andrew s

Aperture masks clearly lead to a reduction in light entering the telescope. That's what a mask is. What else it does depends on its design and other environmental conditions. It can reduce the aperture to below the "seeing" to change the image from blurring to dancing! Apodising masks can change the diffraction pattern. They increase the focal ratio for H alpha solar work etc. Regards Andrew

I think that's true. However, it means a "point source" can be somewhat spread out and still be act as a point source as far as the eye is concerned. The eye brain system is very non linear as well as the basic logarithmic sensitivity to steady light it can be adaptive in low light in complex ways. Regards Andrew

In the eye several rods can be hard wired together so in effect on eye hardware binning 👀 Regards Andrew

The denominator or in slang the terminator. Regards Andrew

Have a word with Mrs @JeremyS I am sure see can sneak one out from under his nose without him noticing he has so many now. Regards Andrew Takahashi scopes not noses that is

Beautiful image @gorann, fantastic colour. Regards Andrew

Splendid image. Regards Andrew

Just what are you trying to say about me? I remember "train spotting" when it was a genteel pursuit (not that I did it). Regards Andrew

I think a 3 axis mount is ideal for tracking planes and satellites as used in the Baker Nunn satellite tracking telescopes. Not sure how easy they are for visual observation though. Regards Andrew

Getting better. Seeing is critical. Keep going. Regards Andrew

I am sure one would be ideal for your trotting sulky outings along side the car, plane and home Takahashies. 😜 Regards Andrew

Not all of it 😉 Regards Andrew

The inter pupillary distance looks a tad too wide. Regards Andrew

When the field stop is internal to the belly of the beast it can be larger than the entrance pupil of the eyepiece. So your N T5 may not be limited as you suspected @JeremyS . It would of course depend of the details of both the scope/diagonal and the eyepiece. I though you were having a nap (sorry meditating) after all that unboxing? Regards Andrew

Interesting @Captain Magenta. For an imaging Newtonian you only have one element with an unique optical axis as the secondary and focuser don't a unique optical axis only mechanical ones . They may however tilt or de-center the image and possible lead to vignetting. Adding an eyepiece adds a second optical axis. So I suspect unless the error is large it probably only makes a second order error. (How any people check the focuser travels along the optic axis?) For a Cassigrain both mirrors have unique optic axis and they are very sensitive to misalignment. Worse still the primary has a whole so no chance of spotting its center! Dipite the waffle I don't have any figures! Regards Andrew

I never expressed an opinion on panspermia one way or the other. I don't know how you can know what I "soaked up" from the presentation. You seem to have a tendency to ascribe views to others without any evidence. I will leave it here. Regards Andrew

They seek him here, they seek him there, they seek panspermia every where. Thanks for the clarification @robin_astro I did not doubt your comments were correct but this explains the different perspective we had from watching the video(s).🪐 Regards Andrew I

@Synchronicity I would perhaps be mindful that English is not his first language. Regards Andrew

Sorry can you say what I was incorrect about? Was it that the original papers authors did claim to prove panspermia , that the presenter did or both? I was trying to be supportive to you point of view on this video but I may have misjudged what you intended. Regards Andrew

This is in effect what was done in transit instruments but rather than measure the edge to edge transit times they initially used a cross wire defining the center of the field of view to time transits. Regards Andrew

I have just watched the video and while I am sure @robin_astro is right that the science papers did not make claims for panspermia I don't think the presenter did either. As a born sceptic I was surprised at how restrained his claims were In fact it was not unlike The Sky at Night episode on the PH3 discovery on Venus. He was just as circumspect as Greaves et al and told a scientific "just so" story not unlike their "hypothesis " paper. They even finished in the same way proposing more research. Regards Andrew

What I would like to know is how accurate the figure is on the mirrors as this will ultimately restrict the image quality when the seeing is good. It did also occur to me to ask if the secondary was center spotted to simplify collimation. If it was it would make a clear usp for them over similar clones in addition to FLO's customer service. Regards Andrew

It's less than £10.00 on Amazon so well worth a gamble. Regards Andrew

I insist on the 5th amendment or at least the bit on self-incrimination. Regards Andrew

Enjoying it in a masochistic way. The maths of the Universe, just hyperbolic! Regards Andrew