Posts Made By: Randy Roy

Gary,

Why don't you just go to "Account Menu"..."Ratings I have Given"... and delete the bad rating. Herb has given us the ability to do this without getting him involved.

Dave,

I purchased the Zenithstar 66 a few months back and now have the FS60-C. I would characterize the Zenithstar as an amazing value for the money and would satisfy most people looking for a small aperture scope. The FS60-C is in another league however, from the build quality to the optical quality. It is simply the best 60mm scope I have owned (please note that I also wrote a very positive Cloudy Nights review on the TV60 last year). I consider the FS60-C, however, to be a luxury scope and made for those who do not mind paying a lot of money for the highest possible quality. The TV60, OTOH, falls in between the Zenithstar and FS-60C and is perhaps closer to the FS60-C in quality and price than the Zenithstar.

These are just my opinions though and should be considered as just one data point.

When last New Years you suddenly discover to your embarassment that you are number 25 on the Top Users List--you make a resolution to get off the list by Summer--and, this month find you have moved up to number 12.

Someone help me. . .

Oh, and when after swearing you would never do it again, reply to a thread titled:

"What is the best eyepiece. . . "
"What is the best telescope. . ."
"What is the best. . . (anything) . . ."

Linton,

Did you considering mounting the 41 to the bottom of your mirror box for counterweight?

Good for Caroline! Well, you did say you saw more of the nebula with the OIII. I'd say your daughter is right on. Isn't increased contrast of the light from the nebula with broader band light the idea behind a narrow band (nebula) filter?

Wait till you see the Veil and the Rosette through the OIII. Wow!

Hi Floyd,

I have never seen a long focal length plossl that looks good in my Starmaster without the Paracorr. My 26mm Nagler does a decent job without a Paracorr (though nearly perfect with a Paracorr), but my Televue 32mm Plossl is pretty curvy except for on-axis and I do mean center of the field. Fortunately, I got the 32mm plossl for my two F8 refractors where it (the 32mm plossl) works as well as anything. I too, have found the new Meade plossls no better or worse than any other plain vanilla plossl.

Perhaps the reviewers are primarily using Meade plossls at F10 with Meade CATs?

Joe,

The computer should not affect the tracking, just the goto slewing and accuracy. The mount will track without a computer. Have you tried that yet? If it tracks fine without the computer and poorly with the computer, then I retract my first sentence

The usual causes for poor tracking are poor voltage/connections, OTA balance problems or clutches not tightened sufficiently.

With ducks, "Semi" means "his momma is a duck, but we don't know whut his daddy wuz." "Quasi" means "his momma looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but has goose DNA."

Here in Memphis, "Semi" can mean, "That boy shor kin sing. He must be one of Elvis' love children." "Quasi" would be,
"Elvis Impersonators."

I figure with telescopes, "quasi-ED" means looks like ED, but ain't. "Semi-ED" simply means "ain't ED".

1. The Mewlon 250 is sharper and has more contrast than any 10" scope I have ever looked through. It would give most 8" APOs a run for their money in every way except FOV. It is the only scope smaller than my 16" Starmaster that could tempt me to give up my Starmaster. I do not own a Mewlon 250, but I have looked at them extensively and believe there is no finer reflector type of instrument for visual use.
2. There is not much difference visually in going from 10" to 12" especially when the 10" is so well excecuted. IMO, the Mewlon 250 will best a C11 or Meade 12 under any circumstances. The question I have is will a RCX 12" best a Meade LX200 12" for visual use. I have heard they will not, but I do not have any direct experience with this.
3. It takes the M250 about 45 minutes to an hour to cool down. I would say cool down is about the same as a good truss tube dob in that size and much better than a solid tube dob or any closed tube OTA in that size range (fans and cooling systems aside. I've seen some pretty elaborate cooling systems that works quite well).
4. The Mewlon holds it collimation extremely well. The M210 I had came to me perfectly collimated and I never touched it during dozens of uses. I am talking about star testing at >300X and it held collimation perfectly after much traveling. I can't speak for the RCX400 other than I am impressed with what I have read about Meade's collimation system for it.
5. It is a bit pricey, but I have a Tak EM200 Temma 2 mount. Many use it with the M250. I use a wireless interface using an IPAQ handheld running the Pocket Sky and am very pleased with it. Of course for visual use only, it is an overkill and I would suggest looking at the G11 with Genesis goto. I have no experience with the CGE mount, but have heard it is an excellent visual mount. I've seen some great prices on them.

Best wishes,