mikeDnight

For a trained psychologist Paul, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with size!

Here's a pic going back six or seven years, showing my younger son Daniel alongside my beautiful Equinox 120ED on its equally amazing Hercules Helix altazimuth fork mount. That mount was as solid as a rock and glided like butter. I wish I hadn't sold it! Our English Bullterrier at the time, Inx, (or pigglet as she was affectionately called) is also on guard, or if not on guard, awake at least!

May be they do things differently in Japan, or perhaps we've all been looking through the wrong end for years? The scope looks great though, and I'll wait patiently for your views on the ball eyepieces. Exciting!

I knew it was a Tak before the box was opened! Spooky! !

What about a nice classical Cassegrain, with its large aperture and manageable tube length? I would rather use a good refractor of 4" to 6" than any other type of scope, because that's where I'm happiest. And I'd rather use a good 4" refractor than a good 10" reflector virtually every time. But were not all alike and the observer himself is the greatest variable. One size doesn't fit all! Go with your heart!

Hi Alan, My first apo was a Tak FS128 and it was a fantastic scope. A few years after buying it an opportunity I couldn't turn down arose and I ended up with a Tak FS152, which was stunning. The trouble was that the 152 was massive and required a much heftier mount. At first I bought an EQ6 but it wasn't up to the task. I eventually mounted it on a Losmandy G11 which itself was permanently mounted on a garden pier at a height of around 7 feet. ( I had a stupid thing about looking directly through the scope rather than using a diagonal). If you're looking at a high end refractor such as a second hand FS 152 or a TOA, you're going to need a similar mount to a Losmandy G11. If a FS128 then a GM8 would handle it well. The FS152 before it was mounted on a G11. The scope was a monster and had i bought it from new, it would have cost around £10,000.00. Today the equivalents Tak would be around £13,000.00.

A 150 F5 reflector would make a nice DSO scope with oodles of fuzzies within its reach. A short F ratio 200mm would also be good but obviously a little more difficult to mount high. Both would give much sharper star images than a 200mm SCT. Perhaps a 180mm Maksutov Cassegrain would fit the bill if you want a largish aperture in a smaller package?

This was originally suggested to me by Nick Hudson of TruTec Astro (ExpertTakahashi retailer). Caloclean spray and Calocloth lens cloth is what I use on all my optics. Although it's sold at almost any opticians, it is designed for high end camera lenses. I've used this on my eyepieces and on my Takahashi objective lens for years. Its excellent! It is also inexpensive and readily available. (Spray onto the cloth rather than directly onto the lenses so as to prevent seepage between the elements!)

That's a great paper John! I remember looking at some of the eyepieces at the Herschel museum and was amazed by just how tiny the eye lens was. Some looked no larger than the diameter of a hypodermic needle. I'd love to play with them under the stars! Only a couple of weeks ago I used 1000X while examining a close double star. It was surprisingly comfortable with a field that seemed quite wide, but I think at that power the ragged edge of my iris became noticeable. The image still remained sharp though!

You can say it was repetition for emphasis! ☺

I think three vein spiders produce six diffraction spikes if I remember rightly.

I've never seen any of Lowell's canal's but I have seen and sketched a few of Schiaparelli's, which are nothing more than linear albedo markings. So far I've seen three within Solis Lacus which are named Eos, Nectaris, and one called Ambrosia ( easy to remember because I like rice pudding). Then there's a really easy one called the Indus, extending from Margaretifer Sinus to Acidalia, and Nilosyrtis extending from Syrtis Major northwards. Its a bit unnerving when you first realise you're actually seeing these features, but if you rotate the diagonal they retain their relative positions on the globe and so are not imaginary, or artefacts within the eye. Of course with this next Mars apperition likely to be spectacular, and with my new HR eyepieces and Zeiss prism, I'm expecting to see this.....

I think its a mistake to limit a scopes magnification based on resolution limit, which itself is not technically accurate. My personal thoughts on the matter are as follows: Jupiter seems happiest around 180X, Saturn 200X. While Mercury, Venus and Mars, which show mainly albedo features, can benefit from 300X +. Uranus and Neptune too will take high powers well, but there's little in the way of detail other than subtle albedo differences across the globe. (I've only ever seen subtle detail on Uranus and none so far on Neptune, and the magnification used was around 400X in a 5" refractor). Deep sky loses contrast when the sky background is too bright, so it's a balancing act to get the best contrast/magnification match. This will vary dependant on the type of DSO, the aperture of the scope, the stability and transparency of the atmosphere, and the eyesight and experience of the observer. M42 in a 4" scope looks spectacular at around 30X to 40X, with the dark nebulosity adding an almost 3D impression to the view. M13 in the same instrument needs a black sky background to really bring it to life, so 100X. M27 & 57 80X, while galaxies need good dark adaption and exceptional transparency to be seen well between 20X and 80X. The Moon is a magnification free for all, so 20X to 400X, tailored to suit the seeing. And stellar objects can take even higher powers on occasion.

If it still had that 5" F11 achromat attached it would be a great buy! However, for £750 you're in Lozmandy AZ8 territory, and I know which I'd prefer. Sorry if I came across as opinionated, but to me £750 is a lot of money, and I'd hate for someone with limited funds to be disappointed. ☺

If you scrapped the tubular section aluminium pier, and replaced it with a single substantial aluminium tube, it would improve its function dramatically. The fork head may well be worth saving.

I used to use a 2" Lumicon Olll filter with my 5" Tak many years ago, but in a 5" it blocked out all but the brightest stars. Nebulae like the Veil were spectacular though! So I'd say if you have a large enough aperture, perhaps 8"+, the Olll will be great, but for smaller apertures the UHC has certain advantages, and is very effective.

I remember it vividly, and as I can't imagine there being two of these mounts, I'm pretty certain it originated up north (Manchester / Pendlebury way), and was constructed by someone from Lucas Aerospace or so i was informed at the time. Don't let its impressive appearance fool you. I had the chance to use this mount, which at the time carried a rather lovely 5" F11 uncoated achromat after it was loaned to my friend Phil for a short time. This was around 1999 to 2001 ish. The achromat gave spectacular views of Jupiter, but the mount, for all its beauty, had so much movement in it that it was rendered virtually useless. The whole thing moves at everyone of its many joints. I wouldn't pay anywhere near the asking price. It's probably worth a couple of hundred quid. It is possibly THE worst mount I've ever used. Sorry, but that's how it was! Unless someone somehow has massively improved it since then, I'd steer clear. My opinion should in no way reflect badly on ENS Optical, as ENS are a wonderful company to deal with!

Thanks for attaching Steve Tonkins demonstration video John. Most impressive, and somewhat terrifying! That filter was also circle V, which some people may presume would be safe, or at least of a higher quality than some cheaper Chinese filters. Great to witness the danger from a safe angle! Many years ago a friend aimed his 8" SCT at the Sun in an attempt to project the solar disk onto an A4 pad. It was a brilliant image, and being curious I suggested he place the pad close to the eyepiece to see what happened. In seconds burst into flames burning like a laser through multiple pages. Being bright, I determined there and then never to look through a telescope directly at the Sun. Back then i had a 60mm Astral 500 refractor that came with such a filter. I immediately destroyed the filter, as I thought that even a 60mm would be a pretty effective eyeball poacher.

Best take along a nice bottle of Monkey Shoulder as well Jeremy, because I've a feeling that one of you at least is going to need it!

17.5mm Morpheus!

To be honest Andrew, I'd have no issue with a fan being attached if its been done carefully and without compromising the scope. Peter Drew would probably be happy to drill your cell if you've any doubts. I don't imagine it would affect the resale value, and if you're going to keep the scope forever, then it wouldn't matter anyway. I'd do it with a good conscience!

MODERATOR'S - paulastro mentioned Skywatcher on a Tak thread! Is this allowed?

Practical observing books: 21st Century Atlas of the Moon, by Charles Wood. The Messier Objects, by Steve O'Meara A good read: Epic Moon, by Sheehan & Dobbins Mars, The Lure of the Red Planet, by Sheehan & O'Meara Starlight Nights, The Adventures of a Stargazer, by Leslie C. Peltier

Hi Andrew, Having never used a fan to cool a scopes optics, I'm assuming you don't run the fan while observing. If that's the case, would making a front aperture cover with an air inlet and fan assisted air outlet help in cooling the Mewlon without having to drill holes in the cell? The cover would be removed for observing obviously. Or simply devising a way to keep it at outside temperature may be enough. Having said that, I've used many 180 Maksutov's that didn't seem to need a great deal of time to cool.