globular

It's great you have both scopes and can try the non Edge reducer on each one and draw your own conclusion. Not cynical at all - very sensible. I do wonder if you'd notice a difference if you were imaging rather than just visual. And in that case you'd probably use a wedge or a different mount and the size difference would be a moot point too. However as you are visual and it's working (in fact is better due to the size difference) then that's great news for you and good to know for the future for me too if I ever feel the need / can lay my hands on one. 👍

Interesting. I guess they mean "not optimal" rather than "won't work at all". But you can't detect any issues? Are you using it visually only or for imaging too?

Even with the long eye relief requirement met it seems to be EPs with wider AFOV that have more mixed opinions about glasses suitability. I guess this makes sense, after all there are similar mixed opinions about the ease of use of wide verses narrower AFOV EPs amongst non glasses wearers too? I notice you settled on the APM UFF for your 30mm EP, Don, not the ES 82. And the Morpheus rather than the ES 92 at 17mm. Is their slightly narrower AFOV part of the reason?

+1 on that Many thanks for your help.

Sorry to hijack your thread @StarGazingSiouxsie but can I check that I'm doing roughly the right thing with my Evo StarSense? I tend to: * level pretty accurately * [ location, date and time from SkySafari - happens automatically ] * StarSense auto align * goto a bright star (if I'm going to be viewing Mars then I pick one near to Mars - it's easy with SkySafari - you just tap it on the screen) * Use Hyperflex zoom lens on 21mm and make sure the star is visible (it always is) * Zoom in and centre the star, ending up on 7.2mm setting. If no centring needed stop here. * Calibrate on the centred star and let StarSense re-auto align. Job done and it stays aligned all night. Total elapsed time 5-10 minutes or so (longer if I've slowed the slew speed to reduce noise for neighbours if >10 pm) But that's not to say everything is always bang in the centre. They are always in the EP view (15mm+) but some small centring adjustment is often needed. Once centred the tracking keeps everything bang on - I'm really impressed with it. Am I doing this all wrong / missing anything important / doing too much?

Thanks TheLookingGlass. ES report eye relief of 22mm and I've heard it's recessed a couple of mm? So doesn't that still leave 19 or 20mm usable? I know it's not just the relief mm that determined suitability with glasses... eyecup design and placement etc important too... and everyone mileage may vary.... I guess if there are differing opinions then it goes in the marginal box?

I control it with SkySafari Pro rather than the StarSense Handset so it gets the location, date and time automatically from that. As you say some times (most times) perfect and occasionally just a little off.

Does having the tripod well levelled make any difference? I might have incorrectly convinced myself it does - but I find things are much closer to the centre if I spend a few more seconds making sure the spirit level dot is well centred rather then just getting it roughly level.

Sounds good. And as predicted by John and Peter too. I wonder why being close makes a difference? Anyone know the science behind it? I used an 80a blue on Mars a few nights ago (I was trying lots of filter combinations) and agree it helps to highlight the darker features. Looks a bit unnatural but does help with my sketching and I made a note to use it again on Mars. I also found a green helps highlight lighter areas and yellow a bit of everything. I just hope the weather improves here before too much longer.... I NEED to get back out there.

How was it @StarGazingSiouxsie?

The DGM NPB: looks, to my eye, to get closer to the OPT than the Astronomic UHC:

I saw those on amazon a few days ago too and nearly pulled the trigger... then I though about the chemicals they might have put in them and the cheap casing that might split... and figured that FLO will make sure theirs are scope safe so why risk my expensive kit for the sake of saving a couple of pounds. And then, while I'm ordering from FLO anyway, I may as well get.......

I tried a 500nm Green bandpass (W58) on Mars the other night (I tried everything as a bit of an experiment). The south pole was much sharper - maybe because I found it easier to focus more accurately? The dark Martian features were less visible with this filter but the brighter areas (of which there were a couple of significant ones that night) seemed to become more apparent.

Agreed.

You are breaking the postulation by changing the ‘splits into 2’ into ‘splits into a whole number of bits proportional to probability’ and then go on to show that that can’t work because there can’t always be a whole number of splits in other scenarios. I was trying to say that there can an irrational number of splits if you weight rather than count them. While at the same time trying to say that thinking of it as probability proportional splitting is not really necessary. Indeed it seems to me that your proof that the postulation is wrong is actually a proof that your change to the postulation is wrong.

It splits in two but the pieces are not equal in size. The size is proportional to the probability. Not sure how else I can describe it. I guess I’ve failed to convince you.

maybe thinking of weight as being the proportion of the universes particles that the world occupies might the helpful? Your 3 worlds where A happened would use 3 times the particles as the 1 world where B happened. My single A world would be 3 times the weight of the B world too.

The weight is the probability. In my case a supreme being can see two worlds; one with weight 3 where thing A happened and the other with weight 1 where thing B happened. In your case the supreme being can see 3 worlds where thing A happened and 1 where thing B happened. Basically the same thing.

These concepts are basically the same. The weights one doesn’t have a rational number constraint but the world counting one does. So I tend to think in terms of weights (which seems to work) rather than counting (which seems to lead to doubt and talk of busting the whole theory). And to think you and I both exist in the same world at the same time 😀 haha.

Each world does not know what weight it has. Just like in your scenario each version of you does not know how many other yous there are in other worlds.

You are suggesting worlds are split into numbers of worlds proportional to the outcome probability? I tend to think of it splitting into one for each possible outcome (in this case 2) and it’s the “size” or “weight” of each world that is proportional to the probability.

I’ve gone from liking your post but dismissing it as imaging only to googling it to find out more just out of interest to wanting one immediately. 😟

I love that we're all different. I am happy to forego natural looking images in favour of teasing out ultimate detail visibility. In my recent studies of Mars I've taken to starting and ending a session without any filters to take in and appreciate the natural look. Then I add filters to tease out details. Sometimes these details remain in the final non-filtered viewing but don't seem to appear without first seeing them with the help of a filter or two. I'm still new to all this and maybe when I have a more experienced eye I will rely less on filters. Until then I'm enjoying the extra detail they seem to provide me.

I must have missed the OPs requirement for it to work well in both scopes. If that's the case then scrub my reply which assumed a 2" EP for the ST120 was sought.

Is the ST120 F/5 and the 127mak F/11.8? If so and you are after lower mag / wider views then I assume you'd use the ST120. And your existing 32mm in that scope is giving you 18.8x mag and 2.67 degrees TFOV at exit pupil of 6.4mm. I'm not sure I'd go any larger than 32mm in that scope because of the exit pupil and already very low magnification. If you're keen on seeing more sky then you could get something like a 31mm Nagler giving 4.24 degrees TFOV and 19.4x mag with 6.2mm exit pupil. Not cheap though. Or there is the 30mm ES 82 giving 4.10 degrees TFOV at 20x mag and 6mm exit pupil. This is cheaper (still not cheap though) but I'm not sure it performs as well in faster scopes like this. If you have young eyes and think you could take an 8mm exit pupil then something like my Pentax XW40 would give you 15x mag and 4.67 degrees TFOV. I wouldn't though. You might even consider something like the APM HDC XWA 20mm. With its 100 degree AFOV it will give you more sky than your 32mm plossl at 3.33 degrees, at higher magnification of 30x and with a still very nice exit pupil of 4mm. The price is very good too for this hyper wide design. But eye relief is only around 15mm so it might not be suitable if you wear glasses. There are so many options... 🤔