Tiny Clanger

21 minutes ago, Adam J said:

How about this and buy am separate mount for it?

 

Adam 

They can't see the sell/swap area until they have been a member for a month and made 25 posts.

1 hour ago, Coral said:

Hi,

I would like to putchase a telescope for my husband for his birthday to go with a trip to Kielder observatory.  I know nothing about telescopes and getting very confused on what to purchase.

He has never had a telescope but loves star watching, using the naked eye and an app.  We are lucky enough to live next to a very large nature reserve that has no outdoor lighting.

I like the look of the telescopes that connect to an app to help you find different items in space and would like to spend up to £500. 

Any advice on what to get or avoid would really be appreciated.

One of these https://www.firstlightoptics.com/first-light-optics-gift-vouchers/first-light-optics-gift-voucher.html

click the box, you get a drop down of higher values to choose from.

Buying specialised equipment like this for yourself is enough of a minefield, doing it for someone else is a potential disaster.

If you want to buy him something physical with part of the money, 10x50 binoculars like these would be worth thinking about https://www.firstlightoptics.com/opticron-binoculars/opticron-adventurer-10x50-t-wp-binocular.html

19 minutes ago, Dr Strange said:

Speaking of planets the moon is waxing now but will change and looking at it is great fun. Also Jupiter and Saturn are up right now and excellent things to look at. 

The Moon is waning now, and is not a planet.

On 28/10/2023 at 09:49, AndyM001 said:

Ah, looks like I need 50 posts to view / buy from the classifieds, and 250 posts to actually sell. I'll look at eBay, hopefully I'll get a reasonable price.

Nope, you are in luck ! Those are the original requirements posted years ago and not updated, the current situation is this :

The finder on my heritage 150 'scope is actually a  9x50 RACI.    RACI is short for  right angled correct image finder,  it shows the sky right way round (some similar looking right angle finders give you a left/right reversed view.)

One of these https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/astro-essentials-9x50-right-angled-erecting-finderscope.html

It does require drilling holes to bolt a finder shoe onto the 'scope tube to hold the finder though.

23 minutes ago, RS1 said:

Hi Tiny Clanger, lovely home made cover and extra finder. If you could please give any pointers on the cover that would be highly appreciated. Also, curious about the extra finder. Which one do you use please?

A bit busy to reply at the moment- it's lunchtime on Xmas day here in the UK !

My heritage 150 (with a home made cover for the open section and extra finder) pointed as if in night time use.

Laudrop is right, you have the mirror end of the telescope pointing upward in your photo. Look at the illustration on the front of the instruction leaflet, you will see that the extended front section with the cross shaped supports are the actual front end of the 'scope, the end with the removable big dust cap. Yes, you look in the side, but need to point the telescope tube upward so it sees more than its own base.

Nice.

I'm amazed so few people seem to have a go at making one of these, they are easy to make, even for an inept carpenter like me.

Anyone interested can find a link to Jerry Oltion's page here

Looks like the wooden tripod has an m10 screw (not the usual photo tripod 3/8" screw all the others have)

Will your mount fit that ?

In the USA the Heritage 130 is sold under the name Astronomers Without Borders OneSky Newtonian, there's an over 200 page discussion of it on this US site with lots of ideas and images posted by owners.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/463109-onesky-newtonian-astronomers-without-borders/

Have you come across Prof. Ruggles ? He has put a lot of his work online

https://www3.cliveruggles.com/

some of his early PDFs ( iirc ) deal with checking  Lunar alignments on Lewis  https://www3.cliveruggles.com/index.php/publications/2-publications?showall=&start=2

A fairly basic RAS leaflet based on Stonehenge has some good ways to explain things, might make a decent starting point for your pitch to an audience who probably don't have much scientific background

https://www.cultural-astronomy.com/storage/app/media/RAS-Stonehenge/RAS_Stonehenge_factsheet.pdf

12 hours ago, paulferris1964 said:

Thinking of using my carbon fibre tripod with this mount for a Skymax 127. It's a Manfrotto 055CXPRO3, sturdy, and is rated to 9kg. It's fine for my medium format cameras. Any thoughts / experience on suitability?

I've been using a 127 mak on my old alu. 055 pro  Manfrotto for 3 years now, very happy with it, I keep the centre column right down and locked tight, only usually need the top two leg sections extended to observe comfortably. You may find the setup seems a bit top heavy with a lighter cf tripod, but as the 127 is short I don't think it will feel precariously 'tippy'.

The AZ5 head that goes between them is awkward at times though, as the fixed dovetail is positioned in such a way that to get the finder shoe on the upper side of the tube, the 'scope has to be mounted 'backwards' with the AZ5 arm at the nearest to vertical setting. With the 'scope pointed at more than about 60 degrees alt., the diagonal hits the slo mo cable. Not an insurmountable problem, if necessary you can remove the diagonal (or the slo mo ), shift the tube, then replace and carry on, but it's a faff.

The 127 mak which comes bundled with the AZ5 has its dovetail differently placed to that of the OTA you can buy on it's own, it is correctly set up for the mount and so will not have this problem. It is also actually cheaper to buy the package of 127+AZ5+flimsy tripod than a stand alone AZ5 and a stand alone 127 mak. I'd buy the package version, save £5, not have problems at higher alt, and use your manfrotto instead !

Heather

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/star-tracker-astronomy-mounts/omegon-minitrack-lx3-with-polar-scope.html

18 minutes ago, StarDuke82 said:

 but you have to agree that when you look at a screen for even few minutes and turn away or blink it leaves a afterimage burnt into your eyes for a brief moment. I know personally I can’t look at a phone screen, LED or or even walk outside on a beautiful sunny day and look at the blue sky with my eyes burning and seeing after images of the light source (shape of the device or light bulb) or swirling static in a blue sky. Anything that does that is damaging your eyes whether you want to believe it or not

After images are an entirely different thing, a temporary and poorly understood quirk of our colour vision, nothing at all to do with blue light or physical damage to our eyes. There seem to be differences between the sudden after image caused by a brief photo flashgun  , which is bright and the negative after image which forms from longer less bright light. No one ever sued a photographic manufacturer because a flash unit damaged their eyes, even if fools like me occasionally stood in front of a studio flash and pressed the test button without remembering to look away from the reflector. A half minute or so and our sight restores itself to normal because this isn't physical damage, but something in the neural system which, in effect, seems to stop registering the light (and colour ) being flooded with, so you see a negative after image which subtracts that shape and colour, leaving you seeing, for a few moments, the shape in the opposite colour. Do an online search, there are various possible explanations I'm aware of,  but I'm no neurologist so best someone who is does the explaining for you.

I used to include it as a fun optical illusion when teaching 8 year olds about light and how our eyes work. Draw a shape on some white paper, something simple like a square or triangle maybe 4cm or so across . Colour it in a strong darkish colour, green or red work well, blue may be less good for this trick. I used to use pieces of coloured sticky paper stuck on card. Now rest your elbows on the table, and hold your head in your hands for at least 2 minutes. You hold your head as still as possible, and stare at the shape on the paper. When the time is up, quickly look up at a plain white wall and see your shape, in the opposite colour . It works less well with a blue shape because the after image will be yellow and therefore paler and harder to see.

One cheeky little guy took this trick home, had his little brother stare at a red drawing of a ghost while listening to a spooky tale about a green ghost which haunted their house, then pointed at the wall and said , "Quick, look there it is !"

Belief doesn't come into it, and I do not have to agree, because science does not work like that. I'll leave any further explanations to someone else, I think I've done my bit.

5 hours ago, StarDuke82 said:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/blue-light-has-a-dark-side a later study that says from a year later counteracting some of their previous findings and showing that Blue light blocking lenses or goggles work for blocking light.

That doesn't mention eye damage at all, but sleep patterns.

5 hours ago, StarDuke82 said:

 And though just an Article from Good Rx it’s from 2023 https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/eye/blue-light-bad-for-your-eyes

"Thanks for visiting! GoodRx is not available outside of the United States", so I can't assess that site. I wondered why, then read the wikipedia page about it, which says "GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is an American healthcare company that operates a telemedicine platform and a free-to-use website and mobile app that track prescription drug prices in the United States and provide drug coupons for discounts on medications."

6 hours ago, StarDuke82 said:

Of course then there’s also this exert from the European Book of Research and Pharmaceutical Medicine https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364994490_Effects_Of_Blue_Light_On_Human_Body that state that it is harmful and more research needs to be done 

I read the whole of that, it's not very long, not at all technical, and I couldn't help but note the many mistakes in grammar and punctuation. That lack of rigour is worrying, suggesting as it does a less than adequate peer review system and editorial policy for what claims to be an academic publication. I've no knowledge of that particular publisher, but am aware that there are many dubious sites feeding off  academics need to publish in order to advance their careers. The competition for positions and funding requires they show they have published work. There's even a phrase for it in common use, 'publish or perish'.

Drill down a bit further, look at the references, and they cite for eye damage research on rats, mice and goldfish. Not humans, and all in laboratory conditions on small samples of animals with extremely high intensity light.

I followed another of their references, "O'Hagan JB, Khazova M, Price LL. Low-energy light bulbs, computers, tablets and the blue light hazard." which you can read at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26768920/ , the abstract says

"Occasional claims that the light sources with emissions containing blue light may cause eye damage raise concerns in the media. The aim of the study was to determine if it was appropriate to issue advice on the public health concerns. A number of sources were assessed and the exposure conditions were compared with international exposure limits, and the exposure likely to be received from staring at a blue sky. None of the sources assessed approached the exposure limits, even for extended viewing times. "

I'm not getting at you, it's just that there's a lot of background research to be done before it's possible to have a reasonable level of confidence in an scientific article or journal, Unless it is one with an excellent reputation. It's important to know how the system works, approach it with suitable scientific scepticism, and spend time investigating sources, authors, commercial links etc. before you accept an article as a genuinely good source, because science departments, authors, and academics are all under the same societal pressures as everyone else, and scientists are just as human.

It does appear that the temporary effects of strong light on human circadian rhythms are generally accepted as true, with a clear causation from melatonin suppression, but that's an entirely different topic, and is not evidence of possible physical eye damage.

20 hours ago, StarDuke82 said:

We have Smartphones, Laptops, LED lighting, LED Televisions our eyes are literally being bombarded with blue light constantly and most studies are showing that it is harmful to our health and our eyes. It disrupts our Sleep Patterns, it can burn our retinas if our screens are too bright, and some studies say it can even cause cataracts, eye cancer and macular degeneration.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/will-blue-light-from-electronic-devices-increase-my-risk-of-macular-degeneration-and-blindness-2019040816365

appears to be a credible source and a qualified author, and says

"Compared to the risk from aging, smoking, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and being overweight, exposure to typical levels of blue light from consumer electronics is negligible in terms of increased risk of macular degeneration or blindness. Furthermore, the current evidence does not support the use of blue light-blocking lenses to protect the health of the retina, and advertisers have even been fined for misleading claims about these types of lenses."

You may find a 'magic arm' for a photographer's tripod with clamp with sufficiently wide jaws, then you add a suitable tablet clamp to the standard tripod screw.

Plenty of examples of arms here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=magic+arm+clamp&crid=4R1P0KEK7X5W&sprefix=magi+clamp%2Caps%2C1169&ref=nb_sb_noss

5 hours ago, Philip R said:

I do not what happened to my second reply, but I had to add my reply to the bottom of @Tiny Clanger post. Please click ‘Expand‘ to read it at the end. Apologies in advance.

I can't know why your head/tripod combination would not go as high as mine, all I know is mine does, as my photos show.

I see the fluid head as a stopgap, not ideal, but what I have to hand, and lightweight.

I've no idea about if this is possible with any other fluid head, just that it is with this specific model, which is a bit lightweight for the job of carrying anything but a very small, light set up (It's only rated 4kg I think ) . It's not ideal, but works adequately with the very light 72 ED at modest magnifications, at more than about 100x it's difficult to get it to be precise enough.

A couple of photos to try to show  'scope on it can reach (and pass !) vertical, and how the 128 handle is attached - you can see the star shaped screw which holds the handle in a simple tubular collar which is open at both ends, allowing it to be reversed.

Fluid heads typically only physically allow around 60 degrees alt. One solution is to mount the 'scope 'backwards', which means the handle is pointing away from you. This allows you to get 90 degrees alt, and is awkward but not impossible. A better solution is to find a head with a removable handle which can be slid into its bracket from the 'wrong' side. Some manfrotto models ( for instance the 128 RC ) allow this.

2 hours ago, Mark2022 said:

Have searched and the only results which come up is this thread.

The default setting for the search box on the page is search 'This Topic'

If you search 'everywhere' instead, there's plenty of information:

https://stargazerslounge.com/search/?&q=todmorden pier&quick=1&item=408273&search_and_or=and&sortby=relevancy

Images of a handbook for a telescope with that same designation have been posted here

https://www.cloudynights.com/gallery/album/8277-tasco-11t-manual/

There's a vid showing the 'scope in a more or less complete state which might help you see if you have the important bits (and enable good advice remotely on here !) I've no idea if the video maker is a good source of advice on telescopes though.

Hmm. It worked for me on 3 machines, each running a different version of Stellarium, but I don't think any of mine are the very latest version.

You could bypass the typing of a name by going to the 'lists' tab of the search window, and selecting comet from the drop down (assuming the latest version has that !)