bomberbaz

Are you referring to just seeing a pinkish circle? If so then given your stated telescopes aperture then I am afraid that is all your going to get. The 4mm eyepiece is too small, a 5mm would be better. 700/5 = x140 magnification. However the lack of aperture is a big restriction on the detail you will see. If you can get to a place with a good unobstructed view of the south you will get a decent view of Jupiter and Saturn with your scope. Cloud belt of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn should be quite pleasing. However if you want more then I am afraid it's wallet opening time.

I agree with this as I found out recently. My binoviewers add quite a bit to the focal length to my 127 mak, can't remember the exact detail but think it took it from F12 to F13.8 with the added focal train distance.

It packs up very neatly Paul, a bag for the truss tubes, a bag for the rocker woods and everything else goes into one other bag for storage. It is a really neat design.

Thanks Gerry. Something didn't feel quite right from the get go with the dsc, think I need to re-read the info of this model (I have a guide) and also skysafari which is the app it pairs with. I do think it's the app where the problem lies. Anyway, I know it's something basic, it's figuring it out that as always is most of the issue. 😆

I am just putting together a brief report of the first light with the T350. Following on from my out of the box LINK I managed to get a brief first light tonight. Quite a bit of cloud around so i was hitting things I knew were easy to find and also reasonably bright given my horrendous LP in my garden. Objects viewed were Andromeda, the ring, owl & dumbbell nebula's and finally albireo, mizar and polaris. On the doubles they were far tighter, better defined and well, just more round than my previous 10" dobsonian gave. On the nebula both with and without the UHC they were brighter and more defined than I have seen before. Andromeda just seemed brighter than I have seen it before. My general findings are,. as already mentioned objects are much brighter, tighter and better defined than my previous scope gave me, which given the light gathered is nearly double then that is to be expected. However the quality of the stars were immeasurably better in the Taurus. They are far tighter and remain so a lot further out towards the edge than previously and I believe my coma corrector may be getting worried. The quality of the mirror's are without doubt at least 90% of the improvement although the whole package is a superb to use. I need to get used to the bearings as they are so much more smoother than I am used to and I must remember not to put the thing together backwards as i spent the whole short session viewing from the right side which was unusual 🤣. I am looking forward to getting the truss replacement which I have had confirmed is being prepared so I will be happy to take delivery of this and I will then get it out to a dark site for a more thorough workout. Regarding the dsc, worked reasonably well but my garden has a slight slope so this did throw it out a little the more I moved from the alignment star. I am in the middle of making a levelling platform to put the base on and this should improve accuracy. In summary I am a happy chap with this scope and once i get used to it, it will bring me some very happy and fruitful evenings out under the stars. I know it's a fairly basic overview but you know when somethings good, bring on the winter viewing.

hoping to give it a quick go in the back garden to test out the DSC and also give it a general workout but unlikely to give it a proper outing under dark skies until the new truss arrives. I did manage to collimate it as the bashed tubes had thrown it way out but I reckon it won't perform to it's best as the collimation although correct in terms of light path are not following the design light path if that makes sense.

It's a relatively minor thing in the big scheme of things Stu, I saw it looked damaged so I got pictures whilst still on the wagon, that way the courier used cannot argue responsibility. Adam at taurus made this point also and has told me to expect a new truss set. Had the mirror been damaged I would have been in tears haha

Cheers guys, it is a lovely piece of kit and as mentioned above the wooden finish is beautiful. all I know about the DSC is the encoder has 8192 steps in both az and alt, operates via either bluetooth or wifi and links up with skysafari pro on my phone. It has the Taurus logo on the controller box.

I apologise in advance for all the pictures, just want to show it all off. My new Taurus T350 has finally arrived from Poland after what seems like forever. As you can see from the pictures there was some courier damage caused but I immediately contacted Adam at Taurus who tells me I should be getting a new truss set. It is still useable but of course that is not the point. Optional extras added to the scope were heated secondary and adjustable cooled primary. Upgraded primary mirror to Supremax glass which also boosts reflectivity (There is a load of blurb but it goes over my head). Counterbalance weights. A moonlight 10/1 focuser. Covers for all the parts and finally DSC system. I wasn't going to bother with the Digital setting circles but after chatting to Peter Drew at the astronomy centre I changed my mind and added it. It moves around like a dream, so smooth. The AZ bearing has fully adjustable teflon pads for adding friction although it actually runs on 6 bearings. Nearly forgot to mention it comes fully shrouded and flocked. It really is a lovely bit of kit that needs using asap haha 🤣 Steve

If you want goto for observing, with decent aperture and are reasonbly techy savvy then I would buy this every day. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/az-goto/sky-watcher-star-discovery-150i.html My reason being it's a 150 aperture, covers nearly all of the common deep sky objects, plus the mount, which is operated by a smart phone app only needs 8 AAA betteries to operate it. Simplicity itself Steve

I have a bog standard 0.5 one that fits 1.25 eyepieces. IE it is not a scope dedicated one. TBH it isn't the best but it does get used now and then when occasion demands.

I reckon it would be at least that or maybe a little more, try a test like i did, it was fun running it. steve

Great post and love the jackdaws. glad to hear someone else has been trying out testing on a similar basis. I think the amount of magnification added on bino's will vary on design and depend on the extra distance/length added to the focal train. And yes agreed, the further down the focal train, the greater effect the barlow will have although I didn't realise this until quite recently. I am glad I shelled out on the 1.25 tele extender, it's the ES version. Really does throw up a lot of extra options when used in situations like this. Steve

Finally got chance to properly try mine out tonight, I specifically made sure I gave it a workout. I used it while mars was at around 20 degrees rising over the next 30 minutes although I didn't need to alter the ADC settings. Anyway suffice to say that it certainly cleared up the view even in an F12 Mak and I concur with other peoples reports.

thanks for that Don, I didn't actually know that.

Further to my query here regarding the effect of binoviewers adding focal length in the optical train on barlows. I decided to do some testing using my mak and various binoviewer/barlow configurations on a house roof. The roof in question is situated a fair distance away and also handily fitted with solar panels which have lines running downwards for measuring purposes. I wanted to see the effect myself in a more simple way with a direct visual result for immediate comparison. So I tested a 1.6x & 2x barlow and a tele-extender as well as without the binoviewer and the results are interesting. Eyepiece used a 25mm plossl. 1. First off when I put my eyepiece only in the mak and then compared with binoviewer/eyepiece I found that the binoviewer seems to have a 1.15 barlowing effect! I double checked this and got the same result, curious. 2. Now it's 2x tele-extender/bino's/eyepiece test and as expected it is exactly 2x magnification 3. Then it's 1.6 barlow/bino's/eyepiece test and this gave 3.2 magnification which is not what I thought it would be but is a very good number from my perspective. 4. Finally it's 2x barlow/bino's/eyepiece test and this is 4x magnification and again is as expected. How these configurations translate into my magnifications for my 127/1500 mak is 1. x 69 / 2. x120 / 3 x192 /4. x 240 There is a clear sky tonight albeit with a full moon and I am looking forward to having a bash with these configurations on Mars. Steve

Hello everyone, I am trying to work out what power eyepieces to get for my binoviewers as i want to maximise the options available with the use of barlows & tele extender. I am aware that the further down the focal train a barlow is placed, that this then increases the effect of the barlow. A 2x barlow for example will work that way as long as the eyepiece is inserted directly into the piece. So I have a query around the effect of using binoviewers. I have seen in a recent thread that this increased distance between eyepiece and barlow ( assuming barlow if fitted to nose of binoviewer) will increase a 2x barlow to I think it was a 4x barlow. Double the power. Therefore a 1.6 becomes and 2.2 in this case as the 1 is a none changing multiple, (1.6 x 1.6 = 3.2) - 1 = 2.2, at least I think that's right. In the case of a tele extender the place in the focal train does not matter due to the design of this item. So 2x is 2x come what may. So anyway, I was wondering if the above is correct and what the formula is for working this all out. I am guessing there is an increase in power per X inches between eyepiece and barlow. TIA for any answers guys n gals. Steve

In my seemingly never ending search for good viewing sites near to me I went to a place that is exactly 30 minutes from me. I was using the skytee armed with a 5" mak and a 4" F10 frac. I won't labour the report on viewing because when I tried to split the Polaris double it was doable but poor, this kinda set the night as far as viewing went. I only managed to split one more double and gave up less than half way though my list as the skies were simply not up to it. I spent a little time on saturn and jupiter but neither were yielding a lot of detail. (EDIT. I thought I saw hints of the grs and a retro stellarium look confirms this to be possible) A chap stopped in his car to ask what I was up too so I let him have a gander at the two planets and he was made up by what he saw, very impressed although to me the views were awful. However to a first timer it would be the dogs doodahs, always happy to show people and encourage the hobby. Anyway, back to the new site, actually two that I took readings at. One was a quick stop off on the way home from site A to take readings. Site A rated at 21.10 sqm and site B rated at 20.90 sqm on the light pollution map. I should mention site B is only 20 minutes from home but what's ten minutes travel amongst friends for viewing. Now to SQM readings of my own rather than those from the interweb thingy. Site A gave a reading of 20.70 and site B 20.55. Down from the LP map readings but not significantly so. Both gave LP glow to the south where a number of towns are situated. However the biggest difference to me was the fact that as site A is a further 5 miles deeper from the main light pollution source to the south, the horizonal glow was quite a bit less. Although at zenith and indeed anywhere other than south there was nothing to choose from between the two. Conclusion: If I am doing a planned trip with no low down viewing to the south then I travel 20 minutes to site B. If I want the darker horizon then it's only 20 minutes further. If I want to do some serious deep sky work (eg faint galaxies such as M33 and/or nebula like the horsehead) then neither site is good enough. Steve

Thanks for the vote of confidence Dave, transparency seemed great like you said but on planets it was very wobbly and the stars were very mushy in the dob. Although like I mentioned my biggest thing was the apparent darkness or lack thereof. According to my apparent sky darkness, clouds should have been barely visible but I had no problem picking out the odd clouds that were in the sky. I did have my sqm meter but I forgot to take readings to see just how good, or bad the sky actually was. I am intending going up there one night to do just this. Steve

Hello all, been a while since I was out properly and I was really hopeful of something special tonight but alas, it was not going to be. I went to the ribblehead viaduct in North Yorkshire, allegedly bortle 3 (sqm 21.7) skies with lovely low horizons. I had drawn up a list of Sagittarius objects to start with then a variety of others to follow from across the skies. Negatives first, well sky seemed steady but when I looked at Jupiter I could see what seemed to be the effects of strong wind causing a lot of wobble, this also seemed apparent when I checked albireo, my scope had cooled btw. At 9.30 I could easily see dark clouds on the southern horizon against a glow. I couldn't get my head around this as it was supposed to be astronomical dark and this glow was not noticed last time I visited this place. My eyes were well dark adapted and the milky way was clearly visible overhead. Cars, early on this place is horrible for traffic. It sits next to a road that is well used and you are constantly shielding your night vision. The cold, well up until 10 it had been manageable and I was happy to carry on searching out objects away from the southern glow (I will investigate this glow further on LP maps and the like) but at 10 the wind decided to pick up very noticeably. By noticeably I mean it was actually howling. Bear in mind I was in an exposed place anyway and that was me off, blooming freezing in a matter of minutes despite me being well wrapped up. This is the second (and last) time I have been frozen off this place. It really can change in seconds and really needs to be a nil or next to nil wind forecast. Either that or wrap up like and eskimo and slug it out. I for one will not be trying the latter, horrendous. Moving on. There were some positives so it wasn't a complete disaster. First off I managed to bag the lagoon nebula (M8) for the first time. It wasn't the clearest but still a tick off to go along with triffid, swan and eagle. The swan (M17) is a lovely nebula. really strong image even against the southern glow with a UHC. I reintroduced myself to Saturn. Yes it was a wobbly sky due to the aforementioned wind issue (well I think it was wind) but she still seems so beautiful wearing the rings of ICE. Oh nearly forgot, first time ever I saw the moon Rhea. Averted vision getting it reasonably easy so skies maybe better than I am thinking they were (blooming sky glow). My new crosshair eyepiece works like a dream. Cost more than the standard crosshair types but remove the cross hair it looks, feels and works like a real eyepiece rather than a one trick bog standard offering. I have a new lighting system for the boot of my car which makes management of eyepieces and other paraphernalia much easier and tonight was my first time of using it and it made that aspect of the hobby much easier Finally I saw lots of wildlife including my first ever live view of a badger. I still believe this place has great potential but I want to get up there one night with no moon and do some sqm reading well into astro darkness. I am not convinced that tonight the glow was not residual light from the retreating sun. Anyway, all in I did enjoy myself. However I am in a conundrum over this sky glow to the south, easily seen milky way above and the fact i am also spotting a mag 10 moon of saturn & the lagoon nebula which was very low down in this glow. Looking forward to another session soon although I think i may play closer to home until i can resolve the above. Cheers everyone Steve

I have found the triangle astrerism, it falls into the 1.2 degree centre circle of a telrad. @markse68 your spot on with your finding of HD724, thanks. Steve

has anyone got a more detailed chart of the location of this please, maybe something that shows where it is in relation to a bright star for star hopping purposes?

eyepieces welcomes you to the realms of an empty wallet.

Not done the milk bottle washer thing myself but it is often mentioned as being a great solution by some respected members on here.

I bought a red light from amazon after reading reports, allegedly by astronomers saying it was perfect. It has two brightness settings, this refers to the dimmer of the two settings. So what about the dimmer of the two settings? Well still seems very bright to me. I thought about using some nail polish but wasn't sure about the construction of the lens and also it is kind of a permanent mod. I remembered I had some red filter acetate that a bought a while back and also some thin, sticky backed foam. I wish I had taken pictures from the start but I was kinda winging the construction on an idea so forgot to do this. The filter itself is made up of five layers or red filter, sandwiched in a laminated pouch and sealed then cutout to fit the top of the inner wall. The inner wall is made up of the foam. Pictures attached show the light with and without the filter. BTW it is no where near that bright, the camera makes it look like a spot light. The last two attempt to show the construction of it. The main thing here is that I can go with or without depending on the conditions and what I am actually doing.