Louis D

Take daytime images using a phone camera through the eyepiece with and without the Barlow. Just make sure the camera lens is at the correct distance such that the field stop pops into view as a sharp, black ring. Too close, and you get blackouts. Too far back, and you get an indistinct field edge. Now, compare the two images to see if the captured images show any difference in the size of the image circles. The apparent field of view is generally totally independent of magnification factor due to telescope focal length or Barlowing effects. This test will allow you to get an unbiased image to check that for yourself.

Messing around with my accidental comet filter (right shifted Zhumell OIII filter), it works best when trying to pick out the comet nucleus within a light polluted sky using the filter blinking technique. This is the case for me with solar hugging comets that set just after the sun. I have a large city directly west of me, mucking up the views in that direction. When the comet is in a darker part of the sky, the difference is more subtle with the filter. It allows me to confirm the extent of the coma more clearly. Without it, the coma edge just indistinctly fades into the sky glow.

From the curved primary mirror at the bottom of the tube. If it was flat, there would be no increase in image scale. For that matter, no image would be formed for the camera's sensor. Ever messed around with a shaving/make-up mirror where one side is concave and thus magnifying? Same idea.

Now that I look at the video frame by frame, they are much too slender to be bats or birds. Our Texas mosquitos tend to fly almost randomly. These all seemed to fly in the same straight line as if in a flock.

I measured 78.6° for the 9mm Morpheus and 77.5° for the 14mm. I'd round them both to 78° to be on the safe side. However, the 9mm is definitely wider than the 14mm.

For all of these reasons, and to be able to use 2" eyepieces and a GSO coma corrector, I went with a GSO 6" f/5 Newtonian Reflector Telescope with LB Focuser. The focuser works fine once the tension is adjusted just right. The central obstruction is a bit large for visual use, but the scope is intended for imaging. It's pretty light for its aperture and steel tube. The images through it have been fantastic. The mirror seems very well figured. I use it on a manual alt-az mount with no issues.

At those extreme temps, I would recommend against any mounts requiring battery power. That, and the typical Chinese internal drive lubricants could solidify rendering the mount unusable. @jetstream observes in a very cold part of Canada and could probably give his input on the subject of extreme cold.

I also get 13.9mm for the 14mm Morpheus, but I get 9.2mm for the 9mm Morpheus. Those are the only two Morphs I've got. For reference, I get 14.0 for the 14mm Pentax XL, 14.1mm for the 14mm Meade 4000 UWA, 9.0mm for the 9mm Vixen LV, 8.7mm for the 9mm Meade 5000 HD-60, and 10.1mm for the 10mm Delos. These are based on measuring the magnification in the central 10% of my ruler images. The more of the image you consider, the greater the overall magnification, and thus the lower the eyepiece focal length for most astronomical eyepieces.

The mount and tripod go into a Gator microphone/speaker/light stand/tripod bag of sufficient size to accommodate both. They're not padded, but I've never found that to be an issue.

Good find. I use a similar toolbox to hold my miscellaneous small astro accessories that won't easily break. I have an identical toolbox to that one I keep my camping accessories in. I keep my 127 Mak in a large, 1980s vintage padded Tamrac case intended for the giant video cameras of the day. I picked it up from ebay 20 years ago for $20 lightly used. The camera it came with was dead, so it went in the trash. I kept video accessories in the case for years until I got the Mak. I then moved those accessories into other, smaller cases to retask the giant case for the scope.

My favorite quote of the entire article: you don’t need 8-12” to have fun! 4” or 5” is enough to keep you busy for decades!

If I'm bringing my gear in from a hot, steamy environment to a drier, air conditioned environment; then yes, I do keep everything uncapped to let the excess moisture escape and recap everything later in the night or in the morning. However, the above is what I've always done in the winter. Otherwise, you'll end up with condensation on everything and you have to wait to put everything away just like in the summer.

Is the light spill mostly violet? If so, that is completely normal for a fast achromat like yours. Try a #8 Yellow filter to tame it down a bit. Try focusing with a #56 Green filter to see if the star images are sharper. Correction at the red end of the spectrum might be as bad as at the blue end with your scope. The green filter will cut out both and will probably show a sharper image. I'm not saying it will be a pleasing image, but we'll start to narrow down the problem source.

Yep, a pretty good and well organized summary of discussions on the various refractor forums. He does completely ignore high quality, slow achromats like those that were made by D&G Optical. Admittedly, they're only available on the secondary market now.

I'd probably suggest you start out spending a fraction of the $2000 budget on a good starter scope that is still compact. If you find you're not that into astronomy later, you can easily pass it along. I would suggest either a Sky-Watcher Heritage 130 or 150, but mounted alt-az style on a photographic ballhead on a sturdy tripod: Or on a Sky-Watcher AZ5 mount: If you prefer a driven mount, they can also be had on a goto mount in the Virtuoso GTi 150P version which can be mounted on a photographic tripod:

We have millions of Mexican free-tailed bats around here. They help contain the insect population in the summer. Just don't go below the bridges where they roost when they're flying out at twilight unless you like bat guano on your head.

You sent your derriere to FLO for adjustment? Perhaps try a chiropractor next time. 😏😁

Also, if using a traditional long Barlow, be careful when inserting it into the rear port to avoid hitting the corrector lens if indeed it is at the back of the scope and not on the secondary.

It boggles the mind that the builder was allowed to block the natural drainage by building that wall. I forced my neighbor to remove foot high metal edging along his side of our common privacy fence that was causing water to pool 6 inches deep on my side (the high side). I pointed out that Texas law forbids blocking the natural drainage of water causing adjacent properties to flood. The section of Texas code: Texas Water Code 11.086: (a) No person may divert or impound the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion or impounding by him to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow of the water diverted or impounded. You might want to check on your local water code laws to see if you can force a drainage notch to be cut into the bottom of that common wall.

What about getting a 20mm 100 degree eyepiece instead of the ES 24mm 82 degree? It should have similar TFOV and eye relief but at a slightly higher magnification. The various Lunt/APM HW rebrandings here in the US tend to be cheaper than the similar focal length ES 82 degree offerings.

By the looks of it, you have a mostly level area with poor or even blocked drainage. You'll need to figure out where that water would normally drain to. Then, you might need to investigate putting in a French drain to channel the water to that natural drain. My niece had to do that with her backyard because it was a basin with nowhere for the water to go. Putting in the drain involved digging a 70 foot long trench from the center of the backyard, along the side of her house, to the street, for the drainage pipe.

Around the US, you must call 811 to have gas and other utility providers come out for free to mark their buried lines before you dig. Doesn't the UK have a similar service/requirement?

You would need to replace the entire finder scope with a RACI (Right Angle Correct Image) finder scope. To fit a diagonal to the back end of one would necessitate cutting down the tube length to account for the additional optical path length of the diagonal.

That reminds of the build it yourself equatorial platform kit I bought back in the late 90s. The problem was that it used friction sliders at an angle on the tracking board, so it could never track smoothly. I tried substituting various wheels, but could never make it work satisfactorily. Over $250 in 1990s dollars down the drain.

We'd kind of need to know which type of telescope you have to answer this. I suspect you have a Newtonian with the focuser sticking out of the tube near the top. The eyepiece will end up pointing in all sorts of weird directions depending on where the scope is pointed when mounted on an EQ mount. If this is the case, you can put a large hose (jubilee?) clamp or embroidery ring or similar ring around the tube just above the upper tube ring and then loosen the tube rings just enough to allow it to be rotated with a slight bit of effort. The extra ring keeps the tube from sliding out of the main rings when loosened. You may want to put some non-marring material between the tube and clamp/ring. If you've got a refractor, SCT, or Mak, just rotate the diagonal to the most comfortable viewing position.