mikeDnight

Seeing conditions are the real equalizer providing the optics are excellent. Forget maximum resolution! You can increase magnification until you run out of exit pupil if the seeing allows, but bear in mind that different targets have sweet spots of their own. For example, Jupiter is unlikely to allow you to use the same high powers you might use on Saturn or Mars. Stars are wonderful at stupid high powers in a good scope on a good night, and the Moon too will eat magnification at times. So don't cage yourself in mentally because a book or popular opinion says this or that. You're the pilot of that spaceship so push it well out of its comfort zone if conditions permit. You'll not break it!

I know you won't want to hear this, but cutting a cm off the length of the tube may help. At the focuser end of course!

I think this book is my oldest. It's a beautifully bound leather hardback. They don't make them like this anymore!

On 04/04/2024 at 19:31, Penumbrella said:

Hi, 

I'm about to treat myself to a new scope - probably the evolux 82. I'm very much mainly visual (my mount is an az-gtiX) but am thinking about EAA down the road, or switching up to an equatorial mount if/when the AP bug finally hits. I've currently got a 130pds and want to switch to a refractor for easier grabbing and go-ing, and less collimating. 

My question is this - I have an altair 2" 30mm UFF eyepiece which I really enjoy in my 130pds. It's my only 2" eyepiece, but it's probably my favourite. I also (for some reason) have a 1.25" diagonal that I can use on the new scope. Should I sell this diagonal and buy a 2" diagonal, or sell the 30mm UFF and buy the 24mm UFF eyepiece? 

Any advice and thoughts very welcome - but please don't fill my head with 102mm refractor temptations!! It's taken me months to settle on that choice 😂

 I use the Baader/Zeiss BBHS prism. It is the 1.25" version but has an oversized prism. Using this with a 2" nose and 2" click-lock allows me to use my 30mm Ultra Flat without any vignetting. The prism itself is top class!

2 hours ago, John said:

Very unreliable cuckoo, that one 🙄

We found the clock in bits in a shoe box. Put it together and it runs and keeps the time reasonably well but I can't get the cuckoo to synchronise with the half hours and hours when he's supposed to pop out. He is always late, sometimes not at all and occasionally we get an appearance and a volley of "cuckoos" for no apparent reason !

The grandchildren think he's fun though 😁

Patrick Moore had a cuckoo Cuckoo clock where the cuckoo had a mind of its own. I think it adds to the charm, and as the saying goes Cuckoo Clocks Take After Their Owners, or is that dog's.

That's gorgeous John! And it's a great aperture for serious observing too. December before last I had a fabulous view of Mars through my own Carton refractor, and that's only 60mm. At 75mm you may find it's all you need, and just may be you'll sell off all that dead weight in the form of LZOS, Takahashi & Vixen. 🤣  Seriously though, the 75mm Carton will play very nicely with those bigger siblings I'm sure. Patrick used to tell us that a 3" refractor was able to do serious work, so I look forward to seeing what adventures you get upto. 🙂

20 minutes ago, Stu said:

It’s funny, every day when I look at my handsome visage in the mirror, I don’t think it looks false 🤪

😂

 I use the Baader/Zeiss BBHS or Takahashi prism's in my refractors, giving a north top east/west reversed image. As most maps of the Moon are printed with either the standard wrong way up right way round reflector view, or right way up wrong way round refractor with standard diagonal view, it's easy to locate features. 

You are an exceptionally good observer Matt, and I'm glad you feel a slight addiction to sketching, as that means we're going to get to see more of your sketches.

9 hours ago, wesdon1 said:

@Mr Spock  Have you managed to split a double star system where one star is orange/yellow and the other blue? I'd love to manage that at some point, in my minds eye I could imagine it to look beautiful. I've never actually tried my hand at star splitting but really want to. Do you think my 200/1000 newt would manage it?

Thanks, Wes.

 Izar in Bootes is a lovely orange/red with a chalk blue secondary, or that's how it appeared to me, but Albireo in Cygnus was once described to me as a Gold primary with a Turquoise secondary, and that romantic description of colours kind of stuck with me. Whatever the actual colours, it is a fabulous contrasting double.

1 hour ago, wookie1965 said:

Mike have you found the Svbony needs a lot more in focus than a normal say 6mm eyepiece. I tried it in my set up for solar (Tal) but would not focus never thought much of it as lower focal length eyepieces wont focus , I thought it was just the solar wedge but had the vixen out and it would not focus in that. Have to try the Tal with the 2" diagonal in.

 I haven't noticed a problem with in focusing the 3-8 zoom Paul, but I haven't used a wedge for a long time. I bought a Lunt 1.25" Herschel wedge a few years ago and found I couldn't get enough inward focus using my FC100DC focuser with some eyepieces. I haven't tried one on my DZ, but I think the Wedge takes up more light path than a standard diagonal. 

10 hours ago, paulastro said:

Mike, I do know an image is not the same as looking at the same thing through an eyepiece!  Indeed I saw the spiral structure of M51 well before you did in 2001!   I'm surprised you felt the need to point this out to me, or what purpose it served?

In case you are not aware, images are not just only about eliciting enjoyment, but they can be used to learn about the subject and monitor changes and developments in objects which you cannot see through any available telescope you may have.  

 I commented simply because the OP asked the question "What aperture to see spiral arms in galaxies? Then M51 began to play a major part in the following posts. I mentioned my first observation of the spiral structure in 2001 because I was using a smallish aperture and felt it was of interest as it took a significantly larger telescope to make the initial discovery, which could lead some to believe only large apertures will reveal the arms and bridge. Sharing my experience with a 6" shows that smaller aperture scopes can reveal this detail, and that may be encouraging to some here on SGL!  What aperture did you first see the spiral arms in Paul?   I'm not at all surprised that you saw it before me, as you are much older than I am and you have been involved in the hobby much longer. I have a Box Brownie photo of you stood alongside an old 2.25" refractor in the 1960's to prove this. I was still in infant school at that time!   Astronomy was on my mind though, and after seeing a first quarter Moon from my bedroom window, I set off on my very first astronomical adventure. I put on my coat and walked along street after street after street in my attempt to get underneath that 1st quarter Moon. My suspicion was that if I could get beneath the Moon at 1st quarter,  it would look like a dairylea cheese triangle. I'm still not convinced it doesn't!  (Cheese - Moon - Dairylea, it all makes perfect sense to a six year old!)  Anyhow, I ran out of streets and the Moon had got no closer, then I realised I was a long way from home and set off back disheartened. It would be another twelve years before the astro bug bit!

  Back to the original OP's question; Visually, M81, M33, and M31 are others under dark transparent skies have revealed spiral structure to me, even in apertures as small as 4" (3.9" in the case of my FC100DC & DZ). I even feel that a 4" would begin to reveal the spiral structure of M51 under the right sky conditions. I haven't bothered to check, but I'd imagine Walter Scott Houston, Steve Omeara, and other observers using 4" refractors may very well have seen such detail.

Really beautiful drawings! 

Gorgeous sketch. Looks like the real thing! 

On 29/03/2024 at 20:04, paulastro said:

I'm even more pleased I've bought a Seestar having read this 😅.

The Seestar is obviously giving you a lot of enjoyment Paul, and it's nice to see the images it produces,  but it's not the same as seeing something for yourself through an eyepiece.  

 I first saw the spiral structure in M51 visually back in 2001 when using a 6" Helios F8 achromat. I was out of town and at a dark site and so was well dark adapted, but it struck me that if I could see the spiral and the bridge, why did it not get discovered sooner as it wasn't difficult, but neither was it immediately obvious.

I went out early this evening while it was still daylight. The sky was clear and the Sun was well below my local western horizon. I searched for Jupiter for a while with the naked eye and as soon as I found it I aimed the scope at it. It was my hope I'd be able to catch it before it got too low in my western sky, and also in the hope I could sketch it.  Through the binoviewer at 166X there was a lot of detail but turbulence made it difficult to see easily. Still, I made a sketch and continued to study the detail through the scope. Out of curiosity I decided to compare the SvBony 3-8mm zoom to the view I'd had through the binoviewer, and was pleasantly surprised at the well defined belt detail at the 5mm setting which gave 208X in the FS128. I'm not certain if the atmosphere had steadied somewhat, but the zoom enabled me to more precisely position some detail on my sketch, and showed me some more subtle detail I hadn't seen earlier. I also like the fact that I could fine tune the zoom by choosing powers between the click stops.

 After going back into the house for a horlicks, I made a cleaned up version of the eyepiece sketch, then went out again to have a brief look around the sky using my set of Ultraflat eyepieces. I started with the Pleiades over in the west using the 30mm, then swung the scope round to look at M51. Then I dropped down to catch a glimpse of M13 which looked gorgeous through the 10mm Ultraflat, after which I swung around to pick up the clusters in Auriga. I caught a sweet little triple star and a lone blood red star in Gemini but have no idea what their names or designation might be. Then finally i finished the session by aimlessly sweeping along the Perseus chain and into Cassiopeia.  The sky was misting over a little and so felt it was time to call it a night.

4 hours ago, John said:

I sold mine to Roger Vine - it's the one that he reviews and pictures here:

TeleVue Ranger Review (scopeviews.co.uk)

I love Roger's Scopeviews reviews. I've sometimes wondered what Scope Views would be like if I did the reviews? The idea even makes me cringe! I suspect the site would need to have the warning "Not For Those Of A Sensitive Disposition"!

 I almost forgot that I also had a nice little TV Ranger for a while around 2004/5. Mine was the more beautiful green version. I seem to remember selling it for around £70. 

 If it makes you feel any better Neil, I spent 20 years observing the Moon and planets on the front street of the house where I lived with my wife and kids, from 1984 to 2004. There were towering sodium lights to contend with, but on the positive side, the pavement outside our house was very wide and nothing overlooked us because of the gigantic crevice gouged through the town for the M65 motorway directly opposite and hidden from sight by a stone wall. The front of the house faced south, while my deep sky escapades were carried out from a large backyard from which I could see east and west and straight up. It was dark at the back of the house as the house itself shielded me from the street lights. Despite these unfavourable conditions, and through perseverance, I saw many wonderful sights. My various refractors over the years never failed to deliver great views straight out of the house, and to date the best view of M81 & M82  (particularly M82), has been through my 4" F13 Vixen achromat and a 40mm Kellner eyepiece. That was in 1986 and the memory of the moment stands out as something particularly special. I didn't have to battle with go-to or any of these modern day gadgets, instead I battled along with sweeping up fuzzies using a German equatorial. As a consequence I now struggle to think in altazimuth mode.

  Anyhow, I'm certain you're not alone in finding out that everything you want to look at is hidden behind a tree or a lamppost. It seems to be a regular occurrence with me. And even if theres nothing to obstruct the view, a heat plume or a small lone cloud will intentionally station itself between the scope and whatever it is your wanting to observe. Yet, somewhat miraculously, we keep on keeping on, and eventually get one of those excellent nights that super-charge us, so we can endure the not so good nights.

On 28/03/2024 at 16:33, Flame Nebula said:

OK, so I would like to be able to see the Encke gap. I won't use the word resolve, as I think it may be correct, but if you look at Saturn images, you will see what I mean. I have seen C8 scopes do it, but usually it is most obvious from images taken in C9.25 and larger and Newts at 10" or higher. Now, taking your point, I often see a wide range of images with same scope, some better than others, and that will be where the user comes in, and to some extent the seeing, although I understand this has much less effect in planetary  AP. Going to jupiter, similarly, I'd like a scope capable of showing the various festoons, e.g. the white oval ones in southern hemisphere. Hope this gives you an idea of what the scope should be capable of: whether my processing skills will be good enough is another matter. 🤔😉

 Imaging or visually observing the Encke gap may be difficult at present due the the current angle of Saturn's rings. Not many know this, but when the rings are fully open, linear features such as the Encke gap (not to be confused with the minima) - although technically beyond resolution - is entirely observable visually in the anse through a good 5" scope as a fine dark division about a quarter to a third of the way in from the outer edge of the A ring on a night of good seeing. 

Lovely images with plenty of detail Paul. I'm glad your refractor is up and running nicely and look forward to many more gorgeous pic's. Now I need to buy a Herschel wedge - thanks! 

I'm farely confident they still use that medical textbook at Blackburn Royal Hospital. 

  As we're dreaming, I'd love to have my FS152 gifted back please! When I foolishly let it go it was mounted on a Losmandy G11 and not the EQ6 in the pic, but even the tube assembly alone would be a dream come true. Sadly, dreams like this don't come true! 😔

An SCT may prove to be off-putting if you have to wait for it to cool each time you want to use it. With your budget I'd be looking to get the best scope for the money, and this is where we all differ. Whats best for one isn't necessarily best for another. Personally I'd grab myself a TSA120 for visual, and a no skill needed SeeStar 50 for DSO imaging. Slightly pushing your budget I know, but good stuff is worth fighting for!

It's a very nice sketch Matt. If you'd drawn that at the eyepiece I'd be very impressed. The trouble with photographs, replicating them exactly takes a long time and lots of practice. Even more difficult is drawing even a simple crater as viewed through the telescope, as there's always far more detail visible than can ever be drawn. The speed of change of the shadows across the lunar surface is another difficulty the visual observer has to deal with, and no observer is fast enough to catch all the detail. 

 Arguably, the lunar observer Johann Krieger produced the best lunar drawings ever. He used low contrast photography as a way of getting accurate scale and positioning of features, then he would add the detail seen visually through the telescope to produce previously unheard of accuracy and level of detail. It might be worth studying some of his work to get ideas of how he captured intricate detail and subtle features.

 I've attached a pic of his Mond Atlas along with a few examples of his work. It seems even he drew the line so to speak, when it came to recording the intricate terracing around crater walls! The book is worth having for sketch in reference, and I think its still available on Amazon.