Moonshane

Just had a wander down to where my obs will be and it's a bit better there. Tonight near the house was 18.85 and down where the obs will be 19.12 both at zenith so hopefully a worthwhile exercise for a number of reasons.

Just checked and it's 18.9 at zenith and 18.5 towards Manchester. Not ideal!

I'll know more accurately on Thursday if clear. I get a SQML from my birthday 

I'd think for the stated purpose, the type of diagonal would make little if any difference and if you want a correct, upright image there's no option other than to use a prism.

Loads sell on ebay and online generally e.g. 

http://www.mocap.co.uk/pipe-caps.html

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Five-High-Quality-Dust-Caps-1-25-Telescope-Eyepieces-Others-Brand-New-/371656277145

note you generally get clear unless you specify black.

I was referring to Motorways LOL

I have a 16" dob but mainly use my 12" and 120mm Equinox.

Once I have my obs I'll be using the 16" more regularly.

You think that's bad, I can see the actual M56 (and the M67, M60 and if I try the M66 and M62) from where I live!

Yep, I have 7, 9 and 11mm and they are fabulous eyepieces. They work well in my scopes (FL 1840mm, 1600mm, 1340mm and 900mm).

16 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

Possibly Shane but I do not think that even the optimum conditions will necessarily accomplish matching some of the stated map readings in certain locations. It could as you say, convey a decent idea though, as to where is worth while travelling in which case if intent on repeated journeys, a SQM and monitoring readings becomes quite integral to the activity. I do feel that Sky Quality Meters get quite overlooked as a non requirement, and yet compared to say eyepieces for example, offer good value and taking a frequency of readings is purposeful to the experience of your session. I feel that gathering data in this way - as individuals, collectively gathering a pool of statistic monitoring (perhaps starting as a new link on SGL), could be useful perhaps assisting with preservation of supposive dark sky parks which of course are under continued and increased threat from development.

I totally agree Iain. In fact it was a close choice between a new observing stool or a SQM-L for crimbo. I went for the former as observing mainly at home I'll get more use out of it. That said, it's my birthday next month ?. I am planning an obs and inside there, protected from ambient and neighbour lights, I'll definitely get better readings and my eyes will also adapt more. I am also going to make a more determined effort to get out this year to a darker site each month around new moon so this will also allow more remote readings too.

Coming from a background of insect recording (acting as a County Moth Recorder for Cheshire for many years) I completely agree about the power of collated data and also urge people to submit their own data when possible and considered accurate.

1 hour ago, scarp15 said:

It does concern me that I will venture to a place that according to the map has a reading of 21.8, when the actual measurement is quite off at least during an average circumstance. I do agree that the map could be of assistance as a rough guide if looking for somewhere potentially darker and that a Sky Quality Meter becomes more applicable for those that travel between different locations enabling comparisons to be made. 

I don't disagree Iain but at least this gives a decent idea of which places are worth traveling to and test with a SQM for future use? Otherwise you might end up wasting a lot more time. I may be wrong but do these stated measurements not generally reflect the best case scenario and in general the prevailing conditions won't be such so readings will naturally be lower on average than in optimum conditions? 

Whilst it's never going to be as accurate as single or multiple SQM readings at specific times I actually think it's a fairly usable estimate as for most it seems to reflect average conditions or be just a little off. If you live in say a Bortle 7 zone and want to use it to try and find somewhere accessible and darker than where you are, I doubt a small difference in readings will matter. If you want to get serious about levels then I agree a meter reader would be a useful investment but as this is free and you can get a rough idea of 'the world's' light pollution from the comfort of your armchair I think it does pretty much what it says on the tin.

In fact on my laptop, the box comes up every time you double click or single click anywhere

I did it on my phone as follows.

Click the link and then keep double clicking to find your street / house (like Google Earth)

I then double tapped on my house (well, where my house is) and the box pops up. 

Just a bit of advice. Make sure you obscure your detailed coordinates. Don't want to advertise expensive kit in gardens unecessarily ?

There are some lucky people ?

I am hoping I can build an observatory at the end of the garden and hide myself away from lights / face East which should give me a shot ?

According to https://www.lightpollutionmap.info

my sky quality is as shown below. This broadly matches with what I suspected as I gauged my NELM to be about 5.0 and Bortle scale between 6 and 7.

This will probably brass me off but what's yours?

Sounds great but very expensive.

I could have made this but taking into account that I'd need to buy a full sheet of plywood and the bits and also the fact I made the rough prototype I am still using seven years later I thought i should just buy one and enjoy it as stated above! It's a Christmas gift.

At 6'4 and 17 stone and using dobs and fracs it will be good to see how it performs. They look beautiful and great value.

If someone really wants to get in, they would cut a hole in the side more quickly than cut the bolt I'd suspect. Fantastic build.

Lovely scope and glad I could help ?

For that it's actually a hammock

Very nice! I had the same issue and went for Velcro on each leg 

I am toying with the idea of a UNI28 or Planet Berlebach but I always seem to find something else to spend my money on before I commit. My latest projects to convert my 16" to a truss, make an observatory and seat all seem to be of higher priority to me. Maybe if I make a pier (I am thinking maybe one that is an adjustable height to cover different scenarios and scopes) I won't need one, although it's useful to have options. As lovely as wooden tripods are, maybe I am trying to tell myself something. Stick with the steel for now.

?

Plus the other side, eyepieces cannot fall out if you forget to tighten the thumbs.