Jump to content



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Vlad

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    astronomy... spectra...Math...Reading...
  • Location
    East Lancs
  1. The SCT is the one. Plenty of focal length for the DSO's, yet with a focal reducer, the wider objects are easily captured. Also an aexcellent visual scope, showing fainter stars than the 120, but having said that, the visuals of an equinox are stunning!
  2. Good starter scope, no doubt about that. Also easy to handle, carry and take indoors when you've done observing. Anything bigger starts to become more chore. About they eyepieces. Not a lot wrong with them. They are many times better than eyepieces were just a couple of decades ago. Probably Plossls, very good really. The new range show a wider field of view, but no great loss there, also, like just about all eyepieces, they show stars a small flares near the edge of the field of view, in any Newtonian scope. Use 'em and love 'em. Great Christmas prezzy!
  3. Anyone on this forum klnow anything about using a laptop to control the LX200? I previously used EQ mount with stellarioum and it worked beautifully! Thanks
  4. I would like to know if Meade LX200 scope can be controlled by laptop. If so, how? any information would be much welcomed. My EQ scope was used by laptop and stellariumscope. That was superb. How can I get something similar with the LX200 please!
  5. Point to note. Achromatic telescopes do not have spherical aberration. If it does, that is a fault in manufacture. Send it back. Chromatic aberration yes, they have that, but the amount depends on focal RATIO, not focal length, so an F/15 will show so little as to be hardly noticeable, in amateur sizes, but at F/5 it will be noticeable. Spherical aberration, Never!
  6. Does there really have to be a centre? By making a centre, we also build a wall around the "Universe", in other words we must call it finite. Perhaps if we had a telescope with optics as large as the distance between here and the Andromeda galaxy, maybe we would see ....more galaxies, with still no end in sight? Is there an end, or even a beginning? So many questions, no truly reliable answers as yet.
  7. Very interesting. I hope you make more posts on this subject. I WILL get into it I WILL get into it I WILl get into it ..........................................and so on.
  8. Pawel!! Almost worth a divorce!
  9. This could go on forever! By talking of bubbles are we not trying to build walls around things? Surely, infinity means just that, no end, no beginning, and certainly no walls. To talk of bubble infers that we can build walls around the universe. The way I see it, our present telescopes have seen as far as they are able, but not come to the end of the universe, for it has no end. If we built a telescope as big as our galaxy, it would still be the tiniest almost nothing, we would still go one seeing more galaxies, and more galaxies. there is no end to them, as there is no end to the universe. Ho
  10. Never seen these doubles. I'll take a look. IF we ever get a clear sky again.
  11. Diffraction spikes also produce spectra. This is because light is made up of many wavelengths, and each wavelength is diffracted by a different amount. Hence the diffraction grating. You must have noticed the bright spotlights on TV sometime when the diffraction spikes are noticeable in the extreme. Next time you see these spikes, take a look at the colours in them as they progress outwards.. Diffraction is here being used to give this effect.
  12. Right. The diffraction doesn't go away, it is simply spread about in the focal plane so that it beome too feint to see. In short messages such as this, it is almost impossible to explain it properly, it takes quite a bit more than the few words in these posts. Acey got a good point across. If anyone REALLY wants to know more about diffraction, and how diffraction gratings work in spectroscopes, drop me a PM and I will send enough info to possibly make things clear. I dare say Acey would probably do the same thing, too, but I can't speak for him. I would prefer to take the route suggested by a
  13. Light "bends" at any "edge" this bending is called diffraction. The aperture of any telescope presents an edge, even the edge of a mirror or lens. A secondary obstruction such as a Newtonian secondary, adds more diffraction, and the first "diffraction ring" of the star pattern is brighter with that additional edge". The bigger the obstruction, the more diffraction there will be. This "first diffraction ring" is responsible for deterioration of image quality, as fine detail is masked by the brightness of the added diffraction. The refarctor has, thus, less diffraction and higher image quality.
  14. Lose energy, yes. Lose velocity, no. How so? the wavelength changes from, say a blue, to a red. so, light that was blue but is now red, still travels at "C", but with less energy. I have wondered about this for years and years. Also about the big bang??? Can't get my head round it .
  15. Also NW Englandshire, not very far from an astronomy centre. Interested in E-sketching. I didn't get to see your lunar sketch, my PC wont let me!! I'll have to find out why one day.
  • 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.