mikeDnight

My new to me FS128 came with black tube rings and a long wide William Optics dovetail plate. Nothing wrong with the WO plate of course other than it added double the depth of a standard Vixen style dovetail, and it wasn't cosmetically as pleasing in my mind as genuine Tak rings or clam shell. It just so happened that as I was sent shopping with my wife's card a few days ago, I stumbled across some model paints, and low and behold there was a Takahashi green/blue. This morning, with little to do I dismantled the rings, cleaned them off, and gave then a couple of coats of my Tak equivalent paint. I'm quite pleased with the result, especially as it only cost my wife a couple of quid. As my previous FS128 was easily carried using a 7" Mewlon dovetail, I also replaced the large WO plate with a shorter standard SW dovetail. All I need now is a handle so as to please Jeremy S. The Matt 23 paint was listed in the store as duckegg blue, but its definitely very close to the original Tak green.

Unfortunately I've no idea! The name Takahashi in Japan is as common as the name Smith is in the UK, and if you simply Google TAKAHASHI, you'll get all manner of things Japanese, not just telescopes.

After a few observations of Venus using the FS128, 3.4mm Vixen HR eyepiece, and various colour filters, I turned the scope onto Mars. Although the seeing was good I wasn't expecting too much as Mars was approaching the tree line, so the seeing generally deteriorates around this point. Anyhow, the view through the scope was sharply defined with the north polar cap being immediately obvious. Acidalia was also very prominent, with the tail of the Indus trailing very obviously southward from Acidalia and linking to Margaretifer Sinus in the south. I had no idea what the meridian would be when I first turned the scope to Mars, but as soon as I saw the Indus I immediately knew where I was. It was a very impressive sight considering the small disk size. I also used the Vixen 3.4mm HR eyepiece for studying Mars which with the FS128 gave a mag of 306X.

It looks great, and every garden should have one. I don't know about it being "atheistically acceptable", but I do think it is aesthetically very pleasing.

Too cheap! I'd stick another £100 on top at least.

There's something magical about that books simplicity that really appeals to me, and I can imagine it being genuinely inspiring to a young mind. I also love that shade of blue, and the starry skies remind me of my childhood, when my friend, also named Michael, and I would play out under such deepening blue skies littered with starlight. We were around 11 years old. Street lights were not as much of a problem as they are today, and either my childhood skies or my childhood eyes were considerably more transparent back then. I also had my first astro expedition under such a sky when I was six years old. Looking through my bedroom window which faced south, I saw a first quarter Moon, and being aware the Moon was a globe, I had it in mind that if I could stand beneath it, it would look like a Dairylea cheese triangle, so off I went. I've no idea how I sneaked past mum and dad and my older brother, but somehow I found myself walking down back streets for the distance of what must have been half a mile before I realised the Moon was moving with me, and I wasn't getting any closer, so I decided to return home in failure. I knew even then in 1968 that one day I'd either own a telescope or build a rocket.

They do! You just can't afford it!!

images.mp4

Wow! That's a great nights observing you've had Magnus, and very encouraging too. It must be 20 years ago, possibly longer, when I read an article in Sky & Telescope regarding a magnitude review project which I seem to remember was carried out by astronomers from Flagstaff. Before then, it was the general belief that the 13th mag star on the periphery of the ring nebula was around 11th magnitude, and that the central star was 14th magnitude. It caught my interest when I read that the researchers had during their review, found the peripheral star to be 13.2. I'd seen that star many times and found it interesting that it was easily seen through a 4" scope on a steady, transparent night. The article commented that because the star was close to the nebula, it was more obvious than it would be if it was set alone with nothing near by, and this may have given visual estimations/guesstimations the wrong impression. The estimate of 11th mag was derived from visual estimates long past, where as the Flagstaff review used photometry, so it was way more accurate. It's also interesting that you list it as 13.1 and John's charts show it to be 13.0. Not that it matters as I'm just thrilled to be able to see it, but I wonder if there's some variability in this stars magnitude, or whether more recent observations have narrowed its magnitude down to a more precise reading? Anyhow, your report is awesome and I hope your good seeing becomes courageous.

I can't wait to see what you turn it into Alan.

Much depends on the object you're looking at. Are you saying that M5 was a blurry distortion, or everything you look at? The 72ED is a very nice scope but for examining faint fuzzy targets it's perhaps not the most impressive performer due to its limited aperture. Observing from a dark sky site will make a big difference, but a larger aperture may be the best way forward for visual deep sky.

In December I added a 2X barlow and a binoviewer to my 60mm Carton refractor, and was rewarded with a beautiful, almost 3D view of Mars. In 2014 I spent several months with an 80mm Equinox refractor and binoviewer observing the Moon and Jupiter. The binoviewer transformed these small aperture scopes into something with much more punch. Id go out to observe with the intention of having a quick five or ten minutes viewing the Moon and find myself still sat on a frozen garden bench an hour later. That 80mm with a binoviewer was a wonderful lunar scope!

The extender Q's are designed for these scopes and are wonderful. They are five element and correct for any residual aberrations. As for high power, I've used the 1.6X Q along with a 2X barlow and have been left speechless by the lunar views I've had. However, just using a barlow on a binoviewer will give you 4X amplification, and you still have the comfort of using long fl eyepieces. I've used the Q and various powermates, and prefer the Q, but the Q can be fiddly if you use the screw on adapter version. The 2" version may be easier! I've had two 1.6X extender Q's but nolonger have one. Personally I saw no difference in the quality of the image in the eyepiece other than the obvious amplification. The biggest game changer for me has been the use of a binoviewer with a barlow on its nose piece. The attached pic shows an extender Q on my DZ with barlowed binoviewer. It adds quite a chunk to the back end!

That's a wonderful report Neil, and some happy memories added to your collection.

They are truly beautiful images Roy. I'd be very proud if I'd managed to get results like that. 🏆

That looks like a fabulous book Paul. Thanks for posting.

You've started my irhythmia off again Stu! Anyhow, if you eventually decide to replace it completely, I know of a good home for it.

Lovely sketch Roel!

At least two John. And as I had one previously that makes three. Then there's at least two others on SGL that I know of, so that makes five.

I won't be parting with my DZ. I'm desperately in love with it!💞

Outstanding and beautiful!

I think you've just thought of your next anniversary present for her - a nice 76mm or 100mm Tak! She'll love it!

When you come to the AC to collect your solar scope you should grab yourself a goat or two, or a couple of sheep. Or may be a cow, then it can moo the grass for you.

Probably atmospheric turbulence.

There's nothing on mine except the serial plate. My FS152 was only in Japanese, which may have said when translated "Sucker"! It was beautiful though!