Louis D

4 hours ago, scotty38 said:

It would be on the front page of every newspaper, the lead story of every news programme along with countless interviews with multiple politicians for weeks... 

You're showing your age.  My grown kids don't read the newspaper, watch TV news, etc.  They tend to get their news from social media.  Unless an influencer brings it up, I doubt they would notice.  They tend to be oblivious of much of the news and like it that way because it often upsets them.

32 minutes ago, Captain Magenta said:

You went fishing, and caught the fish! Hook line sinker and handle!

Fished in!

21 hours ago, CraigT82 said:

Nobody takes the vat off the new purchase price when selling used stuff here. The new price of the ep is £810 and that's that, no avoiding the vat.  The used price is £600 and that is £210 saving on new. Plain and simple. 

9 hours ago, Stardaze said:

@Mr niallhas it spot on, because it’s included into everything, we consider the cost as being the price, with everything built in at the time of sale. 

11 hours ago, chrispj said:

Yes, the only qualification to that is that no-one in the UK would consider it to be a £100 item because it would be advertised everywhere inclusive of tax at £120 (the only businesses that price without sales tax are those that sell primarily to other businesses that are likely to be VAT registered and able to reclaim the tax)

7 hours ago, JeremyS said:

Yes. For adverts: https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/compulsory-costs-and-charges-vat.html

6 hours ago, JeremyS said:

Are you winding us up Louis? 🤣

Just pointing out the taxing genius of forcing all companies to hide VAT in their list prices such that now the price including VAT is the nominal list price in every consumer's mind.  Had the government not mandated this approach and allowed it to be added at checkout as in the US, no one in the UK would consider price+VAT as the nominal price.  I'm just pointing out the difference in the way US/UK views list prices thanks to different price advertising laws.

Few Americans have any idea how much they're paying in excise taxes, and I'm certain more than a few Brits have no idea how much they're paying in VAT taxes because it isn't itemized separately at checkout either.

And yes, used astro prices have risen considerably in the US as well on certain desirable items that are in short supply.  Heck, some used cars are selling for more than their original list price because of the shortage of new cars.

24 minutes ago, Stu said:

Not hidden at all Louis, we all know it’s there, and all actually appreciate that the price tag shown on the ticket is what we pay at the till.

They why not remove it when calculating the true cost of the item before taxes for resale purposes since end consumers seem to be unable to recoup VAT taxes paid?

Ingenious on the part of your government to hide the tax such that no one is aware of it.  It also makes it easier to raise it when it's hidden.

These hidden taxes are referred to as excise taxes in the US and are applied to specific items like fuel, alcohol, and tobacco products.  Sales tax is often applied on top of these hidden taxes making them even more insidious.

A bit smaller objective, but the old AP Traveler was a popular 4" scope that met carry-on requirements.  Has anyone ever done a head to head comparison between it and the Borg?

8 hours ago, CraigT82 said:

Nobody takes the vat off the new purchase price when selling used stuff here. The new price of the ep is £810 and that's that, no avoiding the vat.  The used price is £600 and that is £210 saving on new. Plain and simple. 

In the US, no one includes sales tax in their computations because it varies from place to place, and is not applied to many foreign purchases and even some internet purchases if the seller has no nexus of business within the purchaser's state.  It's also not included in the retailers price on websites.  It's computed at checkout and added along with shipping at that time.

As a result, the price Americans ask for used items would seem to be much less than VAT country sellers since we're not trying to recoup our sales tax originally paid.

For instance, a $100 item would cost on average $106 with sales tax (although it varies from $100 to $111 locally).  Using the 65% rule, most sellers ask in the $65 range, and no sales tax is generally collected on personal sales.

In the UK, a £100 item would cost £120 everywhere, apparently; and using the 65% rule, most sellers would ask in the £78 range instead of the £65 range because they do not remove the VAT they originally paid and seem to want to recoup at resell.

Thus, the UK seems to use the 78% rule instead of the 65% rule that the US uses.  Keep this in mind if you ever do cross Atlantic sales.  Alternatively, the US uses the 54% rule if a 20% VAT is assumed on new sales in the US to level the playing field.

Is it normal for TV eyepieces to go for 89% of new prices in the UK?

£810/1.2 = £675 new vs £600 used.

I have a couple of 127 Maks, one for me and one for my grown daughter to use on camping trips.  You'll definitely go deeper and bring in more planetary detail.  However, you'll lose wide field views since the focal length is about 2.3 times longer.  They're easy to transport thanks to their short physical length, though.

20 hours ago, John said:

There is an Ethos 21 in UK Astro Buy & Sell if anyone want's an alternative. It's not mine !

 

Wow, that works out to within $22 of new price here in the states before shipping and taxes.  Your TV new prices must be outrageously high right now.

2 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

In this design, I think anything longer than 17.5mm would have to be a 2" eyepiece, so, no, I don't think there will be longer focal lengths.

It isn't just about the size of the field stop, it's also about how light is handled in the design.

It would have to be fatter, heavier, longer, and a lot more expensive--look at the 31mm Nagler for an idea of shape.

Unless they go with a design similar to the 30mm APM UFF which uses a compression instead of expansion section ahead of the field stop.  Of course, it wouldn't be the same negative/positive design methodology as the rest of the line.  However, the eyepiece width could be kept fairly narrow to allow for binoscope usage.

7 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

I'll check my packaging later on if it's on it.  What do difference do you think that might make?

Mostly in the pricing and quality control.  Generally, astro items made in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and USA tend to have higher prices and higher quality control levels.  If these new filters are made in one of these regions and have the aforementioned quality control issues (scratches, coating defects, etc.), then it is concerning.  If they were made in China, it's not surprising, but then the price is surprising in that case.  Chinese labor and overhead costs are a fraction of those other four production areas, but are rarely passed on in full to consumers.

When athletic shoe production was moved from the US to China over the last 25 years, prices were kept constant despite production costs plummeting.  Shipping costs could not have eaten up all the cost savings.  Interestingly enough, the very same suppliers would produce extra shoes and sell them at a cut rate price worldwide through non-official channels that still made them plenty of money but enraged the US companies.  Fighting this has been tough for US companies.

As I've said before on other threads vis-a-vis 2" Barlows, the only time I use them is just to change things up for an entire night of observing.  It's too much of a PITA to swap it in and out of the focuser due to the massive change in focus position it causes.  They're fine if you just leave them in the whole night, though.  It's kind of fun to see how my 2" eyepieces react to the Barlow's presence.  That, and the presentation is different as compared to similar focal length 1.25" eyepieces.

@Andrew*It's been 14 years since the original post.  Did you end up buying the XP from @JeremyS?  If so, how did you like it?  Did you keep it or sell it on?

Does anyone know if these new Baader filters are made in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, or USA?

1 minute ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Louis I'm no stranger to firearms but the only problem with "packing heat" is the criminals are going to do the same if they know the victim may be carrying. Armed house burglaries are rare in this country and our Police do a grand job being virtually unarmed, but that's another thread.

They generally don't in Texas because they get a slap on the wrist if they aren't carrying when caught.  The courts come done hard on them when caught carrying.

1 hour ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Or they may smash your face in and rob your stuff. I'm sure that's a rare occurence though! 😉

Not recommended around here (Texas).  Too many people packing heat as a safeguard, and the criminals know it.

41 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

North America smoke map:

https://fire.airnow.gov/?lat=34.0778841&lng=-118.491626&zoom=10

Yep, smoke is finally supposed to be making it's way south to Texas.  I haven't noticed any strong effects from it on the sky, though.

7 hours ago, Voyager 3 said:

Are you kidding me ? Sahara desert's dust in USA ?! That's more than 6000km ! I've heard these dusty particles move and cause problems for the southern European countries . I have also heard Gobi and Taklamakan deserts' dust in India and Pakistan but these are wimpy compared to this .. 

Yes, surprisingly large amounts of Saharan dust travels across the Atlantic and ends up over the southern US.   Western Africa also sends us their low pressure systems that develop into hurricanes.

4 hours ago, Ags said:

I am surprised too. I would have that that hot and dry part of the USA could be self-sufficient in dust and wouldn't need to import any from Africa!

The eastern part of the state is swamp-like while the western part is close to being a desert.  In between where I live is more temperate in rainfall (about 32 inches a year), but still hot and humid.  Because the ground is covered in some sort of growth just about everywhere in the deserts of the Southwest, we don't get much dust from them.  The most dust comes not from the undisturbed desert but from the Panhandle (northern Texas) and nearby surroundings because they plow up the high plains and irrigate them with groundwater.  When winter fronts blow in from the northwest, we sometimes get agricultural dust from there between growing seasons.

It has to do with vignetting.  It's not so much the eyepiece focal length as the field stop diameter.  It's just that 32mm to 40mm 1.25" eyepieces generally have the max field stop size possible, about 27mm.

Some people have put 2" diagonals on focal reducers and used with much larger field stops in 2" eyepieces with some noticeable vignetting.  Some claim it goes to complete blackness near the edge of a 40mm SWA class eyepiece with a 46mm field stop.

All this is the result of the focal reducer shrinking the effective size of the image circle at the output end of it.  It squeezes the existing image circle to 63% of its original size.  This allows eyepieces with 63% of the field stop diameter of a max field 2" eyepiece to show the same amount of true field.  Thus, a 27mm field stop shows as much sky as a 27/0.63=43mm field stop diameter 2" eyepiece.  It's simple to show that using a 46mm FS eyepiece with an FR would try to show as much as a 46/0.63=73mm FS eyepiece.  This just isn't going to happen with the size of the SCT's rear baffle and the size of the FR lenses.

Try retaking the photo from the same angle as the original but without flash.  Flash works wonders to highlight the tiniest motes of dust.

I was just up in Michigan and Indiana a few weeks ago, and the skies were eerily hazy despite there not being a single cloud in the sky.  The moon was red when the haze thinned out.  Once a front blew through, it massively cleared up the sky.  The weathermen up there were ascribing the haze to western forest fire smoke.

Try again after another northern front blows through and see if the scatter issue improves.

Down here in Texas, we get haze from Saharan dust and Central American farm fires in the spring before planting season.  Luckily, the western forest fire smoke is staying north of us for now.

Yes, there is sharp edge down the center of erect image diagonals to effect the left for right swap.  Reflections off glass tend to be strongly polarized.  That's why you can see through other people's windshields with polarizing sunglasses on sunny days.

There's really no reason to use one at night.  That sharp edge adds a diffraction line to bright stars.  Try using a plain mirror diagonal and you should see the entire image darken evenly.  Metallized mirrors don't tend to polarize light.

Don't forget the effect all those optical elements in you SCT can have on scatter as well.  There's also the possibility of poorly controlled stray light seeping around the baffles.  Were the views equivalent between the frac and the SCT as far as stray light?

Try removing your diagonal and then view straight through to eliminate the possibility that it is adding scatter.  Dielectric diagonals tend to scatter more than silver or prism diagonals.

Make sure your field lenses on your eyepieces are clean.  Being closer to the field stop, any grime there has an outsized impact on light scatter.  Use a super bright tactical flashlight to look for any greasy film buildup on them.

Move Saturn around the field of the eyepiece and look for changes in the view.  This can help you pinpoint where the actual problem lies.

3 hours ago, John said:

I find ~17mm a focal length that I just don't use much. With my 2 inch eyepieces I tend to skip straight from 21mm to 13mm and with my 1.25 inch set I step from 24mm to 14mm. I guess this is related to the focal lengths of my scopes which vary between 663mm and 1590mm.

I tend to skip straight from 30mm to 40mm "finder" or widest field eyepieces straight to 12mm to 14mm eyepieces for most observing as well.  My 22m NT4 and 17mm ES-92 don't see much use.  I tend to then jump up to 5mm to 7mm for the next look, giving my 9mm Morpheus and 10mm Delos very little focuser time.

What I find I do is, like a good father, I make time for all my A-team eyepieces and cycle each one through the focuser during an observing session to see if the presentation through any of them yields a different impression of an object.  Often times I'm rewarded with the unexpected juxtaposition of nearby star clusters, asterisms, or double stars with the main observation target adding interest.  I tend to observe for aesthetics rather than for ticking objects off of an observation list.