wulfrun

9 minutes ago, jefrs said:

The key point of the G9 is its ridiculous stabilisation, we do not need stabilisation on a tripod

Easily solved, turn it off. It does work extremely well in "normal" use. Haven't tried it on an OTA so I can't comment on how well it works but the G9 does have an 80Mp sensor-shift combined-image output too.

1 hour ago, Greymouser said:

Not very political correct, but I used to love that series...

Had a vague recollection that that was where I heard it! Blimey, that's well before any PC.

14 minutes ago, tomato said:

His rockets need more umph…

Or stop trying to launch them when a storm's due? Can't remember where the quote is from but my initial thought was "oh dear, what a shame, how sad".

Also, what a waste of resources but that applies to the rest of them!

19 minutes ago, Starslayer said:

ah - an idiot knob just for the likes of me then?  😀

I know for a fact you aren't the first and I'm sure you won't be the last!

Unless I'm mistaken, it's the third support and is spring-loaded. Not a knob at all, twiddling it around does nothing and won't damage anything either.

Words fail me, which doesn't happen very often! Stupidity, stupidity, stupidity.

First question you'll likely get asked: is the scope the "Go-To" version or not? If it can't track the object it'll limit you to short exposures (i.e. only the brightest objects). You'll likely need a Barlow to achieve focus unless you can change out the focuser to a low-profile one. Not sure if that's feasible or not on your scope. I think a focal extender/powermate won't shift focus out far enough, again not sure.

Just to be clear, I'm not an imager, I have only tried casual use of a camera on dob-type mounts and these are my understanding of the problems you'll face. Then there's field-rotation of the images but I believe there are ways around that, I never looked further into it. I think using a Dob is one of those "yes, it's possible but it's hard work" things, although you seem to be well aware of that.

Over to the experts now...just thought I'd throw in a reply so you don't feel no-one's looking!

On 03/02/2022 at 16:58, cajen2 said:

There's a street light right outside my front garden, where I do all my observing. It's been off, presumably broken, for well over a year. Sometimes, council inertia or incompetence isn't so bad.....!

(....and no, I didn't break it!) 😆

That didn't work for me. The sodium one almost outside my house died but was fixed in 2 days (no I didn't report the failure). Only to be replaced with LED not long after, typical "efficiency" there then!

2 hours ago, Carbon Brush said:

Similarly clusters like Pleiades (M33). The seven sisters becoming dozens.

Slip of the fingers, no doubt but it'll be M45 for the Pleiades.

10 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

Some subjects just aren't about interpretation. What's the capital of Peru? Any debate?

Not at present but any capital city can be changed, in name or location (or both).

Peru hasn't always had its present boundaries and been called Peru either.

This is the guide I've used, no frills and no excess:

https://garyseronik.com/a-beginners-guide-to-collimation/

EDIT: If you attached pics, they aren't showing up

Worth pointing out that Saturn & Jupiter are getting harder to observe this time of year. Plenty else to see but you'll need to wait until next year to see them at their best. Don't let this put you off though!

3 hours ago, wookie1965 said:

Go to this thread when Neil tries search stars they dont come up although they do on mine and his mount refuses to go to any stars in Ursa Major and Kochab but will go to Polaris its really strange its like the app has only partially installed but works up to a point.

OK, I think I'm misunderstanding the issue then. I'm not using any other App in conjunction with Synscan so what I said isn't really relevant.

1 hour ago, Neil H said:

Hi I did have that software but it had stars missing from lists and all stars in the plough were out of altitude you won't know till you link to your telescope that's when you find out it's not working it will not goto any star unless it's Polaris 

Assuming you're talking about Synscan Pro, that doesn't reflect my experience so far. I've only used it "in anger" a couple of times so far though. I used Rigel and Procyon plus "North level" for set-up (and GPS-derived location) . After which (from memory) it went to the Hyades, Plaiedes, Beehive, ET/Owl and double clusters and Polaris, Castor and Alcor/Mizar plus it landed almost spot on with M42...all without issue. It didn't quite centre any of them but it was in the FOV (20 or 9mm EP in 500mm FL, so x25 or x55).

12 minutes ago, Neil H said:

...and see if they do a fix for Android 11...

Synscan 1.19.15 works with Android 11. Not sure if that's what you were referring to. I recently bought a Synscan Wi-Fi dongle and downloaded the app beforehand. Stock was 1.19.0 (?) but that just opened and closed immediately on A11. However, 1.19.15 worked fine so I went ahead with my order.  HTH.

Actually, most people who believe they are colour-blind are mistaken. Colour blindness is extremely rare...but colour *deficiency* is not, it's relatively common. Red-green deficiency is the more common variant. To be colour-blind you need to have either 2 or all 3 of the cone-cell types missing.

In low light, the cones in the eye may not be triggered. Cones provide detail and colour information, so in poor light we lack visual acuity and colour perception.

The Ishihara colour test isn't usually used where critical colour vision is needed, it produces too many false positive and false negative results. The more critical test is the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-hue test. I used to be a colour-matcher and had to do it every 6 months or so.

With stars, I see the colours easily enough in a telescope but without optical aid I struggle to tell blue from white unless they're very bright. The redder end of things can also look white if they're lower brightness too. I've never seen colour in nebulae but I've never looked through a huge-aperture scope either.

2 hours ago, DhamR said:

Are the edges notably poor?  I'm guessing I'd still see a huge improvement from the stock 25mm Super.

No and yes, respectively. Stock 25mm gives x30 at about 1.7-degrees TFOV, the 16mm would give x37 & 1.75-degrees. I haven't noticed the edges to be noticeably poor but I don't have anything exotic to compare it to.

6 hours ago, DhamR said:

Thoughts on the Nirvana 18mm?  I've seen a used one and thinking of snapping it up.

According to the various field of view visualisers it'll give a very similar field to my 25mm, but I assume it'll be a large step up in quality and ease of viewing

I use the Nirvana 16mm in the Heritage 150P and find it pretty good, although I've no experience against dearer glass. Mine's the older type with a twist-up cup, which I tend to use partway up. I don't wear glasses at the EP but I can see they would be an issue. I've also used it in the 114P (f/4.4) and it's still usable in that.

35 minutes ago, DhamR said:

Wow, a lot to read through and digest here:

- I think a zoom might be an annoyance with the helical focuser if I'm honest, the focuser really is the worst part of this scope, and I haven't had much success with ptfe tape, even a single layer makes things too stiff, and causes shredding so I cleaned it all out. (I don't want tape falling down my tube).

- All that info from @bomberbaz is really interesting, I hadn't figured that you could get more mag AND wider FOV from the same lens.  Will definitely bear that EP in particular in mind, as I'm happy to spend a bit more for better quality up to a point, but especially if it reduces the need to buy an additional EP.

- I guess this is what I meant by having nothing to compare things too.  I am straining to get close enough to both EPs, so more eye relief and wide FOV would probably make things a lot more comfortable, particularly when showing things to others.

Thanks everyone.  Sounds like the BSTs are highly regarded in the other FLs, but if anyone has alternatives worth looking at that would be great.

Just to offer another route...OVL Nirvana 16mm, 7mm and Barlow, plus the ES 26mm. The Starguiders are well regarded and excellent value but the OVLs are 82-degree, which means less nudging with a Dob. Depends if your budget stretches enough though. I can vouch that the 16mm works really well in the Heritage 150P, I'd expect the 7mm to do equally well.

Regarding the zoom, I can understand the reluctance and I threw the suggestion in in case you hadn't thought of it.

EDIT: on reflection, the 16mm + Barlow is a bit close to the 7mm, possibly think about this a bit more carefully.

6 hours ago, Louis D said:

How well does it work in a helical focuser?  Unless it's super low resistance, it will require two hands to zoom to avoid changing focus.

Correct, two-handed operation. I have used a Hyperflex in my Heritage 150, it does require the barrel to be held while the zoom ring is turned. How annoying this is is somewhat down to the individual user.

Just to throw in another idea, have you considered a zoom? Most zooms are close to parfocal* as you change the focal length. Downsides are that they have the narrowest AFOV at the longest FL, opposite to what would be desirable. Extra downside with the Hertage's helical focuser is that you'd need to hold the zoom's body stationary as you alter the FL. That could get annoying.

* opinions vary, my experience suggests it's no worse than a "tweak"

EDIT: re a Barlow...did you mean will an EP be parfocal with/without it? No, because it'll shift the focal point. A focal extender (such as the Explore Scientific 2x, for example) has far less shift. If two EPs are parfocal without a barlow/FE, they should still be close with one (I think!).

On 15/01/2022 at 19:48, Richard136 said:

Is it possible to replace with a higher AH rating? Or is the circuitry configured for 7AH battery only? Assuming I can find a same size higher AH battery....

Can't be 100% sure but if you can find a higher Ah-rated battery that'll fit in the space, it's very unlikely to be a problem for the circuitry. The downside will be slightly longer charge times - but it won't be much because you won't be able to go much higher in capacity.

I've kept 2 newtonians in my shed for a year or so, without apparent issues (so far!). Neither if them has any electronics though (beyond one RDF). If the shed's dusty, use a loose-fitting cover (bike cover etc).

I have a battery-powered PIR linked by radio to a receiver in the house (it's a readily available, commercial gadget). Admittedly I need to be home for it to be effective but it's plenty loud enough to wake me if I were in bed asleep. Since the shed has bikes, mower etc I already had the alarm before the scopes arrived. I change the shed-PIR batteries every two years, even though they would last somewhat longer and I don't use cheapo batteries. You can't stop a determined thief but you can make things difficult.

Welcome to SGL, it's a pretty active forum but if you tell us what you want help with it'll get you answers that are more relevant...

The bit I don't get is why they consider the inevitable cost of this to be acceptable. If they stopped wasting the light upwards and directed it downwards they'd save money. Even overlooking the astro & environmental aspects, surely it's commercial sense anyway?

I hope it gets sorted, looks suspiciously like gross stupidity.