mikemarotta

I am a writer. I can do mechanical stuff, and I enjoy the learning, but it is a steep curve. In Philip Harrington's Star Ware (page 288) is a description of a lever for the focus adjustment. Unfortunately, the directions include drilling two holes. I do not have a shop bench. However, the concept was clear. This is my version. The tongue depressors ("popsicle sticks") came in a package from a crafts store. I do have a Craftsman multitool for my belt and it had the saw. The filing was with an emory board for fingernails. The best thing for me was being able to secure the connections with Elmer's Glue. I have Gorilla Glue, but I always have hard time getting it off my hands. (When I was a kid and built model planes and cars, I often had a glue thumbprint on the windscreen. Just sayin'...) The staples held the pieces for the 24-hour cure. The paper covers the staples. Easy peasy. Also, Harrington's fix ( credited to Florian Boyd of Palm Springs, California) required a U-bolt. None I found fit easily or well, but the hose clamp with worm screw did solve the problem.

"If you think that education is expensive, try ignorance." In numismatics, we say, "Buy the book before you buy the coin." I actually had the book - Harrington's Star Ware - but had not gotten to the part about the 40mm ocular ("eyepiece") before mine was on its way. Mine arrived on Wednesday this week and I went out that night with my 102-mm f/6.47 refractor. The 40-mm was perfect for the Pleiades. Almost nothing else went well and surely not better than any other arrangement I already have. I will say that I used the 40-mm on eta Cassiopeiae and knowning what I was looking for and what I was look at, even at 16.5X magnification, I could see the companion. It is amazing at what you can see with just a little optical advantage. My basic intention was to use the 40-mm with a 2X Barlow to deliver the same magnification as a 20-mm but with a wider field of view and better eye relief. It just depends on what you are looking for and looking at. Just for one thing, naked eye where I live the Milky Way now is not visible naked eye. However, lining up Albireo in the Swan (Northern Cross), I saw that the Milky Way does come through with the telescope. So, it is not a total loss, and the cost of the 40-mm ocular was $20-$25, a small tuition. On the other hand, I bought a 5X Focal Extender. The customer service rep at Explore Scientific did talk me out of it when I bought my 102 in October. He warned me that with my backyard sky and the 102-mm refractor, all I would get was a close-up view of a bad view of Mars. I bought the 5X Focal Extender a month later. I used it once and then used it again last night. It is pretty much $279 worth of nice glass sitting in a box. I do have other telescopes, including a 10-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain on loan from my local club. And our club does have a Covid-compliant dark sky site. But it was a purchase that I did not need to make.

Star Ware: The Amateur Astronomer's Guide to Choosing, Buying, and Using Telescopes and Accessories by Philip S. Harrington; John Wiley and Sons, 2007. You can find this on Google Books as the 3rd Edition (1995). https://www.google.com/books/edition/St ... iiSkLS04cC. I recommend buying the physical book in the current edition. You will refer to it often and mark it up for yourself. It has not been updated since 2007. So, some things have changed around the marketplaces, but not many. Most of the 417 pages are valuable information that you need to know. Just for myself, I had three college classes in astronomy and had been certified as an operator on two different observatories, but my real learning as an observer has been over the past six years when I got my own 5-inch reflector. I now have four telescopes and a box of eyepieces. I wish that I had started with this book. We live in a computerized society and our interfaces are very forgiving. Owning a telescope is a lot like owning a car. Once you make the purchase, you cannot just hit Ctrl-z or the Back Arrow. That said, when we get into discussions of which is good or better or best, I believe that almost any telescope is better than no telescope. That being as it may, good decisions just feel better because they are more rewarding on so many levels from your heart to your brain to your bank account. Harrington's website is here: http://www.philharrington.net/sw2.htm. He warns that Amazon Kindle sells both the 3rd and 4th editions. He is also the author of Deep Sky: An Introduction, Touring the Universe Through Binoculars, and other books.

For the baby, I have nursey rhymes sung to the Alphabet song These are the rules of astronomy. We're beset by entropy. Things run down And things burn out. This I know without a doubt. O B A F G K M Then they start all over again.

I had to look up Hitchin. (Hitchin is a market town in the North Hertfordshire district in Hertfordshire, England, with an estimated population of 33,350. - That told me nothing until I looked at a map.) Anyway., while it is true that we shelter our instruments, it is also true that we put them on isolated mountaintops. Unlike microscopes, they are meant to be used outdoors. I happen to live in central Texas, which is pretty mild and if I leave my instrument out for several hours between observations, I will throw a plastic tarp or a quilted mover's blanket over it. It is not so much overnight -- though there is that -- but here, it is sunlight during the day. So, I also use a reflective mylar sheet - the "survival blanket" you can get in a sporting goods store - if it is going to be out during the day. I bring the smaller telescopes in. But I have one that is a bear to move around, 30 kilos. See photo.)

Welcome. The best course of action is what you are doing right now: asking questions and reading. One recommendation is to consider how much you want to spend. You said around EU 1300. Consider how much you earn by the hour. Divide the price by your pay rate and that will indicate the number of hours you should spend reading and asking questions. We live in a computerized world, but once you buy a telescope, there is no ctrl-z, no Back arrow. I will say that any telescope is better than no telescope. However, making the right choice will feel better in your heart, your mind, and your bank account. (I am going to post later today about two mistakes I made. And I had the book right in front of me.) Best Regards, Mike M.

Parallax: The Race to Measure the Cosmos by Alan W. Hirshfeld, W. H. Freeman & Co., 2001. Hold out your finger and close one eye. Change eyes. Your finger seems to jump relative to the background. If the Earth orbits the Sun, then the planets and the nearest stars would seem to shift in position relative to the farthest background. Archimedes tried to measure it. Galileo tried. It was not until 1838-1839 in close succession and working independently that Friedrich Bessel, Thomas Henderson, and Wilhelm Struve were successful. The title of the book could be a metaphor for the history of astronomy. We tend to view the history of astronomy as if through one eye: the arrangement of the universe, from the geocentric to the heliocentric model, to the understanding that our own Milky Way is not the universe, but just one of billions of galaxies. Viewing the history of astronomy through the other narrative eye of discovering the size and scale of the universe reveals the depth of the problem and of the geniuses who attempted to solve it. Hirshfeld traverses the history of astronomy by following the track of parallax. The writing is direct, intended for the interested and educated general reader. Of necessity, our macroscopic sense of place paralleled the discovery of the microscopic. The same lenses served both purposes. It is telling that Joseph Fraunhofer’s 1829 heliometer, the most exacting measuring telescope created up to that time, included a microscope for reading its extremely precise scale. Science is an integration. Internally consistent theories explain observable facts. It is how we know anything. More to the point, facts and theories do not exist in isolation. Seeming contradictions must be resolved or eliminated. That speaks to the problem of parallax. Herschel’s case, in particular, exemplified the exacting standards to which all scientists adhere. It can be hard to know when your very correct theory only awaits the predicted facts and when the discovered facts demand a new theory. “Photography of the heavens is one area of astronomy in which amateurs have made, and continue to make, significant contributions.” (page 273) Like Galileo and the savants who followed, Herschel expected that all of the stars are more or less arrayed at random, that the universe is uniform. Thus, stars that appear to be close to each other are not physical companions. This led astronomers to seek pairs of stars, one much brighter than the other in the expectation that the brighter was the nearer of the two and thus a good candidate for measuring parallax. After years of searching with a behemoth reflector, Herschel announced on July 1, 1802, that many double stars are indeed gravitationally locked. Also integral to the scientific method, established truths are validated by new discoveries. Following the successful measurement of parallax ten new uses were developed for it. Alan W. Hirshfeld is currently Professor of Physics, and Director of the Observatory at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, and an Associate of the Harvard College Observatory. He serves as the chair of the History of Astronomy Division of the American Astronomical Society.

It is unfortunate. Everyone thought that he was the Robert Burnham from Astronomy magazine and doing well. In truth, Burnham’s later life did not go well. Like other astronomers, he was not so much at home on Earth. When he lost his job at the Lowell Observatory, he drifted. No one knew. After his death in 1993, people remembered seeing him at the back of presentations at the San Diego Space Theater. Unmarried, his surviving family members did not report his death because they had no idea that he was famous to astronomers.

Well, I am jealous. You have some very good opportunities and a very nice locale. You could move to a mountaintop in the Andes, but, frankly, if I had to choose, I would rather live in Wales than Peru.

As noted, there is the "Moon on the horizon" phenomenon. However, in addition, allow me to suggest that the size of the constellation means that the stars in the shoulder are refracted to different angles and the stars in the feet. As an image, the constellation is extended according to optics somewhat different than the solitary image of the Moon near the ground.

Of course, I started with Albireo. I read about it in Turn Left at Orion. At a local star party, I asked someone to point it out to me and show it to me in their instrument. This October, I found it for myself, and have viewed it often. I found epsilon Lyrae on 16 November 2020 at 0029 CST (UTC-6). I found eta Cassiopieae on 18 November 2020 at 2034 CST. I live in the city in a tri-county metro area of 1.8 millions. My home is a mile (1.6 km) from the first driveway into a major shopping center about that squared. So, of course, I picked the easiest targets. The constellations are easy to identify and the stars shine through my Bortle 6-7 skies that hide the Milky Way. I split the "double-double" of epsilon Lyrae on 20 November with my Explore Scientific 102 mm (f/6.47) refractor and an 8 mm ocular with a 2x Barlow for 165X. (See attached. These edited scans from my notebook begin with BSP for "Binary Star Project.") On 01 December viewing Mars, I found eta Piscium. I bumped my 'scope and when I went to put it back on target, I passed two relatively bright stars. "Self," I said to myself, "that looks like a binary." So, I noted the time and when I came in for the night, I looked it up in the Stellarium program. The next night, I found it again, more purposefully and sketched it for my log. That night, I located gamma Andromedaea. The star pair is said to be a favorite of amateurs because of the color contrast. On 04 December, I found iota Orionis. It is easy to locate, of course, and well within the limits of a modest instrument. Some people make a dedicated effort out of collecting binary star viewings. My other hobby is numismatics. Though I am not a collector, I do understand and appreciate the personality type. The concerted effort over times speaks well of those who pursue completeness and quality in any collection. My strongest interests are in other areas of astronomy. Nonetheless, I am happy to report these observations here.

Ploessl -- Say it right; write it correctly. First of all, Simon Georg the lensmaker spelled his name Plößl. The character that looks like a capital-B ß is a double-s. It is called an “Eszet” or “sharp-ess” (scharfes-Ess) from a time when German orthography spelled words like der Fuss (the foot) as der Fusz to show that it had a hissing-s sound, not the unvoiced fricative that we know in English as “sh” in “shoe” or “push.” The name almost rhymes with the English word “vessel.” The umlaut-o ö is sounded by rounding your lips to say English long-o, but instead, saying English long-a. If you did not grow up speaking German, then “Plessl” is close enough. That is because three consonants follow the vowel. Each one clips some time off the sounding. The word for “height” die Höhe sounds like an American calling their friend from across a room “hey-ya” not the short laugh “heh.” The double-dots are a medieval shorthand for a little letter e that was placed over the o to show the shifted sound. Thus, the questionably undead cat is not as if in English long-o “Shro-din-jer’s” but umlaut-ö as if in English like “Shray-ding-er’s.” For the signature on his nameplates, Ploessl also used the ligature œ (oe), a less common flourish. If your typewriter has no umlaut vowels (ä ö ü) or a sharp-s (ß), you can use an e and a double-s. Thus, Plößl (which is how he spelled it) is accepted as Ploessl, but spelling the name Plossl or saying it to almost rhyme with "jostle" is wrong.

Allow me to recommend the one I wish I had read first: Star Ware: The Amateur Astronomer's Guide to Choosing, Buying, and Using Telescopes and Accessories, 4th edition, by Philip S. Harrington; John Wiley and Sons, 2007. After six years in the hobby, I now own four telescopes. I turn to this often to gain new knowledge about making the right choices in the future. Turn Left at Orion by Guy Consolmagno and Daniel Davies is highly recommended by others here on Stargazers Lounge. As with perhaps all enduring efforts, this book was written for the author himself. Even though – or perhaps because - Guy Consolmagno had worked as a postdoctoral researcher in planetary astronomy, and taught at Harvard and MIT, he had no appreciation for what a small telescope could do. As he tells it in the Introduction, he had quit his job and signed on with the Peace Corps. His friend, Dan M. Davis, was enthusiastic about buying him a small telescope to take to Africa. Consolmagno was doubtful. After all, what can you see with a 3-inch refractor? Within the glare of New York City (Fort Lee, New Jersey), Davis showed Consolmagno the star Albireo, a stunning double star - one yellow, the other blue. (It is at the head of the Swan or the foot of the Cross, designated β Cygni in the catalogues.) The other problem that Consolmagno had was with the instrumentation: setting circles, gauges, ascension, declination,… When he approached stellar astronomy as an amateur, he found all of the standard books unhelpful. So, he wrote Turn Left at Orion. Burnham's Celestial Handbook: An Observer's Guide to the Universe Beyond the Solar System (3 volumes) by Robert Burnham, Jr., New York: Dover Publications (1966, 1978). It is a classic and a ready reference. The book began as a 3-ring binder that Robert Burnham made for himself while working at the Lowell Observatory outside Flagstaff, Arizona. His interest was in "deep sky objects": stars, clusters, nebulae, galaxies. He assembled his data from the standard references in the observatory library, as well as from other sources. He organized it for himself alphabetically by constellation. Like any good discovery, the three-volume set offers more. It begins with what is essentially a 90-page class in Astronomy 101, covering the general layout of the universe and our place in it, as well as a basic table of objects. Burnham of course includes a dense array of facts, though much of the presentation delivers adjectives about the astounding, terrifying, and strange nature of the unearthly universe. Observer’s Handbook 2021, James S. Edgar, Editor, The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. The Observer’s Handbook is more like an annual almanac, a single reference that you can turn to for a broad range of useful information. You may not need a new one every year, but you need one recent edition. Now in its 113th year, the RASC Handbook has been polished to the finest accuracy and precision. The writing is clear and concise, never over-simplified or needlessly detailed. And, of course, it provides positional data for the year 2021 for the planets, their observable moons, minor planets, stars, and deep space targets. In a world where you cannot buy anything for a dime (or a sixpence), at USD 29.95 for its 352 pages, the book costs 8.5 cents (10p) per page. It is a bargain.

Welcome. We look forward to reading your reports.

(That's the title of a book about the McDonald Observatory because "The stars at night / Are big and bright / Deep in the heart of Texas." But, no, I have never been there. ) I came here to see how other discussion boards are run and how they operate. As an officer in my local club, I have some interest in the design and operation of our website. It is not my primary job. I just serve on the executive committee as the vice president. My job is to plan meetings. (See attached PDF schedule.). I was pleasantly surprised to see the wide geographic distribution of contributors. It's a global society and a finite universe. On the Horizon Dec 2020 Jun 2021.pdf

We are neighbors. Nice to meet you. I lived in Burque (2002-2003), truly the Land of Enchantment.