Jump to content

NLC-Banner.thumb.jpg.acb5ba835b9e8bf0718b90539633017d.jpg

Standard newbie question.. :)


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I'm new to astronomy - after wanting a telescope for sometime, my wife recently bought me a Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ for my birthday. My joy quickly turned to frustration when I couldn't get a sharp, stable, image from it (when it finally stopped shaking, the stars looked more like wispy hairs than spots of light!) and, on going online, i discovered a lot of folks describing the exact problems with it I was having. So I want to follow the advice, move on from that before I'm totally fed up with it all, and get myself something that I can enjoy now and build on later on. My budget is around £400 and I'd really like something that I can upgrade rather than replace as time goes by.

I think I'll be mainly viewing, but I'd like to try astrophotography (I'm quite a keen photographer, with a DSLR already) so i'd definitely like the upgrade path to handle that. Right now I'm not entirely sure if I'll be mainly pointing at the moon/planets or DSO, so i don't want to rule either out - i know that makes the decision more difficult. I would like the setup to be portable enough to take on holiday with all the kids stuff (so, no car-fillers!) and i do like the hands-on learning aspect of all of this, so don't really want a GoTo right now (although, again i can see myself upgrading to this later, especially for imaging). I've read a lot suggesting that the mount is as important as the telescope itself and like the idea of a setup that i can later upgrade with motors or a GoTo system, so (currently, it changes everytime i browse the web!) I'm trying to choose between these two options:

Sky-Watcher Evostar 102 with the EQ3-2 mount - currently £399

or the Sky-Watcher Explorer 130P-DS- currently £229 - and getting the EQ3-2 mount separately - currently £209 

I'm leaning towards the 103P-DS, especially after seeing the fabulous pics people have posted in this forum using it. I do like how much smaller the 102 looks for portability, so I wonder if that'd be better (or possibly waiting a bit/stretching the budget to the Sky-Watcher Evostar 120 with EQ3-2 - currently £489).

Any advice would be greatfully received. Am i right in thinking the 130P will be ok on the EQ3-2 mount? Would it be smarter to not get an EQ mount at all at this stage and get something like the AZ4 mount instead (currently £189)? Any other suggestions for telescopes I've overlooked would be good too.

Thanks in advance,

Martin

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do yourself a favour and get the EQ5 instead, it is a MUCH better mount for a very similar price. The EQ3 will suffer if you upgrade one day and start dabbling in astrophotography, whereas the EQ5 is actially quite decent. Portability is the same too, it is only marginally heavier with counterweights taken into account. The mount is the heart of your kit, you dont want to hate using it.

1 hour ago, MartinT said:

My budget is around £400 and I'd really like something that I can upgrade rather than replace as time goes by.

Which is why to avoid the EQ3 class mounts (includes the 35), they lack mechanical quality for frustration free photography.

You would need to stretch the budget a bit though, as the EQ5 appears to be 320 pounds from FLO, but choosing the EQ3 and then later upgrading is much more expensive in the long run. 

The EQ3 would also handle the 130, but there are many unfixable issues and limitations that mostly disappear with the EQ5.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK , so you said you want to try astro photography ? And you want the set up to be portable ?

Maybe you might consider the AZ-Gti mount . Sure it only has a maximum 5kg payload and you would only be able to use small scopes ie a 127 Mak or a short tube 4" FRAC  or a 130 Newt , but you could also use your dslr on the mount with a suitable bracket . Also , just to stop the purists ranting at me , you may wish to buy a wedge and update the firmware on the az-gti to put it into EQ mode . The AZ-GTi is a great mount and a lot of people have taken some great photos , using it as their tracking platform 

I think you can buy it for aroung £ 450 including a 102 Mak . 

Not a bad start and i would say a lot better than what you previously used . 

Just my opinion of course , but , hey , thats why you asked :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Compromising on the mount to save some money has to be one of the most common beginner mistakes. Real false economy. 

Exactly...

Irrespective if you have a cheap scope with basic optics, or a top of the range ED triplet, they won't perform on a poor mount, but even a basic chap scope will give great results on a decent mount.

The EQ5 really is a decent mount.  It is upgradable, although going down the upgrade path works out more expensive than jumping to the end result at the start.  The basic mount retails around £315.  You then have a choice of two motorised upgrades, the non goto set for £215 or the full computerised goto upgrade at £389, bringing the total outlay to £530 and £704 respectively.  Buying the EQ5 pro goto outright at £674 saves you £30, but if your budget is limited then buying the unpowered mount and upgrading later may be your only option.

I've originally purchased an EQ5 / 200P combo and whilst this was a good combo, IMO the 200P was to much of a wind sail and pushed the mount to its limit.  If I had to recommend a combination, it would be the Skywatcher 150P / PDS on an EQ5.  This gives a decent fast scope with good aperture, on a stable mount which is also portable enough to place on the back seat of a car and taken to a decent dark site without giving you a workout.   However it would more than double your budget at £998 for the 150 PD-S pro goto version.  

As to going for goto or not... its a personal and subjective topic that has been discussed a lot on the forum.  For me I use it as a means to teach me the night sky, and it saves me time and frustration of doing it manually.  Others like to learn how to star hop and navigate the night sky using their own eyes... I would recommend some form of motorising the RA axis, irrespective of visual observing, or if you tried to image with the scope, having it track and keep an object in the field of view makes life a lot easier.  There is nothing worse then finding a target, then letting someone else have a look for them to see it disappearing out of view or not be there altogether.  The speed at which we are spinning becomes very apparent through a telescope.

Speaking form personal advice, try and think what you would like to achieve form the hobby and then see what kit fits that capability and then save or raise the cash to get that kit.  You may (most probably) get the urge to try and take pictures through the scope, and if you get hooked on this, then an EQ mount is essential.  So buy for the future not for today.  As mentioned I soon found that the 200P / EQ5 combo was at its limits by the time I added a camera etc.  I ended up betting a second-hand HEQ5 which was more than capable of handling the weight and size of the 200P.  I sold the EQ5 goto at a loss....

Second-hand kit will be cheaper, but given the current world shortage of kit, people are not upgrading as much, and even second-hand kit is commanding a premium and gets snapped up very quickly. 

Anyway that's my 2p worth... good luck with your research

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

OK , so you said you want to try astro photography ? And you want the set up to be portable ?

Maybe you might consider the AZ-Gti mount . Sure it only has a maximum 5kg payload and you would only be able to use small scopes ie a 127 Mak or a short tube 4" FRAC  or a 130 Newt , but you could also use your dslr on the mount with a suitable bracket . Also , just to stop the purists ranting at me , you may wish to buy a wedge and update the firmware on the az-gti to put it into EQ mode . The AZ-GTi is a great mount and a lot of people have taken some great photos , using it as their tracking platform 

I think you can buy it for aroung £ 450 including a 102 Mak . 

Not a bad start and i would say a lot better than what you previously used . 

Just my opinion of course , but , hey , thats why you asked :)

 

Some good suggestions there,

Personally, and I respect your opinion, if someone is looking at getting into imaging, an AZ mount is not the best suggestion IMO due to field rotation... But then you addressed this by suggesting the purchase of an additional wedge to convert the mount to EQ.  It shows that work arounds are available and whilst initially not required, can be undertaken at a later stage for an additional cost, without the need to replace the mount.  Alternatively, taking an EQ mount and setting the latitude to 0 converts it to an ALT AZ mount (but why you would do that is questionable 😟 ).  The OP would just have to factor the additional costs, which would be spread over time

The MAC would be an excellent planet killer - with high magnifications, but not so good for DSO's  - As we know until you start venturing into the big league with 14" SCT etc then we're in that "no scope fits all" arena.

The problem is that these days £400 doesn't get you far in purchasing  astro gear.  Often what you can get for that budget doesn't cover your wants, and what does cover your wants  and needs is twice your budget !

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything in this game is a compromise, there are diametrically opposed forces to be assessed and balanced out to make the best compromise for your specific situation . Maybe the first most obvious is overall cost vs quality, but then there's visual vs photo use,  aperture vs OTA size and weight, high magnification planetary use vs wide field DSO use, tripod lightness and portability vs tripod rigidity , altaz mount simplicity and speed of setup vs eq astro photo possibilities .... I could go on.

You've seen for yourself that the tripod and mount are going to be a limiting factor on any telescope you put on top , and for what you intend to spend you simply will not get a sturdy tripod, well made head , and a good telescope ( not new, anyway, you might come close if you are very lucky with second hand kit ) and that's not even taking in consideration the eyepieces, finder etc you will find you want to supplement the 'get you started' low grade stuff the 'scope manufacturers bundle with their kits to make them theoretically complete .

My suggestion is that you consider a planned upgrade path, start off with some  kit you will expect to keep , some which will be upgraded from , or relegated from 'the kit'  to 'the portable kit' , and think only of visual astronomy to start off with. The visual aspect is not exactly cheap , but it it far cheaper than the photography aspect !

Many folk on here own more than one 'scope , at least partly because that huge lovely light bucket Dobsonian takes some effort to shift outdoors, the complex , cable festooned , heavy astro photo set up needs carrying out, probably in several journeys, assembling, aligning and connecting up, but the small, lightweight refractor or newtonian on an alt az / tripod combo which is sturdy enough for the minimal weight of that OTA can be carried outside as one , parked on the lawn and be in use in moments, and when there is an hour's window between clouds, it's really cold , there's work or school tomorrow, or other calls on your time intrude, that's an important ability. 

Please don't be put off, this is a fascinating hobby, and you can buy , for example, a heritage dob for under £250 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/sky-watcher-heritage-150p-flextube-dobsonian-telescope.html  which will show you fantastic things (but will be rather limited for photography) , or I'd agree the AZ4 mount/tripod combo for  £190 and an explorer 130p https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/skywatcher-explorer-130p-ds-ota.html for £230 , £20 over your budget, but the 'scope could be used later on a more expensive mount for photography if you want ...

Heather

 

Edited by Tiny Clanger
spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much everyone, lots to think about!! That's a shame that the EQ3 isn't the base to build from i thought it was - but really great to know that now and avoid the pitfall. It's certainly wise advice to think about what my goals are, and think about the enjoyment now too. 

I think, from the responses, I'll park the longer term idea of building an astrophotography rig and focus on enjoying seeing the sights, maybe look into leaving the equatorial mount for now and consider the 130p on the AZ4 mount, or maybe the AZ GTi (though, too heavy?) - though I hadn't even considered the 102 Mak someone else mentioned, so that's certainly something to think about too. I don't think I saw any votes for either the Evostar 102 or 120 - is less there said the better? 

Cheers everyone, really helpful

M

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not that the EQ-3 a a bad mount... It's very capable with something like the 130 PDs or for visual, a 150P, especially if all you want is visual observing.   There are quite a few documented posts here where members have used a 130 PDS on an EQ3 for imaging, but the process wasn't without issues, often related to balance, payload weight, and technical issues, which to be fair can impact any mount.

The problem with posting questions on a public forum, you will get 101 different opinions and suggestions that end up confusing you more.   The post below says it all...

6 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Agree with that , Malcolm ... as we all eventually realise , there is always something to buy and although we set a budget , we very often exceed it . 

Not that I'm a serious about my imaging, there have been times where I look at other peoples results and considered replacing the DSLR with a dedicated astro camera, or replace the 200P with something three times the cost...  

With regards to the choice of scope, that depends on what subjects interest you.  Any MAC or SCT will give good results viewing the Moon and the planets, but you will have to mess about with focal reducers to see some of the fainter nebula an galaxies due to the larger focal length.  You'll still see them, but they can be seen easier in a telescope with a shorter focal length, without any adapters.  Conversely, a 150P can still give larger images of the planets by using barlow lenses, but the result won't be as good as a 6" MAC due to the additional glass you're placing between the target and your eye, unless of course you use a high end barlow lens, but then it all adds to the cost.

At the end of the day, it's got to be your decision.  If you can, call FLO or RVO and speak with the guys there, and see what they recommend.  In the pre CV19 days I would say go in to a retailer and look at the kit "in the flesh" so to speak, they look totally different when up close. But these days that may not be possible. 

The only other advice I can offer is take your time, and don't rush into it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before anyone else says it... if you are thinking to focus on visual astronomy to start with, how about an 8" dob?

It's something you'll keep even if you move into AP later.

Edited by Pixies
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks pixies - having read lots of similar threads I feel like having a dob recommended is a rite of passage here! Yes I was looking at dobs too, but they seem somewhat less portable than the other options and I can imagine wanting to take it camping etc when space in the the car is already pretty tight! I'm totally turned around though and a bit bewildered with choices tbh. 

I definitely think I'll park the photography plan for now and that does mean a dob would be good value. I was looking at the Bresser 6" dob. I like the idea of a collapsible base, plus its well within budget so I could even afford some extras (eyepiece? etc.) but I think I'd need to see it in the flesh to get an idea of just how big it is. But then I was also looking at the 102 mac on the az gti, which is a little beyond budget but really ticks the portability box and while I didn't originally fancy a goto, it would make including the kiddos with some easy spotting and viewing so much better too.

So many decisions! Very glad I'm giving it some time and thought though - I'm still super excited to get started. 

Thanks again for everyone's thoughts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the tabletop version of the Bresser dob?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/bresser-messier-6-tabletop-dobsonian.html

Only problem with the regular Bresser dob is that it is unavailable at the moment and may not be back in stock for months.

Or the 102 mak on a manual alt az mount?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/sky-watcher-skymax-102s-az-pronto.html

Edited by johninderby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/11/2021 at 11:31, MartinT said:

I think I'll be mainly viewing, but I'd like to try astrophotography

A way to get started with astrophotography is to start by imaging the moon and planets.  You can use your DSLR for this when you have a scope to attach it to.  Planetary imaging involves taking a video of the object, then using post processing software to stack only the best frames when the atmosphere is at its most stable.  This is how I started, using an EQ5 (not motorised at the time), before the bug bit me and I bought an NEQ6.  Deep sky astrophotography becomes somewhat more expensive.  🙂

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can sympathize with you as I was in the exact same position as you some months back. So many choices, so many scopes and mounts. I eventually decided on a 127 Maksutov Go to and I wasn’t disappointed with it’s performance, especially on the planets, moon and small bright deep sky targets like planetary nebulae. But due to having the Astro bug I added a 8” Dobsonian which certainly lives up to its reputation. These two keep me satisfied while I am saving up for my astrophotography rig. If this is your first go at astronomy then I advise you to get a visual set up and see if astronomy is your cup of tea before committing to a more expensive photography set up 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I bought my second scope, I went for the 102mm Mak, on a Synscan mount - and I found it quite a disappointment.  Yes, good for planets and the Moon, but it really struggled with DSOs unless you could get out to really dark skies.

The aperture didn't give enough light gathering for Galaxies and Nebulae to show up with enough contrast, and the long focal length gave a narrow field of view - which meant that Open Clusters didn't really show their best either.

You could probably use it to survey double stars, but that's a fairly niche interest. 

Unfortunately, at the time, the budget didn't really allow us to go for the 127mm Mak, and it's only the last 4 or 5 years that I managed to get one second hand - now that is a much more capable scope.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MartinT said:

I definitely think I'll park the photography plan for now and that does mean a dob would be good value. I was looking at the Bresser 6" dob. I like the idea of a collapsible base, plus its well within budget so I could even afford some extras (eyepiece? etc.) but I think I'd need to see it in the flesh to get an idea of just how big it is.

 

The size and weight of the bresser dobs is made clear on Bresser's site, and far easier to find than the equivalent info for some 'scopes (I know, 'cos I rather fancy the next size up, a 200mm dob, and research shows the Bresser is far lighter than the equivalents from other brands, an important factor for a weedy girlie like me , who would be carting the thing  in and out of the house myself)

So Bresser 150 (6") dob https://www.bresseruk.com/Astronomy/Telescopes/BRESSER-Messier-6-Planetary-Dobson-Telescope.html

 
 

DIMENSIONS & WEIGHTS

Net weight OTA (incl. accessories)8.3 kg

Total length 45 cm

Total width 45 cm

Total height 128 cm

Tube diameter 175 mm

Tube length 800 mm

Net Weight total (incl. accessories) 16.1 kg

Net weight mount (incl. accessories) 7.8 kg

I know the ads say the base can be dismantled/rebuilt easily , but as it is held together with furniture fasteners I'm not sure how it would cope with being taken apart regularly, maybe someone who owns one can give an opinion there .

Remember you look in the side near the top of a dob, so that 128cm height (roughly where my light switches are) will be where an observer's eye needs to be for objects close to overhead, maybe not ideal for small folk ...

Heather

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gfamily said:

When I bought my second scope, I went for the 102mm Mak, on a Synscan mount - and I found it quite a disappointment.  Yes, good for planets and the Moon, but it really struggled with DSOs unless you could get out to really dark skies.

The aperture didn't give enough light gathering for Galaxies and Nebulae to show up with enough contrast, and the long focal length gave a narrow field of view - which meant that Open Clusters didn't really show their best either.

You could probably use it to survey double stars, but that's a fairly niche interest. 

Unfortunately, at the time, the budget didn't really allow us to go for the 127mm Mak, and it's only the last 4 or 5 years that I managed to get one second hand - now that is a much more capable 

Doubles are niche ????  Not sure I agree . I think  most people look at doubles and indeed they are very much a main part of our interest . 

As for the 102 mak , well, many people including me will agree with your points but will also champion that scope as a very capable instrument that does what it does very well . At the end of the day, any scope will only perform if the sky and light pollution allows. 

Did you not know that Maks have a narrow field of view when you bought it?

What you see as a weakness is also their massive strength. 

Honestly no malice in my post,  just another opinion :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Doubles are niche ????  Not sure I agree . I think  most people look at doubles and indeed they are very much a main part of our interest . 

 

Double stars are a matter of complete indifference to me as far as observing goes  🙂

Interesting that actual binaries are estimated to constitute about half of our galaxy, but a far lower proportion beyond, but that's theory, not observing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Doubles are niche ????  Not sure I agree . I think  most people look at doubles and indeed they are very much a main part of our interest.

 

Dead right!  The variety, the colours, the challenge, and the satisfaction of splitting them is one of the most enjoyable things in this hobby.  And they  generally don't need great conditions to see them.  

Doug.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AZGTI is no good on public campsites. It's too noisy when slewing. Believe me I have one. When camping I take decent quality 10x50 binoculars. On a camping trip to the Yorkshire Dales this September I ticked off several deep sky objects not seen before with those. I take a 102 Maksutov with me but it usually stays in the car boot because under dark skies there's so much to see with binoculars.

Bearing in mind your budget & keeping things really simple, a suggestion would be keeping an eye out for a used 127mm Maksutov and pairing it with an AZ4. The 127 Maks appear regularly on here or you could post a wanted ad.

Or, just over budget, get a 150mm reflector on a dobson mount and binoculars to take away. Or save a bit more, pick up a 200mm dob (used from the forums here should be a safe bet) and binocs later.

If you fancy trying your hand at astrophotography in the future, and already have a dslr then consider saving around £400  for a star tracker like a Skywatcher Star Adventurer Pro & suitable tripod. Super portable and capable. Cut your teeth on that and if you like the photography, get a remortgage to fund the ap rabbit hole you fell in!

There's so many variables to consider and a tight budget makes those decisions harder. I know. Patience is the key though.

As for double stars.. observing in urban environment with a small telescope they're fantastic objects. I got into them with the 102 Mak but the 102ED refractor blows me away every time. Doubles saved me from a light polluted observing hell!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for all your help everyone - I'm skitting between even types of scope (spent a while considering refractors earlier today!), so it's all really helpful. 

I think I'm slowly coming round to the idea of going with an alt-az instead of eq - assuming the dob doesn't score another win! This is surprising to me as I came into this pretty much assuming EQ was just the way (and I do wonder if I'll miss the one dial tracking, or option to motorise tracking later) but can I ask someone to help explain the difference between these two options:

A 150p on the AZ4 - £448 

A 130ps on the AZ5 - £319

Is the extra aperture on the 150 the key in the price difference or are there other important aspects I'm overlooking. From the videos and reviews I've read the non-collimatable primary of the 130ps works OK (happy to be corrected!) and one less job sounds fine to me. 

Buying the 130pds and AZ4 adds up to the same prince as the 150p, so a general question too: I'd think I'd be trading weight-on-mount against aperture there, so is the smaller, presumably lighter telescope better on that mount, even though the other one has the extra inch? Does this matter less on an Az than an EQ? 

Thanks again everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AZ5 has slo mo controls, with those long handles (often referred to as 'cables') which can be used (or not, as you choose) to extend them for easy reaching around the tube of a 'scope. The AZ3 doesn't have slo mo. For a high magnification use  (like viewing the Moon or planets at 200x when conditions allow) the slo mo is something I want , to smoothly keep a planet in view with a bit of twiddling.

For lower power viewing, DSOs etc, I'm happy to do without slo mo, , and use my heritage  dob on its base , or a wide field refractor on a simple alt/az.

The bigger aperture 'scope will be better for faint objects, it collects more light. 

The mount with slo mo will be better for high magnification on closer stuff , most of which will be brighter anyway, so the smaller aperture will be OK ...

So no easy answers there I'm afraid !

The tripod under the head may be a factor to take into consideration as well, I've not used any astro specific tripods, so can't give an informed opinion from experience, but I think I've read that the AZ3 comes on a sturdy steel tripod, while the AZ5 may be bundled with a lightweight tripod. Lightweight is not good in this context, you want as hefty and rigid a base as possible to avoid wobbles.

Always willing to add to the confusion :evil4:

Heather

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MartinT said:

Thanks again for all your help everyone - I'm skitting between even types of scope (spent a while considering refractors earlier today!), so it's all really helpful. 

I think I'm slowly coming round to the idea of going with an alt-az instead of eq - assuming the dob doesn't score another win! This is surprising to me as I came into this pretty much assuming EQ was just the way (and I do wonder if I'll miss the one dial tracking, or option to motorise tracking later) but can I ask someone to help explain the difference between these two options:

A 150p on the AZ4 - £448 

A 130ps on the AZ5 - £319

Is the extra aperture on the 150 the key in the price difference or are there other important aspects I'm overlooking. From the videos and reviews I've read the non-collimatable primary of the 130ps works OK (happy to be corrected!) and one less job sounds fine to me. 

Buying the 130pds and AZ4 adds up to the same prince as the 150p, so a general question too: I'd think I'd be trading weight-on-mount against aperture there, so is the smaller, presumably lighter telescope better on that mount, even though the other one has the extra inch? Does this matter less on an Az than an EQ? 

Thanks again everyone. 

Reflectors head to head, aperture wins. Plus the 150p has a much better focuser. The AZ4 and steel tripod will hold it well. The decision really comes down to how much you wish to spend. The 130PS is a nice & compact starter scope without primary mirror collimation woes, the AZ5 holds it well and the spare cash can be spent in a couple of eyepieces, a collimation cap and a book. However the tripod is somewhat flimsy...

Basically the 150p and AZ4 is a better package that costs quite a bit more.

 

 

Edited by ScouseSpaceCadet
primary
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.