Jump to content


Richard N

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


32 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Skywatcher 127/900 EQ2
    Meade Adventure Scope 80 AZ5
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks. I had hoped that the amazing omission of Mizar B in SkySafari was a one-off but clearly there are other omissions in the phone versions of SS and even Stellarium. I will now know not to be surprised even if I’m a bit disappointed.
  2. Last night I was looking for STF1695 in UMa. The Cambridge Double Star Atlas lists the binary as mag 6.0/7.8 sep 3.8". Sky Safari Plus lists them as 5.8/7.75 3.9" but when I zoom in, no double is visible on my phone. Steallarium Plus (iPhone) lists it as HIP 112486A but says it's a spectroscopic binary and shows no double at the expected split. Stellarium (desktop) shows the double as per the CDSA. My eyepiece view did not reveal a close companion to the target (but that may well have been down to me). I'm confused. This chain of events has happened with several doubles that I have tried to observe. Any ideas as to the descrepancies?
  3. Is there a digitised version of the original Struve Catalogs online? I was curious to compare the separations and angles of the doubles measured by him originally with the current ones.
  4. Richard N


    I’m new and I have started sketching. I’m having great problems seeing pencil marks under red light. Any tips?
  5. I wondered whether anything could be done for GR with eclipsing binaries where the rotational period is short?
  6. Thanks for your reply. You ask perfectly fair questions. a) either b) either c) up to 250mm reflector. I will check out your link.
  7. Are you sure he's a human? He could have been "replaced"...
  8. Simple question: Can any relativistic effects in the universe be seen with small amateur telescopes?
  9. ST80. Light, short and balanced. It feels the same way without a scope attached.
  10. I have a new AZ5. On the elevation it's not that smooth using the slo-mo drive. Any thoughts on adjustments? I don't want to return it and I suspect it's easy to improve?
  11. An idea of your budget would be helpful for those offering advice.
  12. I am sure they will be completely professional but by gaming the system they incur all the costs both ways (and those costs are probably considerably more than just the carriage costs that you pay). It is also likely that they will be unable to sell the item again as new so it will end up discounted as a return. On some products this can completely eliminate any profit and can even result in a loss for the business. I ran a very similar sort of business for many years...
  13. I think one of the things that is cool about amateur astronomy is that we get to play in exactly the same space that the professional astronomers work in. Sure we can't see much of what they work on with our instruments but we can track down the same patch of sky and imagine.
  14. Okay so what did I do? I reviewed the options above first. Some seemed rather "over engineered" while others added a lot of bulk. Some seemed to have the possibility of adding "wobble". After much searching I found a "nearly" suitable 120mm dovetail. This did require the mounting holes to be drilled out (easy) and works a treat. I also discovered that the dew shield is easily removed and parallel so I was able to turn it round and rotate it such that the telescope branding looks "right" - perfectionist at work. It all works well and looks right so I'm good to go. Thanks for the suggestions - they were useful in helping me decide what was the best option for me. It does not solve the red dot problem but I have found that a finder is unnecessary on such a wide field scope. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272814342158
  15. It's pouring with rain and so I decided to do some little experiments with my Meade Adventure Scope 80 (ST80). I was curious to see how well collimated it was. To test it I removed the dew shield and inserted a laser collimator into the 1.25 inch port on the focuser. I then stood the scope on a mirror. I did a few checks to make sure that the method was sound (it was) and then looked at the collimation. It was quite good and I did note that it varies throughout the focusser range being best around infinity (good). I then compared two diagonals. They altered the collimation slightly (the two screw fixing is not the best). The additional dispertion noted on the reflected spot was interesting. Both the cheap supplied mirror diagonal and a celestron prism diagonal gave fairly similar results - the prism being perhaps slightly better. I am not sure what I have learned but it passed a pleasant half an hour. Anything else I could do?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.