Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

Ouroboros

Members
  • Content Count

    2,491
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,072 Excellent

About Ouroboros

  • Rank
    Brown Dwarf

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    South Oxfordshire & North Cornwall Coast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I would send em in. They will be factoring in variations in eye sensitivity.
  2. That’s very good. I would have thought Marlow was about as light polluted as here. However, my eyes are much less sensitive now than they used to be. I can only see Mag 5 in Bortle Class 2 with averted vision. I can’t see mag 6 at all now.
  3. Yep, had a go at it tonight and sent in my count. Here in Oxfordshire I counted 11 stars inside the Orion rectangle they specify. That’s borderline “some to severe” light pollution on their scale - though I knew that already.
  4. Yes, I don't know when SW introduced a USB port in these mounts. My older AZ-EQ6 doesn’t have one. I don’t think Wicklowskies mentions whether his mount has one or not. I must say I don’t understand why you would connect to the hand controller when the Hitecastro USB EQ Direct Interface' cable connects directly to the mount. The hand controller doesn’t do anything, as far as I can recall, when connected to the computer. PS When you connect your mount to the computer via USB can you still control the mount locally with the handset still connected - or is the handset USB too?
  5. How significant is field rotation over a minute or so? Would using a CMOS camera with their short exposures of 60s or so allow you to get away with it? Also for planetary and lunar imaging, do the various processing apps compensate for field rotation?
  6. Great image! Auriga is one of my favourite constellations, particularly through binoculars.
  7. Oh good. I’m sure a lot more people will be along in a while more than qualified to make it much more complicated.
  8. Yes, I see. I slightly misread your question. Would a pier extension do the job?
  9. If it were me I’d set up my telescope, polar align the mount and see if it is stable enough. I wouldn’t jump up and down on the concrete. After all who jumps up and down in their observatory? But I’d walk around etc. and see how stable the mount is over a period of a few hours, or days if you’ve got a cover. I’m guessing for observing it’s probably fine. Imaging on the other hand requires you walk around the scope, or be in the observatory at least some of the time. I set up and image with my mount on some concrete slabs loosely cemented into some underlying hard core and it’s fine.
  10. They are indeed. Trouble is my glasses mist up so I can’t see a bloomin’ thing.
  11. I have seen Mercury through bins a handful of times. Not through a telescope unfortunately. I don’t have clear enough views to the horizon. I have always got a bit of a thrill from spotting when I have by eye or bins. Once you get your eye in it’s interesting to keep track of it as the days go by.
  12. Yeah, I did that for quite a while. I had a darks library with dark shots saved in order of chip temperature. After a few tests I decided they didn’t make much if any difference. Sometimes they made things worse. So I stopped using them. Dithering and better processing in PI seemed to give me satisfactory images.
  13. I’m wondering about the bit about connecting the Hitecastro to the hand controller. I connect mine directly to the mount. It’s probably not a or even the problem, but I thought I’d mention it. I seem to recall they used to say that connecting via the hand controller was possible but not supported. I used to find the YouTube videos by Chris Shillito of the EQMOD project very instructive, including on COM port matters. They are still on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVrU4T3b2d25cMaqbGNBxQA Things might have moved in since then so I apologise if the info is out of date. I
  14. The theory of relativity will still work as well as it does now in the areas that it works well now even if it turns out that the speed of light is anisotropic. New or modified theories always have to be back compatible as it were with older theories in areas where those work well. It's just that the newer theory explains something additional better that the older theory fails to explain as well
  15. Part of me thinks even if it did would it make any material difference? It might be easy to conclude not. On the other hand, as that article suggests, string theory may predict that light speed is anisotropic. So, confirmation one way or the other would provide some experimental evidence which I understand is lacking for string theory.
×
×
  • 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.