jetstream

4 hours ago, Stardust1 said:

How do the 17mm Nikon compare to the 17mm Ehtos? Thanks!

I like the 17mm Nikon HW better than my 17mm Ethos- I feel it offers a step up in contrast and it appears to be "sharper". The contrast using the 14mm EIC is giving the Docter a rival and on the core of M42 in the 15" f4.8 the views are jaw dropping. I need to test the 17 Nikon for pincushion distortion, something that bothers me a bit.

The Nikon HW needs a better eyeguard, which the 17E grudgingly supplied (fits perfect).

My testing is on hold with the TSA120 as it is -36c this morning.

3 hours ago, Stardust1 said:

I just received the Nikon NAV HW 17mm eyepiece.

Congrats!

I sure like mine- but my 17mm Ethos does not...lol!

This eyepiece is VG.

37 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

That online mapping resource is misleading, inaccurate and delusional and certainly should not be used for quoting as a reference in any observers reports. If I was to quote from this map based upon locations I go observing within then I would be implying SQM 21.88.  Whilst I gain 21+ mag skies, this particular reading is quite simply - at least so far - untrue. A Unihedron SQM-L (check FLO) is a highly useful tool for measuring / assessing an average and monitoring sky brightness over a given period during your observing session. Anything else is quite simply for the birds, at least in my opinion.

lol!

I agree Iain, while the maps can be accurate it is not necessarily so. One map indicates my current place as quite a bit brighter than my remote dark sites-yeah right... the SQM-L dispelled this (&NELM) and saved me many miles of driving. I have mapped a huge area in my travels and its all the same, including my home.

A very useful thing the SQM-L does is find the edges of darker places, even near towns and cities.

A truly good test of skies is the ability to see M33 IMHO.

1 minute ago, Beulah said:

Those are really impressive results.

What time of the night do you take the readings?

Whenever I'm out.. I checked many times over the past few years and typically the highest readings are after the snow and ice are out. SQM-L readings vary in my experience. I have recorded at least .25mag difference between the MW and the rest of the sky, sometimes .3-.4 mag.

I always warm up the meter and take many readings. NELM with my eyes have gone 6.6-6.8 at best so far.  These days I use the MW as a guide- how chiseled the features look.

I see we have similar skies.

So far I've measured only 21.8 repeatedly and as very few 21.9's.

Of those two scopes mentioned I would get the Esprit 150 Triplet. Has their been a bit of sample to sample variation with the APM 140?

6 hours ago, dweller25 said:

As a good value/performing telescope this is well worth considering....

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

Great recommendation and I also vote for it.

7 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

You must have a long focal length scope.

Nah, just dark skies

I have a clamshell for the 120mm Tak and it looks robust. The Losmandy dovetail by Farpoint has a recess for the boss on the bottom of the holder providing good security. I'm not so sure I would use a bar without this recess, just me.

 So many top imagers ie Astroavani, Kokathaman , Peach etc use those pesky SCT's to great effect! I guess refractors can't compete in this realm...

The article does have some valid points ie benefits of aperture, cost vs aperture. Mind you I think I want a magic Tak that doesn't need dark skies to perform well !

Perfect John, congrats!

Awesome findings!

You might find that, like me the Tak LE series is not in the same league as your better eyepieces...

Great eyepieces

The 42mm LVW is a favorite of mine as is the HR2 2.4mm.

7 minutes ago, ngwillym said:

"While the Quark has a blocking filter in its nose which should kill any residual energy"

Great post and I know this isn't quoting you Neil but I wanted to mention something.

This mention of the "blocking filter" in the nose of the Quark is misleading IMHO. This front filter is the induced transmission filter (ITF) which serves a completely different role than the blocking filter. As the etalon is a "comb" filter the actual blocking filter isolates one line for us to see or image.

To me this ITF is the fail safe energy reducing "broadband" filter and not the actual blocking filter.

I thought it might be worth mentioning this.

1 hour ago, spaceboy said:

I don't always think "people can do what ever they want" is the best advice!

Some make choices and hopefully they are informed ones....

A few have tried the reflective filters but the con to this is the reflected light- I wouldn't want to inadvertently look at a D-ERF while its tracking the sun.

BTW there are more choices for the full  aperture ERF and not all are reflective I believe.

20 minutes ago, spaceboy said:

they can fail due to absorbing the heat and expansion

Very true- but having a filter that "rattles" ( a bit loose in its cell) and figuring out the energy from the solar disk size can prevent this. My 120ED has no issues with this filter (with my diags). I chose KG3 because the nature of the KG3 allows it to filter IR regardless of coating. If the KG3 breaks I'll know it immediately vs a coating failure with the other types which may go un-noticed.

The reflective filters shoot light out the objective...

I guess its all about choices-to each their own.

Edit- I use this filter for keeping IR from reaching my eye as well as protect the Quark or wedge...

BTW I use this filter for solar use. Mr Smie did calculate if it was safe based on the f ratio (solar disk size) at the distance inside the tubes using my diagonals. It is an absorptive IR filter (KG3) vs a reflective (Baader UV/IR).

http://beloptik.de/en/left/if-uv-ir-cut-on-kg3-infrared-blocking-filter/

Just now, spaceboy said:

I think moonshane has removed his rusty itf

People can do whatever they want- its a free country (ies) so to speak. I personally like the metallic ITF features better (ie they block more light when they fail).

Whatever we do here we must not ever consider removing the "little silver" filter (ITF) from the bottom of the Quark.  I believe the goal of a true front mounted ERF and a "mini ERF" (UV/IR,35nm Baader 2") is to keep heat (energy) from the Quarks filters.

https://www.andovercorp.com/products/bandpass-filters/standard/600-699nm/

27 minutes ago, Pingster said:

I assume this would greatly change the look of the sun?

The Quarks filters let deep red-656.3 nm through (in "steps down to it") so the wide Baader 35nm Ha filter will not cause a color difference.

Be very careful when considering and using filters ahead of your diagonal for solar.

14 minutes ago, RobertI said:

I immediately thought of my Heritage 130p when saw this mount, could be a perfect combination.....on a solid tripod. I'm not actually sure I need goto for visual, might be useful for finding dim objects in areas where there few stars, or small PNs at higher magnification, but then I'm not sure this is a good mount for using at high mags. Would save a lot of bending and twisting of the neck though. ? I guess its one of those things you just have to try and see if it improves the observing experience.

Yes its stability as a unit would be nice to know as would other tripod options if we want to enhance stability if its needed. It is quite possible it will work well as is though.

Thanks!

The grand daughter wants to be able to have a scope that "finds" things but loves the Heritage. This mount just might be the ticket!

On 2017-07-28 at 10:56, FLO said:

Sky-Watcher say the mount is quiet in operation, has a payload capacity of up to 5kg

I wonder if this mount would work well with the Heritage 130?

1 hour ago, Piero said:

 So, Gerry, how does this Lunt perform on galaxies under your dark skies?  

Really good... I need more time though- there is a nice little 5 galaxy cluster in UMA where one of them is a nice test of things, they are NGC 3998,NGC 3990,NGC3972,NGC 3982 and the tricky NGC 3977.

I'll try the 21E vs the Lunt on this set but the trees are in the way atm lol!