Posts Made By: Larry Seguin

Hi Inge,
Ain't it fun trying to figure these things out in advance? Sometimes it actually saves us money, too!
I'm currently using an 8" f/6, and a 12.5" f/6. With these scopes I find that anything less than about 150X is not enough for the planets. Moving over that magnification I find that I like to go up in increments about as small as I can realistically manage. Some nights the sky conditions will allow one magnification, and the next night they will allow a slightly higher magnification. Therefore, I like the ability to go up in as small a set of increments as possible. For those reasons, I find the following set of eyepieces serves my needs/desires very well:
10.5mm Pentax XL (good for high
power deepsky too)
9mm UO HD Ortho
8mm TV Plossl
7mm Pentax XW (great for star
parties with it's
wide field)
7mm Pentax Ortho (sharp! sweet spot)
6mm UO HD Ortho
5mm UO HD Ortho
4mm UO Ortho
Put these together with a good 2X barlow and I can hit any magnification I want. Skies where I am often allow me to go over 300X, so I like the versatility!
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Take a look at the october issue of Sky and Telescope, John, at an article by Gary Seronik entitled "How low can you go" concerning low power observing. He states that the only way to get a larger field of view at a given f/ratio and magnification is to use a smaller aperture scope, but the same effect comes by breaking the 7mm exit pupil rule. I tried it, putting a 40mm UO MK-70 on a 12.5" f/6 scope for a field of almost 1 1/2 degrees! Sure, I'm operating as if I were using a smaller aperture, but it works, and I haven't been bothered by a secondary shadow at all! BTW, a 40 MK-70 runs about $150 used on Astro-mart. Best of skies to you,
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Peter, check out the article on planetary eyepieces on Cloudy Nights web-page. I've noticed the same thing concerning the TV/Ultima barlows that you have. the Cloudy Nights article points out that eyepieces (or barlows, for that matter) that have a slightly "warmer" tone can actually help make out details in the Jovian cloud bands, whereas eyepieces with a "cooler" tone give the same cloud bands a more bleached-out look. Hope this helps!
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Take a look at the Cloudy Nights article on the "Nagler Mythos", Andre. It does a nice comparison of the various types of Naglers, and what makes them distinct from each other.
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

I know beforehand a lot of folks will disagree with me, but....
I tried the 24 and 22 side by side and preferred the 22. Performance, as nearly as I could tell, was identical but two factors influenced my decision:
1) Viewing in cyclops mode, I had no concern for the barrel size, as many of my binoviewing friends do, therefore...
2)I chose the 22 for it's larger eye lens. For me, I find that-all other factors being equal-I tend to prefer eyepieces with larger eye lenses. They seem to enhance my enjoyment of wide field views. mi dos centavos, hope it helps.
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Aaron,
Also, take a look at University Optics Klee barlow--2.8X, $80 new, used=?
Larry Seguin, Taos, New Mexico

Hey Floyd,
I do have a Starsplitter scope (12.5" f/6), that I purchased new in 2001. I've got to say that I have been very happy with that scope. It is NOT Obsession or Starmaster build quality, but it is a very well built scope, with very smooth motions, and very little in the way of backlash until you get into very high magnifications (say 500+, and then very little backlash).
Pros: As every one has said--big, solid, and heavy.
Cons: Big, solid, and heavy.
If you do decide to order a new structure from Starsplitter, know that dealing with them is not like dealing with Starmaster or Obsession in terms of communications. I had to leave a number of phone messages before they got back to me, several times. When the scope did arrive it came without counterweights, and with the wrong size light shield for the truss poles.
All in all, I am finally very happy with the scope that was built for me.
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico
Ps: Funny how there's just not a lot of buzz out on these scopes, isn't it?

Hi David,
I'm using a Celstron Ultima on my Burgess BV's. It allows me to keep the big eyelens, and big eyerelief of the longer focal length eyepieces. The proviso here is that a 2X ultima, used with BV's ends up being something more like a 5X as nearly as I can figure it. With a pair of 25MM plossls and the Ultima, I'm getting something like a 5MM eyepiece. Not too bad for planetary, but you'll still want a lower power OCS for deep sky stuff.
Are you sure it won't come to focus? I thought BV's would focus on a refractor using just about any OCS. Check with Harry Seibert--he has an ocs for $79 that works very nicely.
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Herb,
I agree with what has already been said in this thread:
1) Thank you for what you have done for us with Astromart. I have learned more from this site than from any other resource I can think of...the information content here is staggering!
2)Again, thank you...the ability to buy and sell great equipment from great peoople at great prices has been a major blessing to me. And this from a guy whose occupation it is to sell at RETAIL!
3) And again, I agree...do whatever you have to in order to make the best life you can for yourself and your family and employees...God bless everyone of them for working with you to help you with the vision you had for Astromart.
4) If there is any way to keep it going in it's present form, without too many major changes--TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO! I will get in line behind all the other Astromarters to help you make this thing work for all of us.
Just let us know, Herb, we're with you.
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Hi Floyd,
Images always do seem larger, at least to my eyes, when I'm BV'ing, nice to hear somebody else report the same thing. If the star images don't seem as tight, try adjusting the helical focusers if you haven't already. EACH eyepiece has to be adjusted for EACH eye's visual acuity for the images to be crisp.
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico