Tiny Clanger

See also 'salute'.

5 hours ago, Bivanus said:

Simplest example : Latin - 'salutare' / Romanian - 'salut' / English - 'hello' ( or 'greetings' )  

'Salutation' is an English word meaning a greeting, we did not escape the Latin influence.

41 minutes ago, jp1977 said:

The images don;t really capture the level of detail I was able to enjoy, but I can improve on this, I'm sure - can only get better from this point - consider me hooked"

 

And so it begins ...

Just unscrew and remove it.

The link didn't work for me. I wonder if it is pointing to this though ?

I think OP has already told us what the 'scope is when they say,

" I found this site, along with some delightful reviews of the Seben Big Boss 1400-150. Oh well, I guess it was free... "

Amazon reckon : "Seben's Big Boss 1400-150 reflector telescope is, because of its perfect workmanship and enormous performance data, the unquestioned top telescope of Seben's astronomy series. Undreamed of possibilities become true for the ambitious user of Seben's Big Boss telescope because of its huge 150mm aperture and the tremendous focal length of 1400mm." https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seben-Boss-1400-150-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B00692THU2

It's a Bird Jones (or possibly Jones Bird ?) design, which the above ad avoids saying by using the term catadioptric.

1 hour ago, LondonNeil said:

 clear outside is confusing me.   I have now worked out the bottom bar is the moon though.

Have you clicked on 'how to use' at the top and followed the tour ?

OK, so cross that possibility off the list.

You tried various eyepieces, and it showed in all of them. Could you try removing the diagonal and seeing if a straight through view still shows the problem ?

The only other kit related (rather than seeing related) possibility I can think of is something inside the 'scope protruding into the optical path and causing diffraction (similar to the spikes caused by the  secondary supports in a Newtonian)

30 minutes ago, quasar117 said:

That's definitely a plausible answer. The old refractor is a 60mm Simmons generic department store telescope. Can't remember  the focal length/ratio  but guessing its around F/9.

As it happens I'm going for a eye test this afternoon so will ask the question about astigmatism.

Timely !

Not sure if it's a good thing if the answer is your eye or not ... it would absolve the new 'scope tho' !

5 hours ago, quasar117 said:

...  as before the Star appeared to be 'hairy' around the circumference and not pinpoint like the stars in the background starfield. Also if my eye was not perfectly centered the star would distort and create a spike.

In-focus revealed concentric rings. However, out-focus I could not discern any rings it just appeared as a solid white circle. Is this normal?

For comparison I dusted off my old department store "toy' refractor. I was surprised that when focused on a star, the star appeared more pinpoint than viewing through the Starfield 102. Very strange.

Whilst I'm happy with the lunar views, I still felt something is not quite right when viewing stars. Could it be just the seeing again?

 

 

I wonder if what you are seeing is astigmatism in your eye showing up in the Starfield, but not in your 'toy' refractor ?

As I understand it (i.e. not very much) any astigmatism your eye may have will show more with a setup's greater exit pupil. If  the old 'toy' 'scope has a higher f number vs the Starfield, perhaps the smaller exit pupil it gives allowed you to see pinpoint stars ... it could also be the reason you never saw the problem in a mak.

15 minutes ago, Simon Stewart said:

I'm thinking about using solar film. Might you be able to point me in the direction of a guide for making a filter with film?

 

https://astrosolar.com/en/information/how-to/how-to-make-your-own-objective-solar-filter-for-your-camera-or-telescope/

48 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

I'm sure this point has been made previously in these pages, but there's an enormous irony in so many people using, as a prime observing list, a set of objects that was created specifically for the opposite purpose.

I've previously thought that this would make a good quiz question (Only Connect?) if I could only think up two or three other examples of "things that were being widely used for a purpose diametrically opposed to their originator's intentions".

OK, how about post-it notes (accidental discovery of weak re-positionable adhesive by 3M researcher trying to formulate a strong glue), umbrellas (originating as parasols to create shade)  and that famous pill, intended for blood pressure lowering and anti-angina medication use, Viagra ? 

With a 32mm plossl in your heritage 130 (assuming the plossl has a 50 degree FOV) the circle you see in the sky is about 2.5 degrees in diameter. That star Hamal in josefk's helpful Stellarium screen shot is a shade over 3 degrees from the comet tonight, so find Hamal with the 32mm, shift your dob so Hamal is on the edge of the view, nudge the 'scope a bit further and you should see a fuzzy thing ... centre the fuzzy thing then try some higher powered eyepieces.

The main problem (apart from clouds !) you need to consider is that the view in your dob is upside down, so rather than putting Hamal at the left edge of your eyepiece, (around 10 o'clock if you think of directions that way) you want to shift the 'scope so Hamal is between 3 and 4 o'clock.

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

SS III is poorly constructed. The based of mine broke off soon after first use and needed glue.

I had a different experience a couple of months ago: bashed my SS III on a door jamb carrying a setup through, the finder fell to the floor.

What actually broke was the tiny screws holding the skywatcher shoe to the rubbish metal of the skywatcher - they ripped out of their holes. The Baader not only survived the bash and the fall onto a hard floor completely unscathed, but when I got new screws and re-installed the finder shoe, the SS III hardly needed any collimation.

Not being sure what mount that is, I did a search and FLO came on top, there in the page for the current version is "Frequently bought with this product: Sky-Watcher L-Bracket Dovetail" which suggests you will be fine , as does the FLO ad for the bracket which states :

"The Sky-Watcher L-Bracket dovetail is a useful accessory for mounting telescopes, spotting-scopes and binoculars to mounts such as the Vixen Mini Porta and Porta II, Sky-Watcher AZ-4, Supatrak and AZ Synscan Goto and Celestron SLT and SE series mounts.

Capable of securely mounting up to a 100mm aperture (4 inch) telescope or 80mm (3.2 inch) binoculars."

Also this handbook (possibly for a different model ?) suggests some of these come (or came) with the bracket included

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1962294/Sky-Watcher-Star-Discovery-2i.html?page=8#manual

To fix a 127 mak securely and retain the ability to fine tune balance I'd not use the single camera type screw though, I use one of these https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dovetails-saddles-clamps/baader-vixen-style-dovetail-clamp.html

it has a threaded hole in the centre which matches the camera screw.

I've used a skywatcher 'L' bracket to mount my similarly 'wrong way round' 127 mak on my AZ5, it works fine, but that's on a substantial lump of a mount and a decently heavy tripod.

The alternative with an AZ5 is to mount the mak effectively backwards, and with the AZ5 arm vertical, which limits the alt the 'scope can view, unless you remove the slo mo cable to let the diagonal pass it ...

I don't know if that specific mount (or tripod) that the OP has could cope physically with the OTA on the bracket, and if the slightly outward displaced weight would cause balance or motor problems, (best keep the OTA as close to the mount's clamp as possible to avoid stress ) but as far as aim is concerned surely it will make no difference ?

I've used a Rigel Quickfinder on my mak, the stick on bases work well.

30 posts ? Has it been changed from this ?

2 hours ago, dark star said:

Thanks for the reply. I will start saving up!

I don;t really understand how importing things from Europe works now. The TS website says that the price includes 19% V.A.T.  I presume this is  German V.A.T. which would be taken off the price and I would then have to pay 20% UK V.A.T. to the UK Government?

Are there any extra charges like import duties?

 

https://www.gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/tax-and-duty

Anything costing over £135 (that amount includes the delivery charge) attracts import tax, and the carrier makes a handling charge to cover their work collecting the tax on behalf of HMRC  , it was around £10 on average last time I checked (over a year ago) and varied quite a bit between carriers, Royal Mail were £8, one of the cheaper options.

You start your calculations with the VAT-less price plus P&P you are charged by the retailer, add whatever customs duty % are due, take that total to calculate the 20% UK VAT, then add the handling charge.

43 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

I've not heard that term in years!

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

59 minutes ago, Elp said:

2. As I mentioned previously check your devices date and time, if they're incorrect it'll throw up a similar error (unlikely to happen on phones used regularly, more likely to happen to tablets that haven't been used in a while or computers that have a failing CR2032 battery which doesn't keep the bios clock up to date).

This is a leap year, perhaps the device failed to cope with a 29th Feb. ?

On 28/02/2024 at 11:13, Steve Ward said:

And "Barlow" ... 😉

And 'Hoover', 'Biro', 'Sandwich', 'Wellington',  'Shrapnel', 'Algorithm', Diesel' and of course 'Cardigan' 🙄

11 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

That'd be an "Americanism" pure and simple , I'm sure they mispronounce our language just for the hell of it ... 😄

I'd love to know if the reason so many on CN spell Baader 'Badder' is that they just don't hear the long 'a' in their heads when they read the name.

If the focuser of your 127 annoys you as much as mine did, a relatively cheap way to get fine focus at the same time as buying a new diagonal is to get one of these :

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/diagonals/baader-t-2-90-prism-star-diagonal-with-focusing-eyepiece-holder-125-nosepiece.html

I find it works well .

@Wanderers , here's why you can't see it !

3 hours ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Don't count on the AZ5 and steel tripod especially with a heavier triplet. It's that bad with my 4" doublet I don't use the mount.

⬆️ What he said.

Fine with a nice, short tubed 127 mak though !