mikeDnight

Super Polaris! It's a great mount that will run rings around the cheap Chinese mounts. If it has a weakness its the tripod, although the Vixen tripods are also better built than the Chinese stuff. On a solid pier the SP will carry a Tak FS128, or a Meade 127 triplet without breaking into a sweat. These Vixen mounts have in the past been the mount of choice by some Newtonian manufacturers to carry some quite large aperture reflectors. Very capable on a sturdy tripod or pier!

Great sketches/observations. Here they are in negative. Sketching what you are observing is a great image intensifier, as it focuses your concentration like nothing else I know. One way you can confirm your observations after you've made them is by checking them against the sketches and images of others. Steve Omeara's books on Messier objects and Mallas and Kramer's Messier Album come in handy, but don't worry if you see more than they did as you're just looking for the general feel for the object. You may see much more, or see things differently to them. For example, Omeara tends to draw linear features that don't exist in reality. Your sketches are much more in line with a truthful representation of the visual appearance of M101. Did you sketch M51 also? A 6" scope is a fantastic scope for this kind of observing, and if you can shield your eyes from surrounding lights you can go amazingly deep.

My shortest focal length eyepiece is a 1.6mm Vixen HR, which gives 500X in my 100mm F8 refractor. I tend to use it mainly for double stars and have once used it in a 2X barlow at 1000X just for fun. Mainly though, my high power choices range between 160X to 400X depending on the object I'm observing.

Very shallow undercuts on the XW's Alan, so forgivable. ☺

Those terrible SCT's do indeed produce some of the best planetary images, but that's probably due to their popularity and compactness, and not because they produce a high definition visual image. And they were originally designed as cameras, not visual scopes at all. Then you have to consider the vast improvement in imaging technology and computer software, which has aided the SCT no end to create something close to recognizable. Try using a film camera and the pictures are not so good. I'm convinced I can hear the poor photons scream as they realize after their long journey, that their demise will be as photon splatter as they bellyflop on that awful Schmidt plate. 😈 Lowell stopped down the 24" because of the chromatic aberration it produces. The telescope was built to fit the observatory dome and not the other way around, so the Lowell refractor is far too short in focal length to be properly colour corrected. I promise I'll read the links you so kindly attached Andrew, but I doubt anything will convince me that atmospheric cells are the reason why some larger scopes fare badly at times. ☺

I can't help it - I have to bite! Does anyone actually believe that atmospheric cell nonsense anymore? For it to be at all feasible there would need to be just a single layer of atmospheric cells like a sheet of bubble wrap. In reality the cells overlap and are miles deep, so a small aperture would be just as equally hindered by them as a larger aperture. The argument often claims the larger aperture is hindered because it is looking through more cells. However, if you use two scopes of equal aperture (say 8"), one a reflector and one a refractor, the refractor will almost always give a better planetary image, discrediting the atmospheric cell argument. Then as regards resolution, a small scope of good quality will resolve detail to its aperture limit. It doesn't present an unresolved image such as a pixelated view of a cooked image. So point source features that are be beyond the resolution limit of a small refractor for example, are easily detectablde if they are linear, despite being too fine to resolve, leaving many observers stunned in disbelief at the laser etched, highly detailed view.

I've not yet had chance to use a ADC, and if I'm being honest I'm not that desperate to try one. Adding another device to the light path that is demanding my attention isn't something I'd thrill about, and having to check a spirit level in the dark?? Atmospheric dispersion has never been an overwhelming issue with any scope I've ever used, but I dare say that some scope designs can be troublesome if they lose heat slowly, causing the dispersion effect to smear the view. Presently the planet's are low, yet despite this they reveal significant detail in moments of steady seeing. It does seem though that some scopes struggle to show even generally easy to see detail such as Cassini's division. Perhapse the ADC may help with these scopes, but I'm not convinced theyed be worth the trouble or the cost in my case. I made a doodle of Saturn a couple of nights ago (No ADC) while it was quite low. Can't remember seeing any AD despite the planet being far from its best due to the atmosphere. Cassini's division was so so easy, as it generally is. Jupiter revealed festoons and garlands on the southern edge of the NEB and the GRS was visible in the SEB despite the view being softer than it would be when high in the sky.

I can't see me selling mine as its full of great info. I just need to be in the right frame of mind, which these days is getting even more difficult, as I seem to fall asleep within minutes of starting to read any book. 😴

It's full of fascinating info, and over the lockdown period I've enjoyed browsing its pages. However, it isn't quite what I'd expected, and like others, I find it difficult to use as a reference source. It's probably full of the info I may be looking for but I just can't find it easily, so I don't bother. It's an impressive volume set though, so it's worth keeping on show in the book case as it makes me look more intelligent than I actually am.

Lockdownmas presents lately have been mouthwatering Japanese classic 5mm and 20mm Ultrascopic eyepieces in pristine condition, and a secondhand copy of Bureaucrats - How To Annoy Them, by R.T. Fishall (Patrick Moore).

Very nice John! I'm more of a dog person myself, but I'd still give a home to a 90mm moggey.

With the Sun setting in a clear blue sky I was hoping the clouds wouldn't suddenly appear out of nowhere, which is what they tend to do around these parts. My sons had earlier expressed an interest in taking a look at the Comet, so I set the scope up on my driveway, which gives me a clear view of the north west and north east right to the horizon, with very little in the way of light pollution. I caught the Comet at 21.57UT against a twighlight sky, but it wasn't very impressive. As the sky grew darker the Comet put on quite a show which was best seen in the 35mm Eudiascopic at 23X. With the naked eye the Comet was a lovely sight! My sons both enjoyed spending time at the eyepiece, and also spent time just looking at the starry sky, asking lots of questions, most of which I couldn't answer without resorting to some reference book. We observed the ISS and a couple of meteors as we admired the starry sky. Then I gave them a tour of a few brighter DSO's and double stars. M31 was a little disappointing with it being low and against a sky that wasn't truly dark. The double cluster thrilled them a little, and beta Cygni was gorgeous in the 5mm Ultrascopic, as was M13, which hung suspended as a beautiful tight ball of diamond dust in the 5mm. Saturn was surreal in the 5mm, looking like a tiny marble with a dark equatorial belt and a dark polar hood. It's A & B ring divided by the sharp black void of the Cassini division, while the ghostly Crepe ring showed itself on the inside of the ansae. Then finally onto Jupiter, which was a giant in comparison to Saturn, and despite it being relatively low in the sky, its equatorial and temperate belts were easily seen, with the southern temperate belt looking split. Garlands and festoons along the southern edge of the north equatorial belt gave a hint at just how spectacular Jupiter might be if it were higher in the sky. All in all it wasn't a bad couple of hours, especially for a reluctant tour guide such as myself, and my son's really enjoyed themselves which made the whole thing worth while. It was actually really nice to see and hear the I genuine appreciation for the things they were seeing.

Hi Thomas, Thanks for your kind words. Although I have made white on black sketches many times in the past, usually these days I sketch with graphite pencil on white paper. The comet sketches were made this way and then changed to negative using my tablet. I find it much easier to sketch deep sky objects this way too. Attached is the original graphite sketch.

The first sketches were made on 10/7/20 with the second sketch concentrating on the nucleus and coma. FC100DZ and 35mm Eudiascopic eyepiece. Below is the observation from last night with north approximately top. The first image is prism reversed as seen through the scope, while the second sketch is the actual orientation. Field stars are only approximately placed!

That's a nice report, and I'm ever so slightly envious you have night vision available. I've never used that technology, and will probably have to wait until Skywatcher bring a cheap as chips version onto the market before I could afford it. Still, I had about half an hour with Neowise last night before the clouds moved in. The sketch shows north approximately top with the view E/W reversed due to a diagonal being used.

I had to read that twice Alan, as the only thing I remembered the first time was "undercuts"! Education for me was a wonderful misadventure. What I thought I wanted I really didn't want, and where I believed I would be happiest i wasnt. And what I initially loved I soon hated, while what I hated at the start I began to love. At the end of it all, all I can say is "it taught me a lesson"! I agree about the deep sky views. Could you perhaps mount your reflector on your pier mount instead of the Dobson mount when you want to observe deep sky? I'm sure you've already thought of that though!

After four Universities, I still thought Hamlet was a cigar, and Shakespeare a pub a mile or two down the road from me. Would it be possible to move the pier a foot closer to the fence and add a half pillar so you can still get the same horizon? And would doing so free up enough space for the Dob?

Hi Brian, Be careful about buying from Amazon. A safer place to buy from would be an established astro vendor such as First Light Optics. There you will find sound advice, be able to buy a good telescope, and have the security of knowing the service you get is second to none. If you scroll to the top of this page you can click on First Light Optics and window shop to your hearts content. Perhapse even send them an e-mail asking advice on any scope that catches your eye. There are three main types of telescope to choose from: 1) a refractor, which uses a lens to focus the image. 2) A reflector, which uses a mirror instead of a lens. And 3) a catadioptric, which is a combination of lenses and mirrors. All are able to show the planet's, but each also has its own speciality. Telescopes are generally measured by aperture. As a general rough guide, a 4" aperture refractor, a 6" aperture reflector and a 5" aperture catadioptric such as a 127mm Maksutov would all be very capable planetary telescopes. Each would show you many more things too! The magnification to view the planet's well would need to be around 150X and over. This is determined by the eyepiece you use with the scope. Have a chat with FLO to see what's most suitable for your budget.

Way back, around 1980 whe I was but a pup, I remember one chap who'd brought his girlfriend to the East Lanc's Astro Society observatory at Stoneyhurst College. He wanted to show her the 7 1/3" Clark refractor. He decided to move the position of the massive F18 scope by grabbing the large wheel surrounding the focuser. As the momentum of the hefty telescope increased, there were cries of "Slew down!" as he raced across the observatory floor. It was too late! The scopes momentum lifted him up into the air and he was left dangling, still hold of the wheel, several feet off the ground.

Hi Mark, As I use a prism, I prefer to use a full barlow body so as not to let the barlow lens cell touch the prism surface, which can occur if I screw the lens directly into the bv nose. The increased distance, though only a few centimetres, is enough to make a noticeable power increase. I've never tried to measure the magnifications with any degree of accuracy, but just went off what I was told by Peter Drew a number of years ago. And comparing the bv view with a single eyepiece of the same power seems to lead me to believe the 4X amplification to be reasonably accurate with a full barlow attached to the viewer. The 7.5mm Pseudo Masuyama's may not be everyone's first choice in a binoviewer, as the eye relief is ok but starting to get tight. The view does start to dim as Shane said above, but with the Moon there's still a long way to go before its too dim. To be honest, at such high powers I much prefer the lunar views through my Vixen HR's, as there's less glass, they are more comfortable and sharp. One thing I did with my FC100DC was to use a Tak 1.6X extender-Q and a 2X barlow. On the Moon the views were nothing short of jaw dropping through the binoviewer!

What scope are you using Mark? A 2X barlow attached to the nose of a binoviewer should amplify approximately 4X because of the increased light path, so a 14mm pair in a barlowed binoviewer would give in the region of 211X in an F7.4 refractor. I can use 7.5mm eyepieces with a barlowed bv in my FC100DZ F8 quite comfortably, which gives me around over 400X. A 10mm pair gives me 320X and 12.5mm around 256X. I don't need to wear glasses while observing and so can get away with minimal eye relief if need be, so no need for complex eyepieces. Pic shows my 10mm Ultrscopic pair in a revelation bv, with 2X Ultima barlow after the prism diagonal

This is what you really want! As well as deep deep pockets of course!!

Looking at the engineering that's gone into the HR body as well as the obvious high quality of the optical components, its a wonder their cost isn't much higher. It makes me love them even more.

Aperture determines resolution, while optical quality and design can determine how well the star image is represented. I've never considered a double star splitter in terms of price bracket before, but as generally the aperture and quality of a scope increases with price, I'd say potentially you'll get a better/cleaner split the more you pay, relative to aperture. But then again may be not. There are some wonderful scopes out there at relatively low prices.

I had a SW 150 F8 (Helios) for years and it was very nice. The CA didn't really bother me, in fact I thought it was pretty well controlled considering the scopes short F ratio. Three of my friends bought the 150 F5 version, which was terrific as an RFT/comet seeker and in many ways hard to beat. I though, wanted the F8 as I wanted a more general purpose scope that would perform well for lunar and planetary viewing. One evening though, while at my local astro club, someone with a twisted sense of humour decided it would be good to pit the 150mm F8 refractor against a Vixen FL102 fluorite apo. The target was Saturn and the 102mm Vixen left the 150 Helios in the dust. The level of fine detail in the Vixen simply wasn't there in the Helios. However, as a rich field comet seeker, the 150mm F8 achromat was spectacular. Deep sky in the 150mm was gorgeous, and galaxies, tiny globulars I'd never seen before, and nebulae just glided effortlessly into its field of view. The Orion nebula put on quite a show, displaying a beautiful pearlescent green hue, and the spiral structure to the Whirlpool galaxy M51 was seen with ease from a dark site, as was the bridging arm linking it to its satellite galaxy. Horses for courses I suppose! Comets were my first love and for years i anchored after a nice 6" F8 achromat, a desire fuelld after reading Leslie C. Peltiers Starlight Nights. My 150mm F8 was mounted on an EQ4, which just about handled the tube, although the Chinese tripod was not really up to the task. I later replaced the tripod for one that was much more substantial. Ideally though, such a scope would come into its own mounted on a good altazimuth.