iPeace

8 hours ago, Racey said:

Well actually... I wasn't wondering  

But seeing as you felt the need to confess I'd like to try and reassure that help is available  by pointing out there are helplines for such afflictions...

?

Sorry, can't afford a phone.

Aegean Lunacy.

Here's a list which I copied into SkySafari. It's the Astronomical League's Double Star Program, see:

Double Star Program

Double Star Program.skylist

17 minutes ago, John said:

Thats very useful "rule of thumb" advice Mike

My 130mm F/9 triplet is into GM11 territory I reckon

I still think there is a niche for a manual alt-az that is somewhere between the Ercole / Skytee II / AZ8 and the DM6 / APM AzMaxLoad / T-Rex in capacity terms. 

 

Yep. An AZ11. 

1 minute ago, SonnyE said:

You do realize you have doomed yourself to a year or two of bloody awful skies.

Always follows new equipment....

I appreciate the sentiment, and there's profound truth to that - but we've done alright, actually. Admittedly a glass-half-full thing, but that's just me.

59 minutes ago, jabeoo1 said:

I was only looking at this again today, but I can't justify it over my Berlebach & Sabre mount, I think I will just pretend the AZ8 does not exist

After using it a while, I still think it's awesome - and perfect for me, as it's an ideal way to over-mount a TV-85 (a heavy scope for what it is, a mere 85/600 APO doublet).

Anyone considering it should keep in mind that it's basically a reworked GM8 - in other words, think of which EQ  mount you would choose for your scope, a GM8 or a GM11. If the GM8 would suffice, then this is your alt-az mount. If you would really need the GM11 for your scope, then adjust your expectations accordingly. Also factor in your own personal fussiness with regard to how solidly mounted the scope should be; what's fine for some will be marginal or even intolerable for others.

If your Ercole or Sabre or SkyTee is getting it done for you, but you want slo-mo or perhaps less of what the SkyTee occasionally seems to offer, the AZ8 is hard to ignore.

Conversely, if it seems like an extravagance, it probably is. Mine sure seems like one, and it's delicious.

On 05/17/2017 at 01:10, Helen said:

And now the before and after pictures....

 

 

 

A big improvement I think 

Now off to find some online lycra (can I get a matching star pattern for the shroud???

Helen

Well, I like it a lot - and it definitely sinks any residual hope I had for ever figuring out what dobs are about.

28 minutes ago, Racey said:

If Susie can happily do it...

Susie has exceptional powers not to be discussed here.

We'll see.

12 minutes ago, Stu said:

I can say from personal experience that Moose will show you cracking white light solar views with a Herschel Wedge  

Does sound like fun. Still wary, but appreciative.

This is the extent of my solar gear.

NOTE: NEVER LOOK DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN - EVEN IF YOU ARE WEARING SUNGLASSES.

Just now, Highburymark said:

Very nice Mike - I'm also a convert to Nagler T6s, so I'll be very interested to hear how you get on with them. Does this mean you've jettisoned the Vixen HRs?

 

Oh, no. My 2.4mm HR is still in the fold, as are a few others not in this holiday snap.

It is a sign of my times, though, moving from the larger, heavier Ethos (back) to the more compact power of Nagler.

Makes me feel old fashioned, in these heady days of Delos and DeLite. I like that.

You don't have to admit it. I know you were wondering.

1 minute ago, jonathan said:

I like it, however how do you carry a few at once securely, how do you store them, and how do you know what's in each bag?

Fair comments. This is mainly for stowage in nooks and crannies of carry-on backpack. Once on location, I use this neat bum bag by Geoptik.

Sometimes, they just travel easier when individually cased...

1 hour ago, carastro said:

I presume you're both into Astronomy then.

Subtle.

Pre-loved, well cared for, superbly packaged by @Space Beagle and delivered today.

Thanks, Doc.

3 hours ago, Helen said:

All will be revealed later...

Er, not necessary.

Edit: I do like the socks!

Moose, my brand new TV-60, in action for the first time.

24 minutes ago, Stu said:

Mike, you are dead right. Had Jules come back to the forum time and again seeking advice on a deep sky scope I would have no issues. The fact is he has wanted to downsize to a single scope, and the specific requests were around lunar observing and imaging, with perhaps some doubles and planetary thrown in. Cool down time needed to be short, mounting requirements reasonable and the focal length not too short and not too long. In addition, multiple different scope types and sizes have been ruled out, narrowing the potential scopes which might be suitable.

The review focused far more words on the scope's DSO capabilities under light polluted skies than on its intended targets. Jules has a long standing love of TAL refractors, 100R in particular I believe. I don't think DSO performance was ever high up on the list of requirements for the TAL. It would have been interesting to see some comment on the comparative optical quality and resolution between the two scopes, what targets on the moon looked like for instance.

So, in my personal opinion the review was not balanced. That is the reason I'm banging on about this.

Understood. But Jules is not reviewing whether the scope is suited for the purpose stated at that time. He's not commenting on whether he was advised properly. His writing is not about us, it's about how he regards his scope right now, naturally from his own perspective.

It's understandable to read his review in the huge context of what went on before - and Jules acknowledges this explicitly. But any residual exasperation is surely our own. We've never suffered ingratitude or injustice in this context. We can afford to let time-and-time-again be bygones and just partake in what's going on right now, that which Jules chooses to share.

We can agree with what he is actually saying or not, and indeed discuss, that's the fun part.

39 minutes ago, Stu said:

Just so I'm clear, is this the effusive bit?

It's an honest, balanced appraisal. And the truth, in my experience. Really, there's no need to read crushing disappointment into the wording of that particular paragraph.

If anyone but Jules had written it...?

Fair's fair. I didn't read that someone has a bad scope, or the wrong scope, or that anyone was misinformed in any way.

I read that someone has a very nice scope and yet has mixed feelings about it, perhaps in part due to heightened expectations for which no blame is placed, and recognizes the need to compromise and get on with it.

It doesn't have to be a problem that needs solving. A continuing journey is much more entertaining. Exasperation tailored to our common interest is to be savored. Who needs daytime television?

1 minute ago, Stu said:

But Paul, surely to forget to mention any of its strengths and how it performs in the task you bought it for is a little absent minded perhaps?  

Er, did we read the same review?

1 minute ago, DRT said:

Very nice, Gordon.

I assume from the proportions that the previous bee in the bonnet was a solution to safely carrying a hip flask and a crystal glass up a hill?  

Surely THAT bee hasn't flown?

10 minutes ago, Floater said:

Now the above posts made me think (an achievement in itself). And since eyepiece 'case' is obviously/apparently flexible, I give you this.

I have now found a good use for a snazzy little padded bag Mrs Floater fashioned for me when another bee was in my bonnet. That bee flew away and the wee bag has not been used. But it's perfectly proportioned for these three 'essentials' on a minimalist outing. And the two not in use will be kept nice 'n cosy

(I'm also pleased this pic is of a slightly better quality than those in my last post. Every day is a classroom ...)

 

 

Excellent for kilted observing. Most appropriate.