Meade Infinity 102

[Stu]

3 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

I wasn't recommending that Ray bought the Baader Solar filter, especially as I've never used it. At the end of the day, Baader make an ultra high contrast filter which just happens to be more broadband than narrowband, otherwise they would probably called it something else. Even in Baader's own advertising they suggest it would suitable for smaller aperture telescopes, although they don't specify any specific type.

The UHC-S filter has a significantly different band pass to most recognised UHC filters. In fact if you look at, and understand the filter curves for it, it appears far closer to normal deep sky filters, letting in an additional set of wavelengths over and above the OIII and Hb.

From personal real life experience, I know that the Lumicon UHC and OIII filters perform much better even in scopes down to 85mm because they facilitate better contrast between target and background, assuming standard practice such as proper dark adaptation.

[Stu]

On 28 June 2016 at 15:32, Stu said:

Somewhere around x40 to x60 often works best. The sun tends to go against standard practice in that it is not necessarily at it's best when at it's highest. Often the convection currents caused by the ground and atmosphere heating can make the seeing very poor around midday. Best options are early morning and later in the afternoon, either before or after the heat of the day. It's a matter of finding a balance between the sun being high enough to be out of the worst of the atmosphere, but before everything starts to heat up. If the seeing is really steady, then I do use higher magnifications, up to x150, particularly to pick out the granulation cells but I use a Herschel Wedge in a Tak scope so will be able to push things harder than you. Use the x40/60 as a start point and see how you go.

Because you have the full aperture solar film, you can leave filters on the diagonal as no heat enters the OTA. I use a Baader Continuum filter which works very well, but if you have a UHC can be very effective too, outside that a good green filter, not sure of numbers etc.

Make sure you are methodical about putting the filter on and taking it off ie make sure you point the scope away from the sun before you remove it. Cover or remove your finder..blah, blah, blah, you know the drill but do take care.

Just a little reminder Mak of where the Baader Continuum filter was mentioned much earlier....

[Mak the Night]

9 minutes ago, Stu said:

The UHC-S filter has a significantly different band pass to most recognised UHC filters. In fact if you look at, and understand the filter curves for it, it appears far closer to normal deep sky filters, letting in an additional set of wavelengths over and above the OIII and Hb.

From personal real life experience, I know that the Lumicon UHC and OIII filters perform much better even in scopes down to 85mm because they facilitate better contrast between target and background, assuming standard practice such as proper dark adaptation.

I thought you posted a link earlier that claimed the UHC-S was considered by some a narrowband? I have a Lumicon UHC and a Baader UHC-S and they are different. The UHC-S may have a different bandpass to most UHC filters but it still achieves similar results and reveals nebula clouds, it's just that the Baader includes some city light suppression, which more traditional filters don't so much. Plus, the Baader is more suitable for smaller aperture scopes. Even Lumicon claim that they consider 150mm to be the recommended lower limit for using their filters.

[Stu]

9 minutes ago, Ray of LIght said:

This is all my fault. But I did say that my Baader UHC filter was a broadband filter as stated above. My mistake, through ignorance, was not calling it by its name which is a UHC-S. I apoligize to all.

No apologies needed Ray, none at all.

[Mak the Night]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Just a little reminder Mak of where the Baader Continuum filter was mentioned much earlier....

Thanks Stu.

[Stu]

Just now, Mak the Night said:

I thought you posted a link earlier that claimed the UHC-S was considered by some a narrowband? I have a Lumicon UHC and a Baader UHC-S and they are different. The UHC-S may have a different band pass to most UHC filters but it still achieves similar results and reveals nebula clouds, it's just that the Baader includes some city light suppresion, which more traditional filters don't so much. Plus, the Baader is more suitable for smallr aperture scopes. Even Lumicon claim that they consider 150mm to be the lower limit.

You will find plenty of experienced observers who use the Lumicon filters (and Astronomik) in smaller scopes, it's simply untrue that they are not useful (excuse the double negative), you just have to know how to use them, with the right conditions and dark adaptation. The results are better than UHC-S.

I was not trying to take the thread down a pedantic route, simply to impart information to Ray about filters he may find useful for solar observing. A proper UHC will give better results for solar white light than a UHC-S, due to it's tighter band pass. The SC filter will be better but I do not think it necessary for Ray to buy one now as he has only looked at the sun once through the scope.

A simple 'Ray has a UHC-S filter not a UHC' would have saved a whole load of time.

[Mak the Night]

25 minutes ago, Stu said:

You will find plenty of experienced observers who use the Lumicon filters (and Astronomik) in smaller scopes, it's simply untrue that they are not useful (excuse the double negative), you just have to know how to use them, with the right conditions and dark adaptation. The results are better than UHC-S.

I was not trying to take the thread down a pedantic route, simply to impart information to Ray about filters he may find useful for solar observing. A proper UHC will give better results for solar white light than a UHC-S, due to it's tighter band pass. The SC filter will be better but I do not think it necessary for Ray to buy one now as he has only looked at the sun once through the scope.

A simple 'Ray has a UHC-S filter not a UHC' would have saved a whole load of time.

Well, Stu, I definitely thought the Lumicon UHC was a tad aggressive for my 102mm Mak and I live in the greenbelt and have fairly dark skies. I personally wouldn't recommend one for a 102mm Maksutov anyway. As I said much earlier, it may work with a 102mm refractor depending on location and conditions. This is why I originally recommended to Ray that the Baader UHC-S was suitable for smaller apertures. This was discussed several pages back. I'm not sure what Ray's light pollution situation is, but I would have thought it would not be the norm to use a Lumicon UHC filter generally with a 4" scope, whether it be a refractor or reflector. I did suggest a narrowband filter might work all depending on circumstances. All things being equal, the UHC-S would be the more logical choice for a smaller aperture scope. It is probable that a narrowband filter can be used on a small scope with some efficacy, but I'm pretty sure the seeing and conditions would have to be exceptionally good and you'd have to be at a very dark site. Ray actually does have a UHC-S and not a conventional narrowband filter UHC. He mentioned this some replies ago.

[Stu]

4 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

Well, Stu, I definitely thought the Lumicon UHC was a tad aggressive for my 102mm Mak and I live in the greenbelt and have fairly dark skies. I personally wouldn't recommend one for a 102mm Maksutov anyway. As I said much earlier, it may work with a 102mm refractor depending on location and conditions. This is why I originally recommended to Ray that the Baader UHC-S was suitable for smaller apertures. This was discussed several pages back. I'm not sure what Ray's light pollution situation is, but I would have thought it would not be the norm to use a Lumicon UHC filter generally with a 4" scope, whether it be a refractor or reflector. I did suggest a narrowband filter might work all depending on circumstances. All things being equal, the UHC-S would be the more logical choice for a smaller aperture scope. It is probable that a narrowband filter can be used on a small scope with some efficacy, but I'm pretty sure the seeing and conditions would have to be exceptionally good and you'd have to be at a very dark site. Ray actually does have a UHC-S and not a conventional narrowband filter UHC. He mentioned this some replies ago.

Well Mak... I think it is difficult to recommend things based up using a long focal length Mak vs a fast refractor, the exit pupils achievable in the refractor make it a different case.

The thing is, I don't need to use language such as 'I'm pretty sure' because I know, I've done it many times. The seeing conditions are actually largely irrelevant, that is more important for high power planetary observing, but yes, very good transparency definitely helps.

Good dark adaptation also makes a big difference, as do good skies of course, but that's true of anything. Putting a blanket over your head and getting your eyes properly adapted can show you a whole lot more even if your skies aren't the best. I would not use anything else when at any reasonable site so for me it would be the norm if I wanted to see these objects.

This was nothing to do with dark sky usage of a UHC/UHC-S, but about which is best for solar in the absence of a Continuum filter. The answer is that a UHC is better. Whether a UHC-S is a narrowband or broadband filter bothers me not a bit. I see references to it being both, for me it is somewhere in between like the other nebula filters, but it is not a true UHC filter, that much is clear.

[Stu]

4 hours ago, Stu said:

 

I've always considered a UHC filter to be a narrowband, it restricts the frequencies quite heavily vs other more general light pollution filters. They do vary of course, the Lumicon being one of the tighter ones.

This whole conversation started with me correctly stating that a UHC filter is a narrowband filter. To which you responded that a UHC-S is not a narrowband filter which actually does not relate to my statement at all.

Despite seeing references to both, as said I think the UHC-S lies somewhere between narrowband broadband but is not a 'proper' UHC

[Mak the Night]

Just now, Stu said:

Well Mak... I think it is difficult to recommend things based up using a long focal length Mak vs a fast refractor, the exit pupils achievable in the refractor make it a different case.

The thing is, I don't need to use language such as 'I'm pretty sure' because I know, I've done it many times. The seeing conditions are actually largely irrelevant, that is more important for high power planetary observing, but yes, very good transparency definitely helps.

Good dark adaptation also makes a big difference, as do good skies of course, but that's true of anything. Putting a blanket over your head and getting your eyes properly adapted can show you a whole lot more even if your skies aren't the best. I would not use anything else when at any reasonable site so for me it would be the norm if I wanted to see these objects.

This was nothing to do with dark sky usage of a UHC/UHC-S, but about which is best for solar in the absence of a Continuum filter. The answer is that a UHC is better. Whether a UHC-S is a narrowband or broadband filter bothers me not a bit. I see references to it being both, for me it is somewhere in between like the other nebula filters, but it is not a true UHC filter, that much is clear.

The 102mm Meade isn't that fast a refractor (f/5.8) although admittedly faster than an f/12.7 Mak. My Lumicon filter is too aggressive for my f/6.9 130mm as well, although I'm pretty sure it won't be for my 235mm SCT. I merely suggested that the UHC-S worked well for a 4" scope in average conditions. I doubt whether 'the seeing conditions are largely irrelevant' as they are most definitely relevant to both planetary and DSO observing. Good transparency doesn't just help, it can make the difference between viewing something well and not viewing it well. I can often see M4 with the naked eye, when I can I know the seeing is good for me.

A UHC may be better for solar viewing. I wouldn't know. But Ray has a UHC-S which is not a narrowband ultra high contrast filter, although, I guess he knows that.

[Mak the Night]

7 minutes ago, Stu said:

This whole conversation started with me correctly stating that a UHC filter is a narrowband filter. To which you responded that a UHC-S is not a narrowband filter which actually does not relate to my statement at all.

Despite seeing references to both, as said I think the UHC-S lies somewhere between narrowband broadband but is not a 'proper' UHC

Yes, that's what I said, the UHC-S is not a narrowband filter.

[Stu]

1 minute ago, Mak the Night said:

The 102mm Meade isn't that fast a refractor (f/5.8) although admittedly faster than an f/12.7 Mak. My Lumicon filter is too aggressive for my f/6.9 130mm as well, although I'm pretty sure it won't be for my 235mm SCT. I merely suggested that the UHC-S worked well for a 4" scope in average conditions. I doubt whether 'the seeing conditions are largely irrelevant' as they are most definitely relevant to both planetary and DSO observing. Good transparency doesn't just help, it can make the difference between viewing something well and not viewing it well. I can often see M4 with the naked eye, when I can I know the seeing is good for me.

A UHC may be better for solar viewing. I wouldn't know. But Ray has a UHC-S which is not a narrowband ultra high contrast filter, although, I guess he knows that.

Most people would consider f5.8 as fast for a refractor. Not for a large newt but yes for a refractor which you seem to have little experience of.

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the difference between seeing and transparency. Seeing relates to the stability of the atmosphere and largely determines whether or not you will get for views of objects, largely planets and doubles at high power. It is influenced by the Jetstream at high level and by convection currents caused by ground heating of the air etc at lower level. It has very little impact on the views of DSOs at low power.

Transparency is as it says, the transparency of the atmosphere due to pollutants and high hazy cloud. Even an apparently clear night can have poor transparency which stops you seeing the fainter DSOs.

I think it important to get these basic terms correct otherwise it can cause confusion.

[Mak the Night]

4 minutes ago, Stu said:

Most people would consider f5.8 as fast for a refractor. Not for a large newt but yes for a refractor which you seem to have little experience of.

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the difference between seeing and transparency. Seeing relates to the stability of the atmosphere and largely determines whether or not you will get for views of objects, largely planets and doubles at high power. It is influenced by the Jetstream at high level and by convection currents caused by ground heating of the air etc at lower level. It has very little impact on the views of DSOs at low power.

Transparency is as it says, the transparency of the atmosphere due to pollutants and high hazy cloud. Even an apparently clear night can have poor transparency which stops you seeing the fainter DSOs.

I think it important to get these basic terms correct otherwise it can cause confusion.

I've owned small refractors in the past, but I think that my advice to Ray was relevant. I even stated that a conventional UHC might work well, but there are a lot of factors I don't know about his locale, which I also stated. Perhaps if you'd read the entire thread you'd have seen this.

I know what seeing and transparency are and how the seeing affects the optical refractive index, it's what makes stars twinkle. I also know what transparency is. What I stated earlier is perfectly relevant.

I doubt I'm the one who's confused here.

[Stu]

31 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

I can often see M4 with the naked eye, when I can I know the seeing is good for me.

Stating that you can see M4 with the naked eye because of good seeing rather than good transparency indicates that you may, unfortunately be a little confused in this area.

[Mak the Night]

41 minutes ago, Stu said:

Stating that you can see M4 with the naked eye because of good seeing rather than good transparency indicates that you may, unfortunately be a little confused in this area.

'Good transparency doesn't just help, it can make the difference between viewing something well and not viewing it well. I can often see M4 with the naked eye, when I can I know the seeing is good for me. ' (sic)

It's more likely my syntax and exposition didn't accurately denote what I meant. Due to half of my body being partially paralysed I have to type with my left and non-dominant hand only. This tends to affect my response time and how I compose replies. Furthermore, I've spent the last eighteen months learning to talk and walk again. So I may not be as explicit as I once was. As I see it, transparency and seeing can dictate whether I see M4 with the naked eye or not anyway. Especially considering M4 is low and in the south in the summer. I am situated at a high point above sea level on the edge of a sloping glacial rift valley. Saturn and Mars are still easily visible for me and I am at an altitude slightly elevated looking out from the south east to the south west which is slightly below me. It is mostly open country and farmland after a couple of streets to my south for several kilometres.

Of course, after several catastrophic brain bleeds resulting in some considerable brain damage, I'm bound to get a little confused. I did know which filter Ray was referring to though, so maybe I have moments of lucidity.

[Aaron F Johnson]

Some good info on barlowing here...Thanks Dave...I have a synta or the celestron 2x and used a lensepen to clean a stain wich left fine swirly scatches after wich I would never recomend using one although I did keep mine for the brush and I now use a microfiber over the lense scrubber and it works good to get uniform cleaning over the curved surface of some lenses but my question is the fine scratches, can they be buffed out? or should I just by a new one...I just know the fine scratching must be affecting the view but it's impossible to tell for sure...

[Mak the Night]

3 minutes ago, Aaron F Johnson said:

Some good info on barlowing here...Thanks Dave...I have a synta or the celestron 2x and used a lensepen to clean a stain wich left fine swirly scatches after wich I would never recomend using one although I did keep mine for the brush and I now use a microfiber over the lense scrubber and it works good to get uniform cleaning over the curved surface of some lenses but my question is the fine scratches, can they be buffed out? or should I just by a new one...I just know the fine scratching must be affecting the view but it's impossible to tell for sure...

I'm guessing that there was some contaminant on the lens scrubber that scratched the lens surface. It's always been a concern of mine if that could happen. I don't know about the fine scratching. I think you can buy new Barlow elements for reasonable prices. 

[Aaron F Johnson]

Yea I originally also had concerns with the lensepen and used it for a year or so always inspecting the lenses with my 7x jewlers eyepiece  as I have every lense cleaned for 20 years...its how I discovered the issue...For good spin I will take it to an optical center and see what happens...I go by one everyday anyways, if it saves me 40us it would be a lift. Thanks Mak...

[Mak the Night]

6 minutes ago, Aaron F Johnson said:

Yea I originally also had concerns with the lensepen and used it for a year or so always inspecting the lenses with my 7x jewlers eyepiece  as I have every lense cleaned for 20 years...its how I discovered the issue...For good spin I will take it to an optical center and see what happens...I go by one everyday anyways, if it saves me 40us it would be a lift. Thanks Mak...

It's a possibility the lenspen only scratched the lens coatings and not the glass itself.

[Aaron F Johnson]

Yes possible but at 7x up close magnification it's clearly in the glass...most wouldent even notice the damage as to the naked eye its hardly to barely noticeable...I'm just glad I have a good quaulity check proccess I can imagine the long term damage to an eyepiece collection and that I'm not the first. Couldent imagine not catching this in time though...

[Mak the Night]

1 minute ago, Aaron F Johnson said:

Yes possible but at 7x up close magnification it's clearly in the glass...most wouldent even notice the damage as to the naked eye its hardly to barely noticeable...I'm just glad I have a good quaulity check proccess I can imagine the long term damage to an eyepiece collection and that I'm not the first. Couldent imagine not catching this in time though...

Yes, it's quite a disconcerting thing. I'm reluctant to use lenspens but I only use them lightly when I have done. I can only presume that there was something in the stain on your Barlow that the lenspen picked up and rubbed into the lens. Or it transferred something from another lens, I've often suspected that they can do that as well.

[Stu]

6 hours ago, Mak the Night said:

'Good transparency doesn't just help, it can make the difference between viewing something well and not viewing it well. I can often see M4 with the naked eye, when I can I know the seeing is good for me. ' (sic)

It's more likely my syntax and exposition didn't accurately denote what I meant. Due to half of my body being partially paralysed I have to type with my left and non-dominant hand only. This tends to affect my response time and how I compose replies. Furthermore, I've spent the last eighteen months learning to talk and walk again. So I may not be as explicit as I once was. As I see it, transparency and seeing can dictate whether I see M4 with the naked eye or not anyway. Especially considering M4 is low and in the south in the summer. I am situated at a high point above sea level on the edge of a sloping glacial rift valley. Saturn and Mars are still easily visible for me and I am at an altitude slightly elevated looking out from the south east to the south west which is slightly below me. It is mostly open country and farmland after a couple of streets to my south for several kilometres.

Of course, after several catastrophic brain bleeds resulting in some considerable brain damage, I'm bound to get a little confused. I did know which filter Ray was referring to though, so maybe I have moments of lucidity.

Well perhaps sometimes it's better to acknowledge that you may have expressed yourself incorrectly than to carry on trying to prove you were right ad nauseum! Thank you for that acknowledgement.

Let's move on, as we seem to have done finally.

[Dave In Vermont]

I use LensPen's commonly (very gently - regardless of what I'm using on optical-surfaces), and have never had scratches result. But in my way with anything that will touch a surface of a lens, I first blast the object I'm going to use on a lens clean with my Giotto - several times - and then use a super-soft brush on it - which I also blow clear first. The only time I'll resort to the LensPen is if there is a smudge of oil on the lens. Otherwise just blowing & brushing suffice.

I smell a new experiment crawling into my ear.....

Dave

[Ruud]

 

I´ve always been afraid of reusable materials for lens cleaning, so instead of a lenspen I use cotton balls with Baader´s Optical Wonder and instead of a micro fibre cloth I use Kleenex Regular.

With reusable materials I´m afraid I might be rubbing something around that I picked up elsewhere. I do just one wipe per cotton ball or per tissue, so I use plenty of them.

I just did the corrector plate of my SCT.

 

 

[Dave In Vermont]

I sure wouldn't suggest a LensPen for a corrector-plate! While Baader-fluid is excellent, the LensPen (which I clean religously first) works on a different principal than swabs and fluids. They use activated-charcoal (carbon) to essentially 'absorb' the spot of grease. For a full-on cleaning, I use Doc Clay's Cleaning Kit - available in a dry form which can be shipped out of the USA. The regular contains ammonia (NH3) and is not allowed to ship overseas.

https://www.optcorp.com/opt-doc-clay-s-cleaning-kit-complete.html

I just cleaned the corrector-plate/lens on my Maksutov with it. It literally looks better than when first shown the light of day. You can make your own from his formula - available in this paper of his:

http://arksky.org/asoclean.htm

Doc Clay being the resident Guru of all-things Cassegrain.

Have fun -

Dave