johnturley

41 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Click on the 3 dots at the top of your post you want to edit: same line as where it says Johnturly. You will get a drop down menu with an option “edit”

Thanks Jeremy, managed to do it ok, although can't delete my now superfluous post. 

I don't know when they changed the system, you used to get an edit and I think also a delete button until recently.

John 

12 minutes ago, Commanderfish said:

It's 1.2" for the DC and 2.5" for the DF and DZ with stock focusers

Thanks for the information 

6 hours ago, Commanderfish said:

Has anyone got 1.5" travel on their Tak FC focuser drawtube, for instance from the shorter Feathertouch FTF 2015, and is it enough travel to bring your 2" Eyepieces to focus (Ethos, ES 82?) I know some of you have the FTF 2025 with 2.5" travel which seems ample. I gather the stock DC focuser is only 1" travel so the FTF 2015 would be a small improvement but not sure if it's enough?

To me 1" or even 1.5 " of travel is totally inadequate, I also find that the 45 mm of travel on my Explore Scientific Refractor to be inadequate, to me at least 3 " or 75 mm are needed. My Esprit 150 focuser has 85 mm of travel which provides sufficient in travel to reach focus with a 1.25" filter wheel, or an ADC, and sufficient out travel to reach focus with my longest focal length eyepiece, a Meade 56 mm Plossl eyepiece.

I had some thoughts of getting a Tak 100 DZ to provide a more portable instrument for holiday trips, does anyone know the amount of travel on the stock Tak focuser that comes with this model. 

John 

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 

1 hour ago, Nikodemuzz said:

While having discussions with different scope providers, I have started to think again about the Esprit 150. Essentially, going back a full circle.  Being used to mounting the C11, I don't really have experience in handling bigger refractors. Seeing this video was a bit of a revelation: 

Silly me, I didn't know you could use the rings like that. 🤓 Anyhow, seeing that I'm pretty confident that I wouldn't have too much trouble handling an Esprit 150. I believe the CEM60 should also be able to carry it, although it is on the heavier side of its capabilities.

The question would then be the same that has been the topic of discussion lately, thermal performance. Assuming no defects on the scope build or design, the pinching behaviour should be similar to others, or no? I would assume that it would be the slowest one to cool from the models that have been in the discussion. If the scope is too slow to cool I might never get the best out of it, in which case it is the wrong model for me.

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 

We are planning to view the eclipse from Mexico, either with Astro Trails or Astro Eclipse.

John 

39 minutes ago, Stu said:

Looks good John, nice focuser, plenty good enough for visual.

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 

22 hours ago, dweller25 said:

That looks like a great scope John, possibly a little better than the SW 120ED, similar performance to an FS128 perhaps ?

Probably a better focuser then the SW ED 120 as well.

John 

On 15/12/2020 at 13:29, arrayschism said:

Yep, mine's the same - haven't got a precise measurement of what it is as it's not to hand right now... but the drawtube is way out before focus. 75% sounds about right where mine is.

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 

17 hours ago, badhex said:

Dronnie eh? I'm a Chesterfield (Duckmanton, nr Bolsover) lad originally although in Berlin now! I would much prefer your Bortle 5 skies 😉

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  

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

Latest estimates put the birth of Christ as between 6 and 4 BC not as you would think 0 BC.

I think that was because originally they forgot to include the years that Emperor Augustus reigned as Octavius.

John  

On 18/12/2020 at 15:46, Skipper Billy said:

'Star of Bethlehem' - I am seeing in the media more and more reports about next weeks conjunction being a re-run of the 'Star of Bethlehem'.

For a kick off they are NOT stars! Giving them poetic licence and ignoring that fact I looked the location of Jupiter and Saturn around the alleged date of the happening and they were nowhere near each other!! Not even close.

See attached and notice the date - Christmas Eve just before the 'event' - I also scrolled backwards and forwards a few years each way and they were never even close to conjunction !! [I am assuming that Stellarium is accurate for years BC?]

For the pedants - you are quite right my house was not there over 2000 years ago!!!

 

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 

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 

1 minute ago, Nigella Bryant said:

From SkySafari similar to our view but not as close. 7BC, December 4th. 

 

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 

33 minutes ago, saac said:

Seems like Kepler favoured 7 BC but in June.  Maybe worth a read to get us in the festive  mood  http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1937JRASC..31..417B&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf

 

 

 

Jim

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 

4 minutes ago, saac said:

7BC is good getting closer; what about 6BC . The hunt goes on   

Jim  

 

They weren't close in 6 BC, Jupiter had moved on into Aries, and Saturn was still in Pisces.

John 

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 

4 hours ago, wulfrun said:

I saw 3 last night in the space of half-hour ish and a mere 2 the night before, both times close to midnight. Not as many as I'd have liked but still pretty when they came.

Me and my wife also saw 3 each (not the same 3) over a similar period at around midnight on the 13th, nothing like the 100+ per hour predicted in the BAA Handbook.  

John 

I also observed Mars at around 17.30 last night (7 December), despite rather unsteady conditions, Syrtis Major was standing out quite clearly, but the South Polar Cap was difficult. Interestingly Mars currently appears around the same size as at the most unfavourable aphelic oppositions. 

Observed again later at around 21.30, when the Sinus Sabaeus should have been on view, but atmospheric conditions had deteriorated from earlier on, and it was difficult to make out. 

John 

1 hour ago, dweller25 said:

Syrtis Major will be central 🙂

Looking outside at the moment, there is a good chance that it could be clear for me.

John 

Both my 14 in Newtonian and my Esprit 150, the Esprit 150 is mounted piggyback on the fork mounted Newtonian.

Attached is a processed image showing the same area of the planet on 22.10.20. which is similar to what could be observed visually at the time, the Mare Mare Erythraeum and the South Polar Cap were nothing like as clear on 30 November, my last view of the planet, weather has been awful since then. 

John 

I could make out the Mare Erythraeum and the South Polar Cap reasonably easily on 30 November, indicating that any dust storm activity is subsiding, but nothing like as clear as at around the time of opposition.

John 

Observed Mars again at 21.30 last night (30 November) when the Mare Erythraeum was again on display, despite rather unsteady atmospheric conditions (inferior to 26 November), the Mare Erythraeum and the South Polar Cap now appeared to be standing out more clearly, indicating a decline in any dust storm activity. The disc is however now getting much smaller, around 14 arc seconds, and similar to that at an aphelic opposition)

John 

On 21/11/2020 at 15:29, johnturley said:

Dave

Do you know what size Allen key fits this bolt, I have similar problems with the fine focuser on my Esprit 150

I've tightened very slightly the 2 bolts either side of the focuser as shown in the in the photograph below with a 2mm Allen key, to prevent the focuser from slipping, however if you tighten them too much then the fine focuser won't work. You also have to be careful not to slacken them off too much, otherwise I understand that there is a risk that the pressure pads can fall out, which are very difficult to replace.

John 

Checked on the size of Allen key required to tighten the bolt under the focuser and its 2 mm (same size as the 2 bolts on either side of the focuser), and tightened it slightly, plus tweaked the bolts on the focuser tube to reduce/prevent slippage of the focuser when the scope is in a near vertical position. I find that the latter gradually loosen over a period of time.  

Its not that bad a focuser on Esprits, certainly a lot better and more solid than those on Explore Scientific Refractors, the main problems being that they are fiddly to adjust (originally the heads of the bolts on the focuser tube on mine appeared to be made up with glue), and lack of any information in the manual about how to adjust them. Its a pity that they don't have knurled headed adjustment knobs like on the ES Refractors.

I can agree though that if you want to use an electronic focuser, then some upgrade to the focusing mechanism may be required.

John  

12 hours ago, garryblueboy said:

It’s a box made from styrofoam that the case goes in really thick to 

It looks as if it is now similar to the packaging used on the Esprit scopes.

John