Zakalwe

Hand tracking would be fine. You MUST cover the finderscope with Baader Solar film (the darker version, not the imaging version) if you use the finderscope.

No, guiding isn't necessary. The mounts tracking should be sufficient. if you start doing multi-hour solar animations then good tracking helps a lot. If you start doing high-resolution animations at long focal lengths (ie with a Quark or modified SCT) then guiding starts to become a very worthwhile feature. The colour is added in later in the post-processing. You can make the Sun any colour that you like. Alien Sun by Stephen Jennette, on Flickr Full Disc 04th November Inverted by Stephen Jennette, on Flickr Lots of great tutorials over on the SolarChat forum. Mark Townley has a wealth of information on his site: https://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/p/imaging-tutorials.html Ken Crawford's tutorials are brilliant too, especially once you become more skilled at post-processing. They are linked on Mark's site. You'll need Autostakkert for stacking. ImPPG for sharpening. Microsoft ICE does a good job at stitching panes to create mosaics. I use an old copy of Photoshop for final processing. GIMP would probably work fine, and is free. Make sure to spec the laptop with a SSD drive and USB3. The newer CMOS cameras with big sensors DEMAND USB3 and a fast disc. They also need a lot of space...I can easily generate a couple of hundred gigabytes of data in an afternoon's imaging session. For your scope you will need a mono camera with small pixels. A second hand DMK21au618 would be a good starting point. The sensor is a bit small, but they work well in solar. If you could get a Point Grey Chameleon then these are brilliant solar cameras. The chip is sensitive in the right frequency and the pixel size would match your scope well. The later USB3 Chameleon would also work very well. Be wary of cameras with rolling shutters.....they can cause artefacts with fast moving objects.

I was having a brew with my CFI today down at Blackpool. The hanger that we were using houses a jet thats used for acrobatics. £900 quid an hour. One bloke was slower than a slow thing with his checklists and blew £300 just taxying the thing onto the runway

Astronomy is not a cheap hobby. Especially the ones that can afford to take astro-specific foreign holidays. Many of these may have retired from quite well paid careers and are still young enough to enjoy a variety of past-times. It's highly probable that your sample size is very narrow and not at all representative of the hobby in general? Another way of looking at it would be to sample a couple of flying clubs and see how many "do" astronomy. There may be a link, as amateur fliers will certainly have a far better grasp of atmospherics and basics like which way is North compared to the general public at large. For what it's worth, my local flying club doesn't seem to have many that peer at the sky, except to moan at the cloud ceiling (at least we have that in common!).

I'm currently doing my National Private Pilots licence, so there may be something in this! If you think that astronomy is a bottomless moneypit, then don't even think about flying!

The EQ8s are great mounts for the money!

I love it! Would you mind sharing how you did these bits?

That's a nice simple design. All you need now is a couple of limit switches and an ASCOM interface

Use a Geoptik saddle but take the knobs off and replace with Allen bolts http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/geoptik-universal-dual-load-mounting-saddle-plate.html

If successful the card issuer will advise what to do. The retailer won't come into it as the claim is handled by the card issuer.

They can ask all they want, but you have no obligation to go to the retailer first or even at all. The law is clear- they are jointly and severally liable. This means that they are as liable, no more or no less, than the retailer. There is no "first point of call"- you have complete freedom to claim from the card issuer first if you so wish. If the card issuer takes this approach, then you might want to point the at case 86/08 on the Financial Ombudsman's website: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/86/86-consumer-credit.htm "card provider refuses to consider claim under section 75 until consumer has first pursued the matter direct with the supplier: complaint upheld We were satisfied, from the evidence Miss V had provided, that the dinner service was not a matching set. So she had not been given what she had paid for with her credit card. Under section 75, she could seek redress from the supplier of either the goods or the credit. We thought Miss V had taken reasonable steps to try to resolve matters with the supplier. Despite what the card provider appeared to believe, however, she was not obliged to have done this - or indeed to have returned the dinner service - before she could make a claim to the card provider. We told the card provider that Miss V was not obliged to exhaust all possible avenues with the supplier before claiming under section 75. And we said we could see no reason why it should not pay the claim. The card provider argued that if it gave Miss V a refund then she would still have the dinner set, as well as getting her money back. It did not think this was fair." (emphasis mine) Of course, you will be asked to prove your claim. Yes, you could go down the Moneyclaim route. perhaps a written notification to the retailer might jog his/her conscience into action, especially if you remind them that the costs are claimable if you win. A S75 claim may be easier and faster.

The card issuer may try and reject the claim if the retailer has rejected it. If one was to make a claim under S75 and declined to offer the information that the retailer has supplied, but rather showed the maker's specifications and your finding showing those specs to be in doubt, then I would suspect that such a claim may be stronger. You are under no obligation to tell the card issuer that the retailer has rejected a claim, as the card issuer is jointly and severally liable. You are free to pursue a claim with the retailer or the card issuer. An independent optician's report would nail it, but that would incur costs which the claimant would then have to pursue. The mention that the costs of such a test would be added to the S75 claim might also influence the card issuer to come to a sensible decision....

Under Section 75 of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act the card issuer jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the company, as long as the item cost was more than £100. So you can make a claim through the card issuer without even talking to the retailer, though in most cases you would normally (as you have done) speak to the retailer first. As the card issuer is jointly liable, they have an obligation to you regardless of the retailer's position. More info here: http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

Did you buy it using a credit card for some or all of the purchase? If so, you are, depending on the timescale, protected under Section 75. You can make a claim directly to the card issuer without involving the supplier.

Steve is using a Tak 85, which is a Petzval design. There is no reducer or flattener in use (outside the Petsval) and the design means that, AFAIK, spacing isn't that critical. Having said that, it'd be worth playing about with spacing. Is it worth playing with focus as well? If the focus is set bang-on in the centre of the imaging circle then there is a chance that it will be out at the edge, especially with a large sensor. After all, no focal plane is perfectly flat. What about setting the focus bang-on about 20-55% out from the centre? That might give the best balance of focus and minimize distortions? :icon_scratch:

Nah, it's knackered Steve. I'll take it off your hands for £50 and that's me cutting me own froat.....

:grin:

What issue? Even with a small sensor like an original Lodestar you will have a 35.33' x 27.25' FoV. I'll eat my metaphorical hat if you can't find a guidestar in that!

Hmm..you have the potential for mirror flop to contend with. Rigidity is everything in guiding...and a moving mirror does not give rigidity. <edit> I'd be tempted to try the ED80. The slightly longer focal length won't cause an issue. The ED80 is a lot heavier than the ST, but you've got the Mesu now. You'll not be running out of capacity just yet!

I'd agree with this. I personally never liked the look of those guidescope mounts and have always treated them with some suspicion. Too many pivot points and potential areas of movement. With a short focal length guidescope is there any need to move the guidescope at all?

Wouldn't the PA have to be a far bit out to get field rotation?

I would agree with that...the bottom corners look OK to me too. the top right looks marginally worse than the top left. It could be sensor tilt, a bit of slop in the focuser, flex in the filterwheel front or rear plates. it could be a right old so-and-so to track down. Steve, are you using a fully threaded connection from the focuser to the camera? Do you have CCD Inspector to run some subs through?

No idea, to be honest. I was an EQMOD user...very powerful software.

I found a wireless gamepad to be very hit-and-miss, even when stood beside the receiver. A wired one worked perfectly every time.

Im getting there. The weather, as usual, is stopping play as it seems horrible when I have free time and clear when I have commitments