Observing with Smaller Apertures: 130mm and Below

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

It's the same thing. I wasn't mistaken. I know what I saw.  I'm bored with this Stu. And the Baader Neodymium still isn't just an LP filter. I won't reply to this topic again.

Which moons did you see Mak?

EDIT Yes, it's the same thing. It's about accuracy. Where I see things which are wrong, I will always try to correct them so they don't mislead other readers of this forum.

[Ray of LIght]

6 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

Stu is quite correct - they can't 'intensify' the emitted light. The amount of light you can see is determined by a number of factors such as atmospheric-conditions and what you're seeing up there. So while they can't increase the light that lands on them - they can give the illusion that the object is brighter by cutting off certains wavelengths, thus allowing dimmer ones to come to the forefront and shine.

Enjoy your filters!

Dave

 

 

Is the #15 as good as they say on solar Dave? I mentioned a couple others above. What do you think? Trying to get this thread back on track. Thanks.

[Scott]

just to clarify, lying and conveying erronious information are definately not the same thing. also, knowing what you see and thinking you know what you have seen are very hard to distinguish between.

To express scepticism on an astronomy forum is quite frankly to be expected and infact should be welcomed. Surely such claims should not be taken for granted 

I feel @Stu (and anyone else) is quite within their right to express doubt as long as its done respectfully which in this case I believe it was.

At the end of the day, most of us don't know each other from Adam and as such, should always read posts with a questioning mind. it's how we learn

[Ray of LIght]

19 minutes ago, Scott said:

just to clarify, lying and conveying erronious information are definately not the same thing. also, knowing what you see and thinking you know what you have seen are very hard to distinguish between.

To express scepticism on an astronomy forum is quite frankly to be expected and infact should be welcomed. Surely such claims should not be taken for granted 

I feel @Stu (and anyone else) is quite within their right to express doubt as long as its done respectfully which in this case I believe it was.

At the end of the day, most of us don't know each other from Adam and as such, should always read posts with a questioning mind. it's how we learn

I'm pretty new at this Scott and and what you have conveyed has been done respectfully and thoughtfully. I'm just not completely sure I can say the same about Stu's  comments. Mak has overcome (and is still overcoming) great physical difficulties. I can understand because I have been very sick myself in the past year. I give him much credit for continuing almost nightly an activity which can be very physical for prople with disabilitied, and even those without. I wish I could say the same for myself. That is one reason I began solar observing, at least until I can go out during the evening ( I take medication at night which makes it difficult to leave the house). Anyway, sometimes what we say should be tempered with understanding. Mak has tought me a lot and I hope he will continue to do so. Thank you Scott.

[Stu]

@Ray of LIght. I am sorry you feel that way, I have repeatedly and respectfully put a correct position regarding the Neodymium filter and that is constantly rejected. You are a new starter in all this and I believe it is important that you get correct information. In this case, I believe that was not the case. No offence is meant, but it is difficult when a brick wall is met each time.

Regarding the observation of the moons of Jupiter, I did not accuse MTN of lying, but I strongly believe he is mistaken; again I would prefer that you and anyone reading this thread have correct information. If you take the time to read the link I posted, the likelihood of MTN seeing those moons is pretty small. If he chooses to engage, and give times, dates and names of moons seen then that can take the debate further, to just back out when challenged respectfully is not helpful.

I am aware of both of your situations, and have huge sympathy and respect for both of your persistence in pursuing astronomy. I do have concerns that you are amassing a fair amount of kit on a limited budget without having given yourself a chance to try it out as you progress as a beginner. Refractors and Maks/reflectors are quite different in some ways so experience is not always transferable directly.

[Mak the Night]

A/ I am not incorrect in stating that the Baader Neodymium is not just a light pollution filter.

B/ I'm not the only person who has seen Jupiter's moons with the naked eye. I don't have to prove anything here, and I don't care if it's insinuated that I'm lying or mistaken. I know what I saw and I am NOT mistaken. It was over ten years ago looking east high in the plane of ecliptic from my back lawn. I checked with binoculars and an inexpensive 3" refractor I owned then. I saw at least two of the moons. They were definitely not background stars and almost certainly Ganymede and Callisto.

C/ I won't reply to this thread again. There is no point. I'm sorry Ray, it could have been a good thread, but there really is no point anymore.

[Ray of LIght]

47 minutes ago, Stu said:

@Ray of LIght. I am sorry you feel that way, I have repeatedly and respectfully put a correct position regarding the Neodymium filter and that is constantly rejected. You are a new starter in all this and I believe it is important that you get correct information. In this case, I believe that was not the case. No offence is meant, but it is difficult when a brick wall is met each time.

Regarding the observation of the moons of Jupiter, I did not accuse MTN of lying, but I strongly believe he is mistaken; again I would prefer that you and anyone reading this thread have correct information. If you take the time to read the link I posted, the likelihood of MTN seeing those moons is pretty small. If he chooses to engage, and give times, dates and names of moons seen thn that can take the debate further, to just back out when challenged respectfully is not helpful.

I am aware of both of your situations, and have huge sympathy and respect for both of your persistence in pursuing astronomy. I do have concerns that you are amassing a fair amount of kit on a limited budget without having given yourself a chance to try it out as you progress as a beginner. Refractors and Maks/reflectors are quite different in some ways so experience is not always transferable directly.

Respectfully Stu, my budget is my buisness. If I couldn't afford my gear I wouldn't get it. I get a certain joy out of it and am learning a lot about all types of equipment. The universe isn't going anywhere (as someone I respect commented), and hopefully neither am I, yet. This is the second ruined thread. As far as misinformation, as you can see I am not stupid. Sometimes you have to trust in the intelligence of the members. Also, I know the difference between all types of telescopes and what applies and what doesn't. Sometimes brick walls aren't meant to be broken down but built up. Look for me elsewhere, I will not give up on this forum. 

[Stu]

4 minutes ago, Ray of LIght said:

Respectfully Stu, my budget is my buisness. If I couldn't afford my gear I wouldn't get it. I get a certain joy out of it and am learning a lot about all types of equipment. The universe isn't going anywhere (as someone I respect commented), and hopefully neither am I, yet. This is the second ruined thread. As far as misinformation, as you can see I am not stupid. Sometimes you have to trust in the intelligence of the members. Also, I know the difference between all types of telescopes and what applies and what doesn't. Sometimes brick walls aren't meant to be broken down but built up. Look for me elsewhere, I will not give up on this forum. 

Fair enough Ray. I would encourage you to engage with the forum, there are many experienced members around here. Threads work well when they about specific questions and you gain input from all read.

[Stu]

7 minutes ago, Ray of LIght said:

Respectfully Stu, my budget is my buisness. If I couldn't afford my gear I wouldn't get it. I get a certain joy out of it and am learning a lot about all types of equipment. The universe isn't going anywhere (as someone I respect commented), and hopefully neither am I, yet. This is the second ruined thread. As far as misinformation, as you can see I am not stupid. Sometimes you have to trust in the intelligence of the members. Also, I know the difference between all types of telescopes and what applies and what doesn't. Sometimes brick walls aren't meant to be broken down but built up. Look for me elsewhere, I will not give up on this forum. 

Just to add, I respectfully disagree about trusting to members intelligence. It is important to maintain a balanced and accurate picture on the forum so I don't feel it right to leave things unchallenged if I feel that is the right thing to do. The only aim is accuracy and correct information nothing else.

[Steve]

I use a Neodymium filter for observing Jupiter, not for LPR. 

I can understand how someone saying they can see Jupiter's moons with naked eye might raise an eyebrow (you must have extraordinarily good eyesight). I get the same response when I say I can see nebulosity in Pleiades (most people I suspect can see it around the brightest stars but they think it's dew or flare). I have also seen dust lanes in Andromeda using an Evostar 80ED (the sky was exceptionally dark and clear) but several people have insisted I am mistaken. 

Regarding colour filters, I rarely use them but my understanding is all colour filters increase contrast to some extent so I can understand their popularity. 

Please, everyone, let this conversation continue in a friendly manner  

HTH

[Dave In Vermont]

May I suggest: All parties to please simply shake cyber-hands, agree to disagree, take a deep breath - let it slowly out the mouth - and realize that soon you'll laugh about this. You will - now relax? Good! Oy vey! -

What I'd like to know is: How does Neodymium fit into this equation? I have both the newer Baader Moon & Skyglow - Filter, as well as the older, pre-neodymium one. If you looked at their respective catalog-numbers, they are the same except the neodymium model has a CAPS-LOCK 'A' on the end.Yet the 'neodymium' recieves a greater amount of people who love these. Myself included.

So what in specific role is played by the rare-earth element: Neodymium? Anyone got a link to possible explanations? As an organic-chemist, I'd love to know it's function & history.

Have a clear-sky, Gentlemen -

Dave

[jetstream]

Zeiss got playing around with Neo glass filters which I don't think they ever marketed , when Baader took over their astro operation in the 90's they got a bunch of recipes. This filter was trying to be a good "comb" filter, suppressing light pollution and leaving the RGB for visual. It does not intensify anything however, nor does the IDAS.

It is possible that better filter technology has made the Neo redundant for serious work as filters like this IDAS have a better profile, leaving RGB intact. The IDAS is the bottom chart.

[Dave In Vermont]

If I had the glass-works at my disposal, I'd try experimenting with other Rare-Earth elements in the glass-substrate - such as Ytterbium and Samarium - and see what results.

Fascinating!

Dave

[Stu]

On 10 July 2016 at 21:21, Steve said:

I use a Neodymium filter for observing Jupiter, not for LPR. 

Steve, the point was not the application but what a neodymium filter actually does. From the frequency response graph, it is designed to remove specific frequencies of light associated with high pressure sodium and other artificial light sources.

I too use it for planetary observing, not as an LPR, and very good it is too, I have and will continue to recommend it as such, but that doesn't stop it being a light pollution filter in its response. I don't see that as a negative, so long as you understand its uses correctly?

Dust lanes in Andromeda and nebulosity in M45 are fairly regularly reported observations from dark sites. It's about contrast, transparency, sky brightness and dark adaptation.