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.

stargazine_ep24_banner.thumb.jpg.56e65b9c9549c15ed3f06e146fc5f5f1.jpg

rusirius

Members
  • Content Count

    344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About rusirius

  • Rank
    Star Forming
  1. Yes, as mentioned, the reflector would not be any good for birding and, if I chose that option, it would remain would be a dedicated astronomy scope. On the other hand I thought that if I went in for a frac or a mak it might have the potential for both. Ultimately it may be better to have a dedicated scope for the purpose so I may be better of saving up for both an astonomy scope and a spotting. I appreciate that a dob offers the best value for aperture but in a relatively small city garden, the near ground position of a dob starts to become a problem with objects lower down on the horizon as you can't see over fences. Here is where something mounted higer on a tripod has an advantage. I'm also (unfortunately) moving back to a city location so light pollution will become a much bigger issue and a large dob will be wasted. We will aslo, in due course, be downsizing our car so I will need something much more portable. These are all reasons why I have sold my 300P. I think ultimately, the large tripod on the Henry Wiley might become an issue in a smaller car and I had the same reservations as others have mentioned here about the optics (lack of coating, colour fringeing etc) so I have decided to postpone my purchase until I have completed my house move. Thanks for all the comments.
  2. I'm selling my dob and am considering a more portable and lighter solution and I have been offered this vintage item in part exchange: http://stargazerslounge.com/sale/146123-henry-wildey-5-inch-achromat-refractor.html Aside from the practicability and portablility, I have a question about the optics of that era. I undertand that Henry Wildey is well renowned for making quality optics. But would such a doublet lens perform anywhere near as well as todays modern computer designed optics from Skywatcher or Celestron? I'm seriously considering the offer, but I can't help wondering whether a modern solution would perform better, for example the below on an EQ3-2: First Light Optics - Celestron Omni XLT 150mm f5 Newtonian OTA Or this on an AZ3 (which would do for birding also): First Light Optics - Celestron C90 Mak (Would be nice if there were a 125mm equivalent)
  3. Noted regarding the Intes. Although I found a price for the Baader, I can't find either the article or a price for the Lunt available anywhere so I'm probably looking at the Solarview - unless a secondhand Baader comes up for an affordable price. In what way does the view through the Solarview differ from the Badder?
  4. These are all very helpful comments. Anyone know if the cheaper wedges such as the SolarView or Intes offer as good a view as the Baader and most importantly, are they safe? I've seen one review saying the Intes is Ok but unfortunatley the administrator has removed the pictures... I don't generally trust the manufacturers or vendors pictures. Anyone have an actual pictures using a Herschel wedge?
  5. I recently purchased a used Orion full aperature Solar filter which fits nicely over our Skywatcher Evostar 120. Unfortunately not had a nice sunny day to make use of it yet! However, in the meantime, the recent solar flare and a post on this forum as well as a nice picture of the view through a Baader got me thinking about herschel wedges... Firstly, what other equipment do I require other than the wedge? I've seen mention of ND and 'solar continuum' filters. Are these optional or required? Secondly, as I understand it, the Herschel Wedge opertates with white light and I thought that to see granulation and detail you need a hydrogen alpha filters which are very expensive. Yet some of the photos I have seen on supplier websites from herschel wedges do show detailed granulation. Are these exagerated or can you really get that kind of detail? Would I need additional filters? The post I mentioned earlier is here: http://stargazerslounge.com/equipment-reviews/105780-baader-herschel-wedge-equinox-120ed.html. The author mentions that he gets sharper views than through a solar filter. I don't have a high quality 120ED so would there be much difference through my Evostar? At this stage I'm only interested in visual observing but I'm sure it won't be long before I am tempted to take photos as well. Finally, the Baader wedge is almost as expensive as a PST but the advantage I can see with going with it is that the larger aperature of the Evostar might give me better resolution and unlike the PST, will allow me to focus with a camera attached. There are other cheaper wedges, for example Intes and one I've seen from a supplier I woudn't touch with the proverbial barge pole, but are they safe? Ok, I know that perhaps I shouldn't run before I can walk, but I figure there is no harm gettning clued up in advance...
  6. Further to my original thread on the subject ( see http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/94083-astronomy-birding-one.html ), I came across this scope at FLO: Celestron - Celestron C90 Mak I was initially after a grab-n-go scope that I could use for astronomy, but also as a spotting scope for nature. For astronomical purposes, I'm not expecting much but I was hoping to get a good view of the moon and a reasonably good view of planets and a few doubles and brighter objects. I understand that any scope of this size would be limited for DSO's. One drawback that was pointed out to me with refractors of this type is their relatively short focal length which is usually around 500mm which means that one could not really attain the maginfication required for planetary observation. The Mak on the other hand is 1200mm. Am I right in thinking that this should allow it to be pushed to higher magnifications? In theory, a 5mm eyepiece should give 240x but what is likely to be attained in practice? I would, of course, expect that this kind of magnification might be difficult to manage on a photo tripod, so I'm presuming that for astronomy purposes I might be better off with a motorised equatorial mount. But can they also be used in practice for terrestrial viewing or would I still need a photo tripod as well? For visual use only, what is the most compact and lightweight mount I could get, and, how do you convert from photo tripod screw to EQ mount rail? Also, would a a Mak of this size give reasonably good detail on a planet? I used to have an 8in SCT and the loss of contrast caused by the central obstruction had a severe impact on the amount of detail that could be seen with a 5in refractor performing significantly better. This is less than 4in so what should I expect?
  7. As per the two posts above I also spent a while learning how to collimate the scope properly. The time spent was worthwhile and having collimated the scope properly the view under dark (that is moonless) skies was much improved. For example, with the scope adequately cooled I can now split doubles much more cleanly.
  8. I already purchased and TTL232R I now have it working via EQMOD with both CDC and Stellarium. I've also had EQMOD working with Redshift 6 but the control options in this program seem poor and the program itself has deactivated itself twice now and I'm being told that my activation code (yes the one that I paid for!) is invalid so I don't use RS anymore.
  9. That sounds like a nice idea. Does the range of bluetooth extend far enough for this?
  10. Chris, thanks for that link. It seems clear that SkyWatcher do not intend for us to connect 3rd party products to the SynScan. NickH, I appreciate our point. I won't be moving anytime soon but I also wanted to make it easer to set up in a dark sky location away from home. For £20 I've purchased the Maplin USB dongle and that seems to work fine with the EQMOD. Incidentally, I've noticed that different Satelite receivers seems to give slightly different figures. From my phone: Lat: 52.630531 N Lng: -1.341019 E Alt: 177m From the Maplin dongle: Lat: 52d37'49.340" N Lng: 01d20'28.938" W Alt: 121m Which roughly converts to: Lat: 52.6248233 N Lng: 01.3381563 W This is probably not so far out as to make much difference I presume but curious nonetheless. Now all I need is a tool to convert those formats that different applications require.. (goes off to search).
  11. Came in around that time for 10mins to thaw out so probably missed it! Curiously at east one site suggests that the best time to view would have been before dawn this morning: http://www.spaceweather.com/meteors/quadrantids/quadrantids.html But then again there isn't actually any weather in space.... Is there? If they are correct though, then wouldn't the 'few hours' that the shower should have lasted have passed by now?
  12. Been out for over and hour but haven't seen a single one yet. The moonlight is now flooding in over the horizon. May try again later.
  13. Nick, I have a TomTom One and it connects to the laptop via USB, but as far as I can tell this is only used to update the TomTom. I don't think that it sends the NMEA data to the computer? Barkis, is that the software that comes with the dongle? I think I might get this dongle to use with the EQMOD and not worry about the SynScan.
  14. Yet another reason why I'm looking for alternatives. Most other serial via PS/2 GPS devices I've encountered so far cost between 30-50 pounds so at 99 pounds, the cost of the SkyWatcher GPS Mouse looks very expensive. If that really is the case then unfortunately it looks like I'm limited to the SkyWatcher GPS Mouse. I couldn't find anything specific about this issue on their website so I've e-mailed them for further information.
  15. Thanks for all the suggestions which I will check out. However, I am looking for a device that will also work with the SynScan handset as well as the EQMOD software on the laptop. I don't want to have to buy two seperate GPS devices.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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