ollypenrice

I'm sure someone in the steampunk community could come up with a coal-fired version in mahogany and brass with a whirring Royal Navy grade hemp cable to do the business... Olly

The notoriously irascible Fritz Zwicky inspired one of his colleagues to suggest to another that the 'Zwicky' should be adopted as a unit of abrasiveness. The colleague replied that the maximum useful unit in real-world applications would, therefore, have to be the Micro-Zwicky. The deliciously English writer Eric Newby mentions seeing a man at work, '...using one of those pieces of motorized string, the name of which I can never remember.' I'm host to a Celestron RASA 8 with Celestron's own focus motor fitted. While most of the instrument has imperial fittings, the focus motor grub screws are metric. In a most un-Newbty-like expression, Go figure! (The focuser has just stopped working, too, but that's another story.) Living in France, I once asked our local builder's merchants if they might carry imperial allen keys. I should've known better. The owner stifled a grunt, which became a guffaw and ended in side slapping laughter and tears. The entire staff gathered round to hear what the Englishman had asked for. Soon they and half a dozen customers were variously roaring, slapping their sides and weeping with mirth. When one of them recovered the power of speech he just muttered, 'Mars lander,' and they were off again. And they were right! The imperial system is as ridiculous as emperors. Olly

What strikes me as odd is that you have so little of M78 and yet a reasonable dose of Barnard's Loop. Could this be a filter in the system hurting your blues? Olly

No, you're right, the hot pixels aren't on the panel. It was rather early in the morning and I guess my brain was still in bed! Olly

Good Shark, along with nice little galaxy to boot. Olly

Couldn't you dither by moving the panel relative to the scope? Just rotate it a tiny bit between subframes. Olly

Out of interest, I do have an issue with my 460. I struggle to get the background sky up to the 23 I like to see, as measured in Photoshop. What I find is that my background sky is made up of pixel values ranging from a lot less than about 21, up to and including 21. If you like, it's more a cool pixel problem than a hot. My workaround is to get the brighter background pixels up to 21 and then pin the curve at 21, put fixing points above that and stretch below it, not hard enough to remove all grain. I image at a dark site, which might be relevant, and still like my Kodak chipped camera since saying I did early on this thread. I'm not using it because I've lent it to one of my robotic clients but it's still beavering away. Olly

A difficult one to confirm or deny, really, since it would seem logical for people to choose an instrument they like. It would be odd to choose one you didn't like, after all. So do I bang on about Mesu mounts and TEC refractors because I have them or do I have them because I know they perform? Hand on heart, I think it's the latter. Olly

I chose a house (and a country, even) with the darkest, least cloudy sky I could find while living at a close enough proximity to amenities for a normal life to carry on. It was a lot harder than you might think but I got here in the end! (I also needed it to be in a country whose language I could speak, which meant 'probably France' but 'possibly Spain.') Olly

I don't recall seeing this but I switched to a 2 inch back and long FL EPs in order to get the widest FOV. (The reducer doesn't make the view any wider if you do.) Then again, would you want to use the reducer on the planets? More glass is always an invitation to more reflections... Olly

There's no need for dozens of EPs. With a long focal length scope I use two, with a shorter FL scope I add a third. And that's it. They are not beginner or budget EPs but I still believe that three is a lot. I'd far sooner have 'better' than 'more.' Olly

One target for the month! 😁 Olly

In the CCD era I was always an arch advocate of mono, Peter, though I did try a good quality OSC CCD. I'm now using (though it's not mine) an ASI2600 OSC. It is very, very impressive, though it's working at F2 in a RASA. I think CMOS has changed the game (along with dual band/tri-band filters.) Olly

Then again, when I stretched M45 I found that the dark patches had about 2/3 the brightness of the background so maybe there is enough signal there for division by flats to help. The only way is to try. However, they are a dead easy fix in Photoshop. Just pick up a clone stamp of adjacent sky, set the mode to lighten and stamp over them. In lighten mode any stars nearby will be unaffected. I did that below. There's a lot of good stuff in the M45 image if you work on the cosmetics. The stars are well focused and round and the background is pretty flat. I got the colour balance in one go using ABE in Pixinsight. The rest done in Photoshop. With this kind of data the OP would get huge benefits from Noel's Actions (now Pro Digital Astronomy Tools. I used Increase Star Colour, Deep space noise reduction, Remove Vertical Banding and Remove Horizontal banding. Obviously, with so few subs and such short ones there isn't going to be much nebulosity. But this is a good start in imaging. Olly

I don't think flats will help, here. Those dark blobs are sharp, which means their source is probably on the chip. I'll see if they are the same on M45 if the internet allows. Olly

The answer is yes, you are not balanced. The basic 2-axis balance routine is based on the assumption that the Dec axis is symmetrical when usually it is not. You really need to follow the dual rig balance routine: C/W bar locked horizontal, scope vertical and free. Does it stay vertical? Can you rotate it to any angle without it moving? If not, contrive weights on one side of the scope till you can. Then balance using the simple two-axis routine. Olly

I agree with vlaiv. It's in the nature of widefield images to look fine down to 3.5"PP or so. These are 3.5"PP: https://www.astrobin.com/383965/ https://www.astrobin.com/301531/?nc=&nce= https://www.astrobin.com/327970/ It is a shame that the Tak FSQs have been plagued by quality control issues in recent years but they certainly have. A good FSQ85 is a great little scope, though you have to expect the 'inverse lighthouse beam' effect on bright stars. One advantage of buying second hand is that you can see images produced by the scope. All the refractors I use were bought second hand. Would a TV85 go as carry on? It's a good imaging scope with the flattener, very strong indeed and, in the event of disaster, the front element can be re-collimated by an amateur at home. I used to carry on a Genesis for visual use. Olly

Yes, but it's the best language in the world for discussing the important matter of cheese! Indeed. My grandmother (born in 1890) always said 'five and twenty' and never twenty-five. However, she'd only do this with twenty, not the rest, and it was only five and twenty that was set in stone. The other twenties might go either way. Olly

My French wife and I have plenty of competitive banter over the eccentricities of our respective mother tongues. My ultimate weapon is the French counting system, so I'll say 'I went to Spain in the summer of ten-nine-hundred-four-twenty-ten-seven!' (Dix-neuf cent quatre-vingt dix-neuf or... 1987.) I also watch like a hawk when she's jotting numbers down over the phone. At some point she's bound to cross out a six because the speaker has started with 'soixante' (60) but added 'dix-sept' (17, making 77) after she's written a six. Ha! Gotcha!! 🤣 Olly

Wasn't there a Python exchange along the lines of, You must be Mr Smith? Ah , well it's spelled 'Smith' but it's pronounced 'Luxury Yacht.' 😁lly

I knew it didn't seem enough! Thank you, kind Sir, for improving the point I was trying to make. 🤣lly

Nothing against their products! Just mystified by how to enunciate their name... I've been asked once or twice if I'm Les. The first time it baffled me. My father in law was called Les, short for Leslie, but why me? Then it dawned on me: Les Granges. lly

Let me guess. Zymurgy, a depressive state afflicting brewers whose ales refuse to clarify and have excessive deposits of a largely brown character at the bottom of the barrel. Also a digestive disorder brought on by imbibing such ales. Olly

...a position in which I suspect it is fairly secure! Olly

Do we? Time for the dictionary. (I've heard it said by sausages, though, while frying in a pan.) Olly