Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customise your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,482 Excellent

About Owmuchonomy

  • Rank
    R Class
  • Birthday 02/09/59

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Rejuvenated childhood interest in Astronomy. Photography, cycling, classic rock.
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,746 profile views
  1. I like this presentation:
  2. I'm sure there is some science to it but more importantly it is a tried and tested method. However, the S@N article is talking about the Moon, an object half a degree across. If you wish to image Venus then yes you are going to need a lot more FL. For Venus, I am using a FL of at least 5 metres.
  3. It is suggesting the optimal focal length to aim for based upon your set up. So your 3x barlow is not far off to be honest. The result is also substantially affected by the seeing so its only a guide. I use a different approach and that is to aim for a f/ of around 5x my pixel size. So for my ASI174mm that equates to 5 x 5.8 or somewhere between f/25 and f/30. Hence I use a 2.5 x powermate in my C9.25 which is an f/10 scope. That said, i have tried a 5x powermate too on the Moon so f/50 which wasn't great but not bad using an IR pass filter.
  4. Nothing like jumping at the deep end! What planets are you going to image? Only Jupiter of the easier targets is available and that is very low I'm afraid. Unfortunately the opportunities for the next few years are very limited indeed. Looks like lunar then so what camera do you have and then we can answer your IR question. Is it mono or colour and how sensitive is it in the near IR? For example my mono ASI174MM is sensitive in the near IR so a benefit can be gained by using an IR pass filter because near IR is less affected by atmospheric turbulence. Some colour planetary cameras like the ASI290 have all pixels sensitive in near IR despite the Bayer matrix so you can use the IR pass to image in mono with them. My link below in the signature has some examples of recent IR pass captures.
  5. As Steve says, plus flashing LEDs on SW mounts usually means a low voltage issue in my experience. What power supply are you using?
  6. I have it if you can't find it from above. Let me know.
  7. Dont confuse Polar alignment with GoTo set up. They are different things. By all means get your PA reasonably close but your GoTo doesn't rely on it being spot on. It will be sufficient for GoTo and visual observations to align your mount by sighting along the OTA in its home position to Polaris. If you then want to refine your PA for imaging you can do it later. In fact, you can do it via the Synscan handset (if that is what you have); you don't need a polar scope.
  8. The complexity and length of this thread just confirms your original suspicion. Oh yes, I have collimated two f/5 scopes in my time but then the clouds would roll in. For me, life was too short but then plenty of others way more experienced relish the challenge and can perform the procedure much better than I ever did. I'll get my coat...
  9. I don't have the AZEQ5 but rather the 6. The AZ mode is so convenient and I can have two visitors viewing the same thing with different scopes. I can also view/image the Sun in WL AND Ha at the same time! I think if you are mainly a visual observer and fancy imaging the Moon or Sun then it's an easy decision. Go for the AZEQ5. As Alex correctly points out, you don't need a polarscope to do polar alignment when you have a Synscan handset to do it for you. The only thing I don't know is what the load limit of the 5 is in Alt/Az mode?
  10. Very interesting post.
  11. If you go with your design and you think you will never wander around your pier whilst you are imaging then maybe you could get away with less. In fact, some folks on here mount their pier on a patio slab only in full knowledge it won't get disturbed.
  12. Like Carol says why not just have a ROR. I see no advantage in having the pier separated from the facility. It's not difficult to do and there is plenty of support and advice on this forum. You will get better weather protection and security for your mount. The pier looks a bit flimsy for me especially with the three gangly bolts holding up top plate. I am being slightly hypocritical here as I have the Altair pier which also has bolts, four of them but they are much more substantial than those in your choice. If I was starting again I would diy build the pier. Regarding your concrete block foundation then I would advise at least 700x700x700 and it should be isolated from the pit you dig and the floor above.
  13. The Twitter feed works really well but I guess I just missed that C14 Edge bargain I was after.
  14. Nothing wrong with that. Use an IR pass filter with the 224 so you can add a luminance channel too.
  15. Well done. It's likely things are going to get sparse for some time to come so we need to catch them while we can.