Paz

I have a black rsky hood I use when the sun is lower/cooler but it gets too hot when the sun is higher. I ought to get a white one. I thought about shields you can put on your scope which would be a better solution that's easy to set up I but wanted to be completely shaded so in the end I went for the telegizmo blanket/hood which is good but more hassle to set up. That keeps the sun off your whole upper body which is such a relief when the sun is higher/hotter. I also wrap a sheet (a photographers shroud, but anything will do) around the tripod legs to keep my legs cool and also to reduce reflections from the ground. When I put the time into setting this up it is great. Much cooler for comfortable sessions in the heat, and darker for better contrast views.

An interesting video but my experience is different. In any given session I'll usually use only 1 or 2 eyepieces , rarely more. But which ones depends on the scope and the targets. I would say most of my eyepieces get a fair run out over time.

Sorry I didn't stop to explain! Yes it's a case of projecting straight through an eyepiece with no dimming. In my set up I use a 2" uv/ir up front to stop me worrying about heat, and I use a cheap plossl partly in case I cook it and partly because plossls don't have any glass at any places where the light is a focused point. I also use a diagonal because by projecting the image sideways the paper you are projecting on can just be tilted slightly away from the sun so that it is shading itself. A couple of other tips I would add are I start with my focuser racked out and come in from there, that way I'm never at a point where the sun is focused within any glass in the eyepiece which it might if I was racking outwards from fully in. The other is if doing outreach you have to make sure no-one tries to look in the eyepiece, even from a distance, or even better make it impossible by projecting onto tracing paper thar is observed from behind and this allows you to block off any views into the eyepiece.

Thanks for the replies there's a few lines of enquiry there I will look into. Thinking about the heaviest scopes I've used on an EQ5 myself to date these are a ST120 that weighs in at 4.9kg including dovetail, rings and a chunky dual speed focuser, to which would be added finders, eyepieces etc. I've also used a C8 which weigh in at 5.6kg just with its dovetail, that would then have a 9x50 finder, chunky dual speed focuser, diagonal, eyepiece, sometimes binoviewers, sometimes dovetail counterweights, dew shield, etc so maybe 2-4kg more on top of the ota. Both of those have been ok with me, a typical 5" apo seems to be about 2kg heavier than the c8 like-for-like plus being longer. I could perhaps add some weight to the st120 and see how the good or bad the vibes are when it's commensurately heavier (but noting it is shorter). The sky watcher ed120 does seem to present well when you look its mix of aperture, weight, quality, and being a doublet, I keep coming back around to that (and the carbon explore scientific scopes) at the moment.

Very nice sketch. Here's a projection from this afternoon of those spots (plus clouds) through a 72mm scope and 32mm plossl.

Wow that is a great bit of kit. I have wondered sometimes about a binoscope or binoculars in a contraption like a gun turret from a world war 2 bomber (or the millennium falcon!).

Nice photo, I would have liked to have seen that transit! The challenge is that how much I use a scope depends on the relationship between how good the views are and the time and effort required to set up and take down. I think of there was a 5" that my EQ5 could handle and that was a doublet so that cool down was quicker I could use that pretty much as easily as I use a 102mm f7 refractor currently. The vx14 basebase is about 20kg including the motorcycle battery I have nestled in it for power. The ota is well over 20kg including the Dob mount rings , ota extension and ota reinforcement that it has. I've set this up up to a hundred yards from the car at meets in the past although I don't think I could carry it that far any more, but I usually just observe from home. I'm about to have a heart procedure that might mean a step change in what I can handle but hopefully I'll still be good to set up my scopes.

I looked for a long time at those 125mm scopes but thought them too heavy in the end.

I've come very close to getting a 5" ish f7-f9 apo refractor a few times but each time have backed off after thinking about the reality of size/weight and that anything too big/heavy will end up competing with my VX14 and end up losing and gathering dust. Thinking about it one can't do much do too much about the size but if the weight could be reduced to something I would consider easy to handle and which would be reasonable for an EQ5 / Skytee 2 type of mount so that I would not have to upgrade to a heavier mount I would be interested (I am averse to vibes so I would not like a scope that was pushing the limits of its mount). I saw this carbon fibre scope from Explore Scientific that got me interested, with a weight of 5.2kg quoted on some retail sites that I assume that is just the OTA, I've seen weights of 6.4kg also quoted (including on the manufacturer's site below) that I assume would therefore include tube rings/dovetail/handle/findershoe type things. Explore FCD100 127mm f/7.5 Carbon Fiber Triplet APO Refractor Telescope — Explore Scientific (explorescientificusa.com) That kind of weight is getting into the right ball park, I wondered how much more weight would be saved if this was a doublet rather than a triplet and if there are any other options out there or developments pending? As well as the additional weight I am not sure I would want a triplet due to the longer cooling periods.

Yes I use 6x30 finders on my small scopes (and 9x50 on the C8 and VX14). I used to use 9x50 on everything but the lower weight and wider field of view of the 6x30's is winning on small scopes. You don't see as deep and sometimes I have to use "the force" to find dsos in 6x30's that would be obvious in 9x50's. I have a 6x30 mirror version and raci version and I use whichever finder is the same orientation as the diagonal I am using so that I don't have the image flipping between the finder and the scope.

I've checked and the 1.25x in front of the t2 prism diagonal does give less magnification than a 1.7x at the rear of the diagonal. I eyeballed it with a microguide eyepiece on the moon and the difference in magnification looked to be roughly in correct proportion to their relative stated magnifications. That was with a 1.25" nosepiece into the scope from the diagonal. I should add I can get to focus with the 1.25x behind the diagonal but that means using a 2" to t2 straight into the diagonal which I don't like to do as it means having to mess with the 2" twist lock on the scope to rotate the binoviewer and I hate twist locks (!). It also entails winding the diopter adjusters on each side most of the way inwards to make it to focus. Here's how the moon looked through the clouds!

You would have to move fast to keep up with the eyepiece when that thing is tracking a target!

That's a good question, I think less from memory but I can measure it directly, clouds permitting, and feed back.

I started out by changing gpc's and keeping the eyepieces the same but I find it is not an easy operation changing gpcs in the field, plus the way they change the optical path length means having to rebalance the scope. These days I usually pick one gpc and stick with it for a session, and change eyepieces for different magnifications once I'm out in the field. I'll also make use of extensions or change the placement of a gpc to adjust magnification but again I'll decide on that when setting up and won't usually change it during a session.

I can get to focus with the 1.25xgpc and the t2 baader prism diagonal using my 102mm f7 scope but I have to place it in front of the diagonal which ups the magnification a bit and also creates enough headroom to get to focus. The 1.7x and 2.6x gpc's I can use in the right place or place them further forward out of choice for more magnification or for more infocus if I'm using other contraptions that take up more light path that have to be allowed for.

I had a go at the moon this evening and for a while the seeing was not bad. Schiller was good in the south, T and G being well lit. J Herschel in the north was good, and I noticed a rille between Sharp and Sharp A near Sinus Iridum, which I have looked up but haven't found a name for yet.

I haven't caught up with this thread for a while, there does seem to be some unwritten rules for a satisfying eyepiece case, and this one is I think a perfect example of what I aspire to... 1. Eyepieces of the same make and type kept together (this example has only one but more than one type is ok). 2. Put in order of focal length. 3. All in the same orientation. 4. Focal length label facing upwards. 5. Foam tailored exactly to each eyepiece. 6. Foam must be pristine, it cannot be reworked from a previous configuration. 6. Everything must be as symmetrical as possible. 7. No gaps. 8. No non-eyepiece items. 9. Practicality is important but lets face it the most important thing is looking good! 😀 My cases fall short by quite a way unfortunately, these days I decide what I need for a session and pack it bespoke each time, so it always looks a jumble and the items never align with the foam cut outs any more!

If you have the sky safari app you can go to a planet and observe the sun from that planet, it will look the correct size for the distance.

Congratukations you are the winner! It's looking backwards through the objective of a refractor, with a torch shining through from the focuser end. I was checking the cleanliness of this scope and ended up with a photo that looked like any number of astronomical targets-gone-wrong. Here's a similar one from further back.

Almost!

That is very hot, it is a view through a scope but not a normal view.

I'll share a clue, @Swoop1 is in the right ball park, it's something to do with some kit rather than an astronomical object.

I'm afraid not!

A good likeness of this, but no!

It could be Albireo, if one of its stars just went supernova! I didn't notice that blue blob before myself, possibly a planetary nebula discovery?