Dannae

Hi John,

I love reading first lights and this really was one of the best. I think it is because they remind me of my own first lights and the emotion you feel when all the expectations and no small guilt of spending good money comes to fruition. I have to echo your thoughts that often you wish you had gone larger I think that may be the most common of thoughts!

Good luck with your new scope and keep the reports coming.

Regards

Dannae

Hi Alan,

Great first light report

If you want to split tight doubles you may like to try putting the main star diagonally away from the centre of the FOV and your diffraction spike interference will be reduced.

Regards

Dannae

Peter Drew, on 09 Dec 2014 - 1:50 PM, said:

The main problem usually with refractors is that you are financially stuck with a small telescope. 

Been there, still stuck with it

The choice and style of spider is effectively a choice of what you want to see in your star images. A straight vane causes diffraction in a 2% area.  A curved vane’s diffraction is equal to its curvature, thus a 90 degree curve in a vane equals a 90 degree swath of diffraction.

I've looked through curved, looped 3 and 4 vane and I put myself in the rigid 4 vane camp. My heart says the views are 'cleaner' in a curved vane system but my head says there is more total diffraction.

Curved spiders are often thicker than their 3 or 4 vane counterparts which are held in tension but I feel that it comes down to what you want to see and what is most pleasing. Perhaps splitting close doubles would be preferential with a 4 vane if you move the companion out of the spike of the brighter star whereas planetary views smack bang in the centre of the eyepiece might appear better with a curved.

Just my 2 vanes

Regards

Dannae