Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

johnturley

Members
  • Content Count

    419
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

298 Excellent

About johnturley

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dronfield, Derbyshire

Recent Profile Visitors

2,602 profile views
  1. I would imagine that it will perform at least as well as the Explore Scientific 127 mm triplets if not better, and probably better engineered, in particular the focussing mount which appears to have a reasonably decent distance of travel (95 mm ?) as opposed to the totally inadequate 45 mm on ES Refractors, and most important quite a bit cheaper. I would almost certainly purchased one instead had they been around when I purchased my ES 127 scope. John
  2. The Esprit 150 is a similar weight to the Tak TOA 150, and like the Tak has an oversized (approx 180 mm diameter tube), and around 14.5 kg heavier than both the TEC and CFF 160), I didn't however have too much trouble lifting the OTA, and I'm 71 years of age, although I do have it permanently mounted, piggybacked on my 14 in Newtonian> John
  3. We are planning to view the eclipse from Mexico, either with Astro Trails or Astro Eclipse. John
  4. Also looks like a reasonable distance of travel on the focuser, unlike the grossly inadequate 45 mm you get on most Explore Scientific scopes. John
  5. I thought that you had to do a certain number of posts on this site before you were allowed to advertise equipment for sale. John
  6. This means however that you have sufficient in focus to add accessories such as a filter wheel or ADC which require about 50 mm of in focus. John
  7. I would imagine the sky from Duckmanton would not be too bad, especially as the nearby Coalite plant has now gone, on good nights I usually get a SQM reading of 19.75 mag/arc sec2, which is consistent with Bortle 5 John
  8. I think that was because originally they forgot to include the years that Emperor Augustus reigned as Octavius. John
  9. What date did you use for the birth of Christ, according to some the Wise Men saw the 'Star' 2 years before they arrived in Bethlehem, so with the close conjunction in 7 BC, they would have arrived in 5 BC. John
  10. Looking quire promising for a glimpse from Dronfield at present. According to the weather forecast no chance for tomorrow (cloud and rain), and poor for Tuesday. John
  11. I think different computer programs give slightly different results, Sky Map Pro indicates closest at around the 15th. According to Kepler the second of the triple conjunctions was in August, but Sky Map Pro says September, not saying which one is correct. John
  12. Looking at Sky Map Pro again, it looks like there was a triple conjunction in 7 BC, passing very close in June, September (around the time of opposition), and again in December. Although the pair were never as close as this year, the fact that it was a triple conjunction probably increased the astrological significance of the event. John
  13. They weren't close in 6 BC, Jupiter had moved on into Aries, and Saturn was still in Pisces. John
  14. I've just used Sky Map Pro to look at positions of Jupiter and Saturn in December 4 BC (thought to be the most likely date of the birth of Jesus), and found that Jupiter and Saturn weren't close at all in 4 BC, you have to go back to 7 BC to find when they were close, and were at their closest at around 15 December that year, although nothing like as close as this year. Incidentally the close conjunction occurred in the constellation of Pisces, which if I recall correctly has some astrological significance. John
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.