inedible_hulk

😎 Awesome 😎

It was @JamesF if I remember correctly, but he doesn’t seem to have been around for a couple of years. You could try the project website: https://www.openastroproject.org

Fabulous!! 😎

I’ve had my Svbony 3-8 zoom since the summer. I’m ill qualified to provide a detailed assessment, but I’d say in summary:

It’s very convenient in a portable setup. Feedback from zoom mechanism is positive and operation fluid. Views are good quality.

On bright objects, in poor conditions, I occasionally get a reflection from my own eye (I think). Not quite as good as my ES 82s.

Eyepiece cap is really awful 🤣

I think this falls into the “almost as good as” bracket, in that it’s almost as good as [insert premium eyepiece brand here]. It’s great for the price and would heartily recommend it to all but hardcore optics aficionados 😊

Awesome 😎

Hello and welcome 🤗 

9 hours ago, SwiMatt said:

we know basically nothing sure about religious and spiritual thinking of neolithic people.

Precisely. They’ll be a subtle language to these monuments, most of which I suspect we can’t even begin to recognise.

35 minutes ago, DeannaRose said:

whose eyes glaze like a donut

What a fabulous turn of phrase 😊

Hello and welcome from sunny Wrexham 😊

For Scottish sites, such as Callanish, you could check the records on Canmore if you haven’t already. There’s a lot of relatively recent detail in the entry for Callanish.

You could also try a search of the ADS library for potential sources of information.

There’s a whole branch of archaeology interested in site formation processes, but for a simple answer see: https://www.yac-uk.org/news/ask-the-archaeologist-why-are-the-things-from-the-olden-days-under-the-ground

To be fair, I didn’t do a comparison with AS!3. 

Give Astrosurface a try (http://astrosurface.com/pageuk.html). I found it would create an image of at least equal quality to Registax when used with the same data. It also has a deconvolution wavelet function, like Registax.

23 hours ago, lee g said:

The 30mm 82 degree is a bit heavy for the f5 refractor 

Sorry to go off topic, but do you get much use out of the 30mm? It’s the only 82 I don’t own, but I have been put off by its size and perceived (to me) usefulness. I do like these eyepieces and I’m surprised they’re not more popular.

Admittedly it depends to some degree on your scope, but I doubt there’s enough difference to make it worthwhile. This is the field of view in mine:

red: 24 82 - Yellow: 24 68 - Green: 18 82

It’s really down to what works for you. There’s plenty of off the shelf options out there designed for specific mounts and tripods (FLO), or you can repurpose other items (I use a tool box for my Mak).

I have no doubt that there are some lovingly hand crafted cases out there, no doubt incorporating power supplies, seats and the like.

Ultimately it’s just down to personal preference, budget, and skills!

Finally last night, me, the Starfield 102 I ordered back in June, and some clear skies were in the same place at the same time. Although some bands of cloud were apparent, the sky seemed the clearest and most transparent I have experienced in a long time.

I started off with the moon, nicely framed in my ES 82 11mm at x65. It was quite a moment. I don’t know whether it was the clarity of the atmosphere, or the quality of the scope, but my breath was quite taken away.

I switched to another relatively recent acquisition, a SvBony 3-8mm zoom. I concentrated on the Sinus Lunicus area and around the crater Cassini. Slowly I increased the magnification from x102 through each of the settings on the eyepiece to x238, and the Starfield kept giving. I spent a merry hour or so observing this area, moving between the magnifications. 

Much to my disappointment the fog began to roll in from the river, so I only managed a quick view of Saturn at x102 before it stopped play. Even in these conditions a crisp view was afforded.

Roll on the next clear night!

I found the supplied spring which works with the clutch to be next to useless.

A short fat elastic band wrapped between the two attachment points was much more effective.

43 minutes ago, John said:

The loose silver thing is used when a motor drive is installed on the mount. I think it is a form of clutch mechanism ?

As John says, it’s the clutch for the drive which can be added to this mount. Welcome to SGL btw 😊

3 hours ago, saac said:

You could try this one, relatively cheap - star chart is hopelessly inaccurate but it comes with biscuits and plays music

You had me at biscuits 😋

@Nicola Fletcher I’ve always liked the look of these. Please let us know how you get on 😊

3 hours ago, bosun21 said:

An electric focuser complete kit from Vasco in Portugal, a ZWO ADC and a Baader 2” to 1.25” clicklock. The electric focuser makes such a difference focusing accurately at high magnification on a Maksutov.

@bosun21 The electric focuser looks interesting. Just what I need for my SkyMax 150. Have you a link to the supplier you can share please?

I couldn’t find a Phillips driver later than Win 7 when I tried to resurrect my SPC900nc out of a sense of nostalgia. This driver didn’t work for me on Win 11.

Moon rising over South Uist with a handheld iPhone 13.

A couple of snaps with my iPhone in the Shropshire countryside this weekend.

‘The Plough’

Aquila (I think)

The Moon

7 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

'm not entirely sure you'd need dual speed focuser for telescope that slow.

In my experience of twiddling a small knob moving the big mirror on the 150, and trying  various tricks like clothes pegs and bottle tops, I’d say yes, it would really benefit from a dual speed focuser. Or perhaps just a better focuser. But that’s just my experience with the 150, which appears to have very little weight.

8 minutes ago, RT65CB-SWL said:

An alternative idea for a microfocuser maybe a helical focuser.

Thank you, I’d had been wondering if this was worth a try.