Advice for a beginner

[DBushell]

Wonders of the solar system by Brian Cox, and 35 years of curiosity have culminated in my purchasing my first half decent telescope.

Now nearly 1 month on, and 4 nights viewing I'm at the point where I'm wondering if my amateur scope the Celestron 130eq md, is capable of more.

There's lots of useful information about eye pieces and filters and I have a few questions:

1. Does an IR filter give you more vivid colours of the planets through your eye, or is the colour reserved for astro imaging?

2. My scope came with a 10mm, 20mm erecting and I've since purcahsed a Celestron Omni 2X barlow - all of which give good results in my opinion, but I was wondering if a 4mm plossi is pushing it? I understand that the telescopes light gathering ability directly affects how bright the object appears in the scope - and that more magnification makes the object dimmer - currently both Jupiter and Saturn look bright in all my eyepieces, so hopefully the 4mm will bring them a bit closer? I'd love to hear others experiences. I'm still learning.

3. To polar align the scope am I correct in saying the mount should be pointed to North, the pitch be set to 52 degrees for Cambridgeshire, and then use the scope to find the pole star? Or have I missed something? So far I've wanted to get used to finding objects using my eyes and the rather poor red dot finder, but I'd like to learn how to do it properly.

Any help greatly appreciated. You have a great resource here

[Ags]

Welcome to the forum.

IR filters are for imaging only - your eye cannot see infrared after all. You can try some filters for planets - I hear the baader neodymium filter gives good contrast on planets and the moon but I have never tried it myself. Remember that a filter can only make the object you are observing dimmer.

You can try a 4mm EP but you mat find the image goes too dim or soft. You need to be aware of the eye relief of the EP - at 4mm a plossl Ep forces your eyeball right up to the glass. A different design like the TS Planetary HRs that I use give a more comfortable eye distance and shows a wider field as well.

[DOBBY]

Hi... & welcome to the forum

& your 'scope is ??

[magic612]

1. I've never used an IR filter, so I can't speak to that.

2. A 2x barlow with a 10mm eyepiece effectively provides what a 5mm eyepiece will show. So getting a 4mm isn't going to change that by much. What would perhaps be a better investment is a good low power eyepiece, such as a 32mm Plossl. Despite many observers longing for higher magnification (which is useful for planets, and some DSO's), lower power is an underappreciated component of viewing. Some objects are just plain big (the Pleiades, M33, for example), and require more "room" in the eyepiece to see them. Just a suggestion.

3. Sounds like you're on the right track and you understand the basics correctly. I made a video that may help you be more certain of what you're doing:

[fizzer]

Hi,

Welcome to SGL, where in Cambs are you? We have a good Astro club over in St Neots, your more than welcome to come along and we should be able to get you pointing in the right direction, check out our website for more info www.snaa.co.uk.

Regards

Richard

[DBushell]

Hi... & welcome to the forum

& your 'scope is ??

....is in my original message!! Celestron 130eq md

Thanks for the suggestions guys, the link to the video is very useful, will check out the snaa.co.uk website too, no promises though, since I work in London and live just north of Saffron Walden and time management is an issue at the moment!

So I can get this straight in my head can someone explain how magnification is worked out.

If I use a 2x barlow with a 10mm, what magnification is that? I understand that what I want is a sharp image over a fuzzy image thats just bigger. I've had three occasions to view Jupiter so far, and while I can get it to look sharp, can see the moons etc, I'm having trouble seeing banding. I can just about see a yellowy colour other than white, but usually its hardly discenable. It may be my eyes are shot to bits after years of computer work

One thing I did notice, was that on a misty night where only the brightest objects were visible, I managed to find Saturn low on the horizon, and found it to be far more colourful than I have seen before - almost as if the mist took away the brightness enough for some colour to come through?

Amazing to see it just hanging there!!

Thank you for helping a beginner.

David.

[magic612]

So I can get this straight in my head can someone explain how magnification is worked out.

Take the focal length of your telescope, in millimeters, and divide it by the focal length of the eyepiece, in millimeters. This give you the magnification that THAT eyepiece provides, in a telescope with that focal length. To get the magnification with the barlow, multiply the magnification by the factor that the barlow magnifies by.

So you have a Celestron 130EQ MD, which if I'm not mistaken is 650mm focal length. To get the magnification, divide by the eyepiece focal lengths:

650 / 20 = 33 (approximately - I just round up)

650 / 10 = 65

So a 10mm EP in this scope with a 2x barlow should produce 130x magnification.

It is not surprising you didn't see much detail at 65x. That's a pretty low magnification for planets. 100x to 150x is where detail generally shows up. Higher than that is where things can get fuzzy, and the atmosphere can be problematic. So that 100-150 range is kind of a 'sweet spot' from what I've generally seen, except on those really steady nights when you can push things higher.

And on those hazy nights, the atmosphere is often very steady, and yes, the slight dimming of the planet by the haze can sometimes help you see fainter details that a brighter-looking planet might wash out.

Make sense?