iPeace
-
Posts
2,945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by iPeace
-
-
18 minutes ago, John said:
could not recall selling one so we decided that they were probably too "niche" to be worth a review on the forum
Herschel forbid that a review from you would actually generate new interest in a premium product. Can't risk that.
-
4
-
-
19 minutes ago, Pryce said:
but I fear the screen will disturb my vision too much!
Good point - my light pollution is so bad that it doesn't matter, so I tend to forget about dark adaptation...glad it's a factor for you.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Alan White said:
Meet the family:
A couple of surprises for me in the eye relief department at the short end, but I won't worry if you say so.
Looking really good.
24 minutes ago, Alan White said:Take out the last layer:
Very similar to how I go about things lately. All the extra pouches and zippers are too useful.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I've pondered using a music stand to hold my tablet computer; may or may not be handy.
-
Hm. Just noticed you're in Norway. Apologies for suggesting how to keep warm...
-
1
-
-
- mozzy repellent
- woolly hat & socks, gloves, thermal undergarments
- sleeping bag to sit in (in extremis)
- observing hood / tea towel
- outer garment with deep, wide pockets
- ID for when the neighbours call local law enforcement on you (again)
- torch, unless local light pollution suffices
- spare batteries
- essential tool pouch
...each where appropriate, subject to time of year / outdoor temperature
-
1
-
4 hours ago, Dean Hale said:
thought i'd give the SVBony SV165 finder scope a try
Would like to read how you get on with this in due course.
-
Let's not go beyond the pale...
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Deadlake said:
Back to original question, which of the below:
- Tele Vue Delite 62º Eyepieces
- Takahashi TOE Eyepieces
Or any others I should look at?
At one time, when I had outrageous overlap at short focal lengths, I gave up my HRs and kept the DeLites. The views were so very nice and the extra FOV and comfort carried the day. Couldn't comment on the TOEs.
-
2
-
4 hours ago, jetstream said:
around an .8mm exit pupil is a sweet spot for me
Calculating in hindsight, I'm inclined to agree!
-
1
-
-
Thanks for this.
-
1 minute ago, mikeDnight said:
Anyhow, its worth trying just to see if it enhances the view or not.
Certainly is! That would be great. Will try.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, andrew s said:
a 1mm exit pupil is optimum
Thanks, I'll try that.
-
@vlaiv, that is fascinating stuff, thanks!
-
13 hours ago, vlaiv said:
Yes, but science says that for 100mm of aperture x113.2 (or less - depending on what you are using as a criteria, this is "worst" case scenario - using twice resolving power of human eye) will show you all you need in order to see it all.
That's very interesting. I have often struggled with high magnification, thinking there's more to be seen. It's a welcome thought that there just isn't (given certain variables).
I (think I) would like to understand this a bit better. How is this calculated for a given aperture? Which criteria can be used?
Provisionally assuming that the calculation renders 'max.' magnification proportional to the aperture, this would mean 67.92x for 60mm (if I'm not mistaken). While I do certainly enjoy the view at 60x-70x, it does take more magnification for me to see (notice?) certain things. Resolving (not: splitting) a double star like Izar with 60mm doesn't happen for me below 90x, it just takes that much power for me to see 'the blue dot' (Izar's secondary). Given that you can't magnify more than there is to be magnified in the first place (as presented by the scope) this would mean that my eye just cannot resolve the image to that extent below a certain magnification, even though that is more magnification than is / should be needed to see all there is to be seen...am I missing something?
To be clear, I'm not calling science into question, only trying to understand my own experiences within that which science tells us.
-
Just back in. 60mm refractor. Transparency not great, seeing not too bad.
15x - looking suspicious
60x - elongated
72x - resolved
90x - wider pair clearly split; closer pair borderline
100x (ish) - clearly split
120x - very clearly split
We may do a bit better another time...seem to recall splits at lower power.
-
6
-
-
16 minutes ago, vlebo said:
either the 7mm or the 5mm
7 minutes ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:The 7mm will give 214x which will probably see more use
In my own case, most definitely.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, AdeKing said:
BINGO
That's what I wanted to read.
-
2
-
-
Yes, mine is the Space Ray:
-
7 hours ago, Solar B said:
we are perhaps really getting to the crux of what is important to the individual with regard to Alt Az mounts
Very well...
Dear Alt Az Mount, thou shalt:
- not move on either axis without my express physical intervention
- not move on either axis while I change eyepieces
- immediately begin moving on the desired axis when prompted by me
- smoothly continue moving on the desired axis while so prompted by me
- immediately cease all movement when I cease to prompt
- not fall apart at an awkward moment
- not cost more than an average bicycle
...but I'm willing to negotiate.
-
2
-
22 minutes ago, HollyHound said:
Castor work much better when loaded with two scopes
22 minutes ago, HollyHound said:it’s remarkably smooth
Indeed, it was the Castor gave me the 'wow' moment with two scopes - but it was very particular re. which two scopes I deployed.
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, markse68 said:
Does the Gyro use PTFE thrust bearing for the AZ?
I don't know - was never much inclined to disassemble...
52 minutes ago, markse68 said:Interestingly ptfe coefficient of friction reduces with load up to a point. So if it does, a couple of thoughts- you could try a heavier counterbalance weight closer to the pivot point to try to reduce that cof. Or maybe a lighter weight further from the pivot to increase the rotational inertia (it increases by square of distance from pivot) which might help smooth out the motion and make the stiction less noticeable? Worth an experiment perhaps.
That's very interesting stuff, thanks.
-
I now recall that one of these mounts I used worked as close to perfection as one could hope for - but only when two particular scopes were deployed in a particular configuration. It was a real 'wow' moment for me. The only useful explanation must concern weight and balance. In your situation, I suppose I would be trying to determine whether this 'perfect point' exists, with the scope on one side and the empty counterweight bar on the other, gradually applying downward force by hand until the mount (almost) starts moving by itself; if that point exists, then it's a matter of re-creating it with counterweights, adjusting one millimetre at a time.
I'm sure the above reflects at least in spirit your efforts so far.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, AdeKing said:
is my expectation just too high
Having used (and very much enjoyed) the Ercole, Ercole Mini and Castor II, I'm inclined to state that there is a limit to how good it gets. Whether that's good enough is a question which I suspect comes down to personal habit and preference. If you too often find yourself having to 'suck it up and think of Galileo', then something is not right - for you.
33 minutes ago, AdeKing said:do you have any suggestions
Well, you could consider using a lever (basically a longish pole attached to the side opposite the scope, used as a handle to pan around with). Perhaps you could fashion something to test the concept to see whether it does it for you before investing.
43 minutes ago, AdeKing said:I find it impossible to track smoothly at high magnification.
The 'elephant in the room' is wearing a t-shirt with the message: "YOU NEED SLO MO".
I dislike how the above reads, as if I'm on some crusade of justification. I don't mean to be, I'd like to do without slo-mo myself and applaud those who do so (manually track a dob at high power, etc.). I've even fully enjoyed it to great extent, but my symptoms, which I recognise as yours, were only fully cured by using a slo-mo mount.
-
1
-
1
-
Looking really good.
Vixen ends HR production
in Discussions - Eyepieces
Posted
The Vixen HR eyepiece.
And then, in actual use...
...it just disappears. 😮
In a simplistic way, it makes sense: if there's hardly any glass in there, then there's not much to look through. But this is like there's none at all. And yet, the image is duly, effortlessly magnified, all is there to be seen, with nothing that is not. How does it do this?
Personally, I will never (really) know, nor do I find it really important to know. Just very happy to have owned and used them. It is absolutely everything I like in an eyepiece...
...except...
...the field of view 🙄
...which would not be an issue, if I used a driven mount which kept the target in view for me. Indeed, if there was no more FOV than this to be had, then that would be it. I could almost convince myself that at these focal lengths, all others are to be ignored (surely Galileo and Sir Patrick Moore would have made due)...but for me, other considerations prevailed. Ah. Nostalgia.
The design doesn't scale up to greater focal lengths, they say. Oh well. (I don't doubt it.)
So now, so shortly after their introduction (no, at the time, I didn't notice the initial fanfare either - was there any?), it seems decided that the market is saturated, absolutely swamped with them and it's no use making any more. And so, true to form...
...they just disappear.
It's not an entirely gloomy prospect; they are out there being used and will be for a long time to come. Perhaps this is how you go about creating a legend. I couldn't script it better.