as "the beautiful subject". The kids at school think I'm nuts!

Jim

10 minutes ago, Macavity said:

I still think of myself as the "Ultimate Scientific Democratiser"! I love everyone - From CERN Nobel laureate,
to the guy who swept the Lab Floor! Idem Amateur Astronomers - On whom I consistently heap praise. lol
If someone is (secretly!) a "Doctor" or "Professor", my genuine admiration. Even if I'm not TOO over-awed? 😛
 

For me the attraction is listening to somebody who can genuinely speak with authority, somebody who is at the top of their game. I guess for that reason I avoid all the usual social media platforms, I think alternative agendas are often pursued there.

Jim 

Stunning detail in those, well done. 

Jim 

16 minutes ago, Macavity said:

As one who wickedly TEMPTS Amateur Astronomers (previously my fellow Physicists!) to *occasionally*
discuss things *outside* their normal Hobby/Work related subjects, I can hardly object... in theory (sic)? 😈
Re. the general / popular argument re. these issues, I sometimes crave SOME kind of "conclusion"?!? lol

Sometimes in the WIDER world of Internet, I lament the ABSENCE of "quieter", dare I say, erudite voice.
Social Media sides ensures those who can "see both sides of the argument" often get a "good kicking"?
But I am sometimes encouraged that "LIKES" of the more *reasonable* views are surprisingly common. 😉
 

I wouldn't be surprised Chris if somewhere out there, world wide web,  there are indeed sites where professional erudite well regulated debate and discussion takes place. Most probably they will be professional sites related to institutions/research (comercial, public) such as CERN,ITER, WHO etc.  I bet participation is by invite only - so I guess we will get bounced at the door   tbh I think we are actually well served here, I think we punch above our weight, certainly for misinformation and entertainment!  Often thought that we must surely have amongst our members experts in some fields (past or present). I know we have a few university lecturers (professors) and some retired, and of course your own experience in particle physics.  And of course the gifted and knowledgeable amateurs - tbh some of the knowledge/skill on here re image processing must be field leading. 

Jim 

Here's an interesting overview (short easy read) on the challenges of measuring thought. Best of all it is from an engineering perspective - no collapsing wave functions. 

MIT - How Are Thoughts Measured

Jim 

2 hours ago, Macavity said:

Wikipedia is not a bad *starting* point for such things. And, if I were to read ALL references contained therein?
I may even understand the *higher purpose* of this particular discussion! I am not a particular cynic... I LOVE it
when Amateur Astronomers don't restrict themselves to "Asking questions/Providing answers" on Astronomy! 😎

 

There doesn't need to be a higher purpose other than taking part - it is fun; a  little like our so called "ameateur astronomy"  - personaly I'd never have the brass neck though to call what I do astronomy nor myself an astronomer. Anyway aren't discussions like this one of the great features of SGL- like I said earlier, we should be paying for this. 

Jim 

3 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

I remember shortly after my stroke many years ago that I began to smell colours which lasted for a few years and have wondered if for example an Alien species that processed the EM spectrum as sound or scent etc could develop a greater understanding of the Universe or Math's than us or is visualization on a PC screen or book the only way.. So complex math's without numbers or symbols.

Th mathematics of the universe expressed as the music of the spheres  

Jim 

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

 Would we not be a sight more surprised if we found that the physical parameters gave clear proof that we do not exist?' 

Olly

At that moment of realising would we just disappear in a puff of blue smoke. 

Jim 

11 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

As for the subconscious - I do not regard its existence as proven. (Another matter.)

Olly

Indeed, it is regarded as pseudo science in some areas of psychology but there is some acceptance of a form of hidden transaction or exchanges with the rational or what we would casually call the real mind.  I would like to know though at what point in the chain does the electrical impulse or chemical signature become thought and what physical nature does that thought hold. 

Jim

9 hours ago, Paul M said:

My infant brain easily recocnised the difference between optical stimuli but how they were/are mapped must surely be indivdual?

Why, was it not inherited, encoded in the DNA? Where does the information to instruct the structure in our bodies to form in a particular way arise, where is that information held? For example in the development of the heart in the embryo, what forces are in play that guide the stem cells to their physical position to form part of the left ventricle rather than a valve in the right atrium? Each stem cell started out with the same potential.  The map is the DNA, it directs the cells to express particular proteins which provide the destination, shape, form and function. This is the same for every organ in the body and, baring mutation, the same for every individual, it is not random.

When we look at a spiral Galaxy we compare it to another we will notice certain areas of individual patterns but the global structure follows a common pattern. The two Galaxies are shaped by the same fundamental forces and are subject to behave accordingly, neither has any exemption. This is why we see pattern in the large scale structure in the universe.  I am sure that the physical response in the brain to external stimuli, just as with every other organ in the body, is a shared common experience, it is in effect hardwired.  What happens in the realm of thought is less clear, and maybe it's here that my green is your blue takes place, if it ever does. I may be wrong but the processes of the brain that contain consciousness (though, mind) are far beyond present scientific understanding.

We already have glimpses through neuroscience and psychology that our perception of free will may not be all it seems, that even there we have an underlying order.  Who knows? We could speculate anything happens in there, but as Andrew suggested earlier, I think there we would tread a knife edge between sanity and insanity; I have an image akin to a Dali painting  

Here's my green as formed somewhere in my mind

6 hours ago, VNA said:

 

Hello, it is nothing else than an accident--nothing else.

Sort of but more the process of natural selection repeating what had a favourable outcome and dropping the variation that had no favourable outcome.  In the evolution of human sight there simply was no favourable advantage to photoreceptors capable of detecting outwith our present spectral range.  If there ever was such mutations, and assuming those provided a favourable outcome, the genes for such would continue to be expressed in our DNA. 

Jim