RayD

Agree, to a degree. Many people produce superb images with inexpensive kit when compared to some very very expensive doublets produced a number of years ago and pretty much designed for visual use. AP can be expensive, but it doesn't have to be. I actually image because I have very bad floaters which make visual very difficult, particularly at higher magnifications. I also work and am able to set up an imaging run to complete whilst I sleep. Finally I really enjoy sharing my images with family and friends which I accept visual astronomer can do by describing his views, but it isn't the same.

A Mrs with a love of solar lights is more challenging than I imagined!

Yes I totally agree. I don't use 220v outside myself, I was just noting after it was mentioned that it needs to be done properly if used as it is potentially lethal. 13.8v is ideal if the supply is big enough and the cables adequately sized to prevent voltage drop. I'm certainly not advocating using 220v outside, far from it.

Yes you may need to have a play as there can be some variation. I would check your distances, all from the mating surface of the adaptor, and just play with the spacing. I would start by adding a little to get to 55.8 and see how that changes things.

Yes as John rightly says, the distance is 55mm if you are using the supplied adaptor, which most people will be as it provides the M48 thread. You should add 0.6mm to this for Baader filters, so set the physical spacing at 55.6mm and you should be close. You may need to fettle a little to get it spot on with a larger sensor, but you shouldn't be far out with this. The confusion comes because the US version I don't believe is supplied with the adaptor, so the spacing of 63mm in the manual is actually correct, but we have the adaptor and factor this in to get the the 55mm.

I believe with the ASI120 you have to deselect debayer to capture using RAW format.

I reckon you're not going to be far away as you need to add a little (physical length) for the filter anyway, so if the filter is 2mm, you're adding 0.6mm, which puts you pretty close.

Yep I'm 40 12 and can still see M31 but only from here in Spain, definitely not at home in the UK. I think it really helped once I had found and seen it for the first time as I then knew exactly what I was looking for.

Good job. Glad it went without a hitch. If those rings are tight then they do look a tiny bit small if you look where the OTA meets the felt liner at the bottom and top, it doesn't look snug and appears to be a small gap? Try the 102mm as they may be better. As noted by John he used 101mm so you may need these, but can't do any harm to try the others first.

Wowzer they've had a proper go at that!!

Crikey, Hugh, that diagram is ridiculously good!! I doff my cap to you, Sir

No problem, Kev. I think this revision is excellent and doesn't leave anything open to interpretation. I suppose, as with anything, they needed to see where there are holes in order to plug them, and it seems this has been done. From memory, in the original guidelines, the eaves height was also a bit open to interpretation as they could be taken in isolation, but that again is now very clearly defined. I think the rules are pretty good if followed.

My apologies, James, I should have checked. It appears this was clarified in the latest revision of the guidelines issued last year as being the "highest point of the ground immediately adjacent to the building". I guess after implementation in 2015 too many people were using the original guidance as a loophole, so it is now very well defined, and for all buildings no matter whether they are within 2m or not. The official Government technical guidance (2017) can be found here, and it is pretty helpful and clear.

Wowzer, you can't turn that down, John. What a great invite and a great opportunity. Get the flights booked (The Mrs will understand (fingers crossed)).

Yes you're right, Gina, that's why I added that bit at the end. It is from the average height of the surrounding ground, so I'm sure it will be fine.