JOC

LOL, like that's an intuitive name pairing!! I would love to be able to go out and identify all the constellations by eye. I have bought a classically hand held constellation map / planisphere for this location. Maybe I should get outside on starry nights and just familiarise myself with what's what.

Thanks John, Mmmm...big cross in the sky I don't know if I've spotted that previously or not.

I haven't, but I am sure I saw Cygnus out the other night - the big W - yes? If so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that knowing that I could find it.

All the Morpheii have the ability to seat into a 2" focusser. Novice question, is this just for convenience or is there any advantage to seating them into a 2" focusser - I guess they are possibly more stable, but I can't see how it can affect the view if the final barrel is only 1.25"

Lot's of people have goto problems, I sometimes get on the wrong side of folks for suggesting that the Synscan Init 2.0 app for Skywatcher systems might be useful even for non Skywatcher systems, but most of these systems do have similar data input needs and the app. does normally give all the values in the correct format. I last contributed the information to the thread linked to below and you might find that reading through to the end of the thread and the final problem/solution that the OP had is informative. Such things as East and West, and leading zero's and the correct format of the Lats and Longs are really important and so easily missed.

Can you put more RAM in those MacBooks? If so maybe that would help.

I would have expected that, but am I the only one finds that the eyecaps are the most fiddly part of using the EP's of any type. It would almost be better if they could invent a sliding cover or something that could stay attached. In the dark constantly trying things out removing these plastic caps then not finding them again until you clear up the next day. They are the most infuriating things - if you had them on the Morpheii in the pouches then even if you dropped them back into the pouches you would stil have the fiddly issue of getting them back out later one.

I have an 8" truss tube Skywatcher (3 trusses), from the perspecitve of the impact to the alignment of the mirrors and the 'tube' set-up itself I have never had the slightest problem with it in terms of the weight put into the focusser. Where I do have occasional issues is in the ability of the motors to drive the weight, particularly in the vertical axis and I often drive it with no EP in the focusser unit and add it when the scope arrives on target.

Undoubtedly things on belts are useful. I have a tool belt and I couldn't put all my fencing up without it, i also carry a SAK in a pouch and a multi-tool in one too. I often find a bag useful for putting the EP's I am using into while I am out and I am very tempted to try the little pouches I just wonder how fiddly they would be, I think it would also be necessary to remove the dust caps before going outside as well.

My Morpheus have all been purchased separately and were all second hand. Perhaps the build quality and materials have indeed changed over time. My data should certainly not be seen as an indication of current production as I can't know when they were all made.

All my Morpheii made it into my EP box and there they will stay with all the fetching accessories in the boxes they were sent in. NB. Not that our sponsors take note of what we are discussing, but I've just noticed FLO are doing a sale on these EPs.

Both!!

Someone just posted this Qu. the appeal to my sense of fun didn't they. OK, my limitation is a suitable set of scales, but I can weigh to the closest 5g with my top pan scales, and have had them all on all with their plastic round top standard eyecups on (not the dust covers - just the little rubber bit that might leave on the top to view with). Importantly they do not follow an expected progression in line with size and that surprised me, but I can feel the weight differences when I pick each up and some def. don't weigh in order even in my hands. I make them: 4.5mm = 355g 6.5mm = 330g 9mm = 325g 12mm = 315g 14mm = 360g 17mm = 305g I'm pleased that my weights for the 9mm and the 14mm are very close to those quoted by Louis D above, I therefore conclude that my scales are indeed weighing to the nearest 5g fairly accurately

There is a picture of the Morpheus at the top of this thread and lots of comments about them and comparisons with other EP's in the postings - it might be worth a read?

What an interesting photo - you can certainly see the lack of edge to edge sharpness in some of them. About the only thing with the same degree of edge to edge sharpness as the M5000 SWA 40mm is the 32mm Sirius plossl and obviously that has a smaller FOV anyway. How do you get a photo like that please?

Lots of you have mentioned my other Baader - the 31mm aspheric modular. Now there is still space in my 'top end' case as you can see - you know that it currently tops out at 17.5mm. Currently the 31mm is in my 'take it to outreach activities case'. I just wonder how it lines up with it's competition? Shall I hold out for a better grade of low magnification EP at some point, or is it 'worthy enough' to add to the 'top end' box?

Thank you - I shall certainly be bookmarking this thread to come back to for advice and summer targets. I am absolutely chuffed to bits that none of you minded my excitement at my full set of EP's and have written such nice things - it's been a really lovely thing in the middle of this lock down crisis and you have all made me very happy - thank you 😄

That my 31mm is better for bigger objects and my 12.5mm is going to be better for Galaxy hunting, but once found I might be able to get closer. However, that tells me nothing new and I am still not looking at it from the perspective of exit pupil - it just applies the common sense that the larger the object the less 'magnification' is needed and the smaller the object the closer I need to get to it. The exit pupil is still zooming over my head. Though this: is understood and common sense suggests that this has to be the case.

Well that answers a question I often had about whether observatories use the same EP sizes that we all seem to (1.25" and 2") on their huge telescopes. It seemed almost inconceivable that with all their enormous costly mirrors it still boiled down to what they plonked in a tiny focusser, just like us back-garden mob.

Certainly, it's a sad person who can't learn something new each day. So what you are suggesting is that within a certain setup - say my 8" F6 1200mm FL Dobsonian I could through my EP's and put stickers over all the mm markings and re-write them with exit pupil size and I could still pick the EP that was going to give me best performance on certain targets if I was aware of the targets rough size (small, medium or huge) in the sky?

but if you look at it from mirror size they are more than linked - following that argument the larger mirror allows a larger exit pupil and from what I gather the more faint the object the more advantageous it is to view it through a larger exit pupil as more light will hit the optic nerve. i.e. the larger mirror permits you to increase pupil size you need to see faint objects. It seems to me that whether you look at the larger mirror as something that gathers more light or something that allows a larger exit pupil its all about being able to see the more faint objects which need more light to hit the optic nerve. Thus supporting my statement that increasing the size of the mirror appears to be a means to an end to see more faint objects (even if by dint of this you are doing so by increasing the possible pupil exit size that can be used). HH still sounds a 'way out there' target for me though. Though @John did write Which kicked off a rummage in my filter bag as I thought I had another of these talked about filter types lurking I've turned up a pristine H-Beta filter with Explore Scientific written on it. Who knows...it might help?

Not so far - in fact it's been largely unexperimented with due to it being for 'larger objects' and I haven't had much success chasing these at all (i swear blind that damn veil is a figment of the imagination - mind you at the other end of the scale so is E and F in the trapezium - though apparently they might show with slightly less magnification from what folks have shared with me over the last few days) so I've tended to stick with what I know I can find.

I have a list of favourite objects if anyone wants to include them. M42 The Ring Nebula - (best DSO object up there IMO, but needed averted vision) The blue snowball - that's a rather cool object The catseye nebula - def. saw that The Owl Nebula - pretty sure I've caught that too The cigar nebula - if memory serves I may have found that too. M81 or M82 - I'm pretty sure I got either/both Lyra - double double star - on a good night I can get that to budge into 4 stars - real sense of accomplishment, but it took 5mm to do it. Polaris double star Jupiter Saturn The moon - though we probably don't need instructions for that! Andromeda - never yet seen more than the middle.

I can find it easily in that its about 10 O'clock on the edge of the larger red/pink circle within the lower colour arc

Def. the best place to be atm. I don't know a great deal (except maybe about the mistakes that novices make when setting up Goto units!!! 😉 ) I am still very much a novice at this, despite my fancy intermediate set of EP's and don't get to view things very often so any help is useful. I've discovered this with the Ring nebula, but at least if I have a list of magnifications I know that I am at least not missing things due to being too close or too far away and that all I've got to do is the 'see' it. As a novice it is good to have things explained in terms of things that I Immediately comprehend - now I guess this is about me, but maybe does apply to other folks. I immediately comprehend apparent 'magnification' its the focal length of my scope in mm divided by the length of EP in mm. This is why I get about x120 out of 10mm and about x240 if I can get to 5mm, but in the UK that's about as good as it gets despite the theoretical maximum of the scope. I can easily go and look up what exit pupil is and I'd understand it, but as I read it I see no direct read-across to my own kit and equipment because I have nothing to hang it on in terms of a tangible focal length of scope or EP. In the same way in programming I'm OK if I can attach a macro or routine to an object (say a macro button), but to hook it to a theoretical 'variable' that hangs somewhere in the great void of computer land is something that I struggle with far more. For me 'Exit pupil' is not a tangible 'something' I can't think in those terms and tbh just take what I am told at face value when folks go on about it. Yet, explain something to me in terms of apparent 'magnification' I see that in terms EP length and telescope FL and can relate this immediately to how people with different size scopes would perceive things. I realised a long time ago that these seemed the most important two things in getting things the right size in the EP. I've largely now discounted mirror size - I realise now that is really only important for gathering more light needed to see more distant objects. At least within what I am conscicously understanding about telescopes. That is probably not very well explained, but 'exit pupils' unless I really study up goes 'whoosh' straight over my head. I hope the reason why that is personally the case for me makes sense.