Jump to content

548140465_Animationchallenge.jpg.32379dfa6f3bf4bba537689690df680e.jpg

Vlad

Members
  • Posts

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vlad

  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. How can there be? If we do that, surely we are putting ourselves, yet again, at the centre of the bubble, whereas we are not in the middle, or the edge, or anywhere, we are simply in the universe that goes on to infinity, a concept that we cannot grasp. It simply goes on forever and ever. And then some, ad infinitum. There is no end.
  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 acey, ie, simulations rather than calculations. The latter is complex, but if you are a mathematician you will already have been through them, but simulations and diagrams show what's going on to make life almost pleasant! (home made experiment equipment. simple yet effective.)
  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. Chromatic abberation colours this image, unfortunately, with a Creamy insead of white sharp detail, and also adds fringe colours. The apo has none of theses failings ( at least hardly noticeable) consequently is a telescope showing finer detail. Diffraction will always remain.
  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.
  16. I have downloaded ascom 6, eqmod/ascom, stellarium etc, and I will give "the sailor's" words a good try. Watch this space. (with patience please, as I, too, used to have grey matter and brown hair, but like Leo A, the colours have changed over. Oh, the brown is now dark brown, and the grey is a tiny fringe around the sides). Thank you for help, it is greatly appreciated.
  17. Me and computers are not friends. In fact, we don't even live in the same world. They are Aliens all. Rocket science, no problem. Differential equations, fine. Spherical trig, easy peasy. computers? no chance. Zilch. Mind you, being 76 and no training at all in computers, what would you expect.? I have an EQ3 synscan mount, with EQMOD to control it via Stellarium. I have a laptop and an observatory. I have no idea how this lot works, tried all week until I am aching, but no way can I make sense of it all. Obviously, I need help, by the bucket load. Anyone in East Lancs to whom I can turn for help, maybe even in person?? Just send me a PM, and I would be delighted to know you. Having tried all else, if this doesn't do it, I'm back to hand control with my two motors on my EQ5. Thanks doesn't cover it!
  18. Seems like a man who knows what's what. How about my 6" F/5 refractor? Any good for photography? Thank you.
  19. OK I take advice from those in the know. So my EQ3 should go, then.Pity, I had great hopes for it. I will stick to my EQ5 for now, and hope to raise enough to upgrade to synscan. I presume that is a goer? It already has new motors and handset, unused as yet, I installed it three weeks ago. Another dead £100! Thanks for the input. Much appreciated.
  20. Peter, Thanks for that information. Never had an EQ3 until this one. It is an EQ3. I also have the EQ4, but I now know, thanks to you, that the two are incompatible. I will just have to use the EQ3 with goto and save the EQ4 for taking out. The EQ3 will stand on my steel concreted in pier in my observatory, where I will mount my 150 Pro skywatcher Maksutov. Should be OK I think.
  21. I have long held the belief that security lighting is anything but, except maybe in favour of the wrongdoers.. My theory goes like this: Security lights provide blinding light, also dark shadows where anyone can hide, in SECURITY!. A torch, (very bright nowadays, and long lasting light) gives the holder the ability to seek out dark shadowy areas. In my parlance, the man with the flash light is king. The man with the security ligh is also king.....ASking to be robbed. .
  22. Hi, I have an EQ3-4 mount with motors. I also have an EQ 3-2 with synscan upgrade from Syntrek. I would like to use this synscan on the EQ3-4. Is the mod possible? Will the bits from the EQ3-2 fit the EQ 3-4? Any advice in this instance would be good advice, even though all good advice is usually fatal!!
  23. Way back in 1975 I got a 6" OG, and built an OTA from it. I attached it to my (Homemade) mount. The counterweight was too heavy, so I slackened off the screw, which fell onto the observatory floor. Instant reaction, I tried to grab the screw. The counterweight fell off and landed on the tip of my big toe. That was painful enough for me to release my hold on the telescope.The telescope swung around the RA axis. The OG end of the OTA crashed into my head, knocking me to the floor. There is a lesson here somewhere, but I can't for the life in me think what it is. Must be the bump on the head. Or the black toe.
  24. You have to be joking! You really mean that an amateur astronomer actually thinks that the moon has a dark side? I don't believe it, I just don't B####y believe it!
  25. The field of view limits the use of 2" eyepieces. The standard 1.25" eyepieces are all you'll need. Not worth bothering with the extra expense of 2" oculars.
×
×
  • 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.