Posts Made By: Matthew Sherman

Hello,

I thought I'd share some pics related to the progress of the video astronomy observatory I recently built. It houses a wedge mounted Celestron NexStar 11 and a StellaCam 3 astro-video camera. For more pics and details, see my blog: thebevo dot blogspot dot com. Here, the roof has been removed, east wall lowered, scope is in stowed position.

Matthew Sherman

Hi,

I'd like to make an unorthodox suggestion about crosshairs for visual use. I'm not trying to be rude either:

Rip out your crosshairs. Remove them. Some crosshairs are so fat they get in the way!

I was trying to focus them in my UO 8x50 when I first got it and broke them accidentally. I was so upset. I observed without the crosshairs a few times and realized I didn't need them. It's a 4 - 5 degree field. If you put a star or DSO _anywhere_ near the center of the field, it will show up in an eyepiece that has a 3/4 to 1 degree FOV.

Just an idea. And trust me, I get downright jiggy with my finder! DSO's can't hide from the asterisms of stars that take you there. But a nice, fat set of crosshairs'll blot 'em out sho'nuff!!

Regards,

Matthew Sherman (the finder freeek!)
NGC ME!

Dave,

I'd like to share an opinion as I have used the UO orthos exclusively for binoviewing. I decided when I got the binoviewer, I'd try to do it on the cheap, rather than pour top dollar into expensive eyepiece pairs.

The one thing I really like about the UO orthos, considering they have relatively short eye relief is the fact that the top of the barrels are conical (beveled?) rather than flat. It's like I know I'm bringing them close to my eyes, but it doesn't bother me as much. Maybe it's just psychological, but I love this feature of the design. Oh, and the sharp views in the orthos rock too!

Matthew Sherman
NGC ME!

Tom,

I really enjoy using my pair of 11mm T6 Naglers. This combination, with my TV BV, is one where the equipment just seems to get out of the way. The eye relief make it feel comfortable and quite natural, without having to put any pressure on the eyecups. An effect very similar to my 24 Pans, but with a larger field of view.

Regards,

Matthew Sherman
NGC ME!

I always tinkering with stuff, trying to improve the way things are mounted, trying to eliminate things I don't need from the plethora of junk I haul out into the field, etc. etc.

I love fiddling with my astro gear! The more I tinker with it, I come up with good ideas about how to make things better. Particularly, I try to come up with ideas that save time out in the field.

Matthew Sherman

Hi Ed,

I put my TV binoviewers with orthos on my friend's 12.5" Portaball one night and it worked. You'll find that you have to rotate the tube to an appropriate angle and hang something from the lip of the ball for counterweight (think: ankleweights in a t-shirt - so as not to scrach the ball). There may be points in the sky where you will have balance issues, but that's not the end of the world.

Separately, having the ball waxed super slick will not be congruent with binoviewing, come to think of it. ; )

Lightweight eyepieces are in order, which is fine since binoviewing is proving to work very will with lighter, inexpensive widefields.

All in all, I would say it is doable. You just have some weight limitations and different kinds of balance issues to deal with, but then... your scope is already "evolved" so one teency little half-step back can't hurt! ; )

Just my thoughts....

Matthew Sherman
NGC ME!

Tom,

I think you are really on to something! I commented here (or on some other BV forum some time ago) that we needed something like horse blinders to block out that stray light. Not only does this mask you rigged up solve that, it also solves the problem with breathing fogging up the eyepiece. I'll be working up something like this to use myself. The cloth may find itself back in a box once again! (poor little cloth...)

Another problem I face up north when it is cold out is the eyepiece getting fogged up from the heat radiating from my eyeballs. Believe it or not, one thing I will try to incorporate is a small fan to keep air moving through the goggles so nothing affects the eyepiece. To push or pull air? That's the question. Maybe the fan will be mounted on the scope. Should be a fun project to see how much airflow is needed to solve the problem (and just how much airflow my eyes can tolerate).

Regards,

Matthew Sherman

Andre,

IMHO, a finder is a means to and end that you really don't spend time observing objects through, so all you need are reasonably sharp stars. In other words, the optics do not have to be hand crafted perfection. Big fat crosshairs can be annoying, but sure are easy to see in dark skies.

Having said that, I think either the Antares or Orion finders fit the bill just fine. I _especially_ like the two screw adjustment of the Orion finder. Sooo much easier and intutitive.

I also like how Orion's finder focuses at the objective end, with the eyepiece being solid and undetachable. Don't have to worry about helical focusing, set screws, or the chance that a finger might get up there and press out the crosshair. The flip side is that it is a pain to adjust focus for more than yourself. And I've never been thrilled about the little rubber grommet that holds the objective end in place in the ring. Once again, I love the two point adjustment, but sometimes miss the ability to rotate the finder ota. In winter, the rubber loses its "memory" and can be sloppy if you need to rotate it. But that is just a minor problem compared to the other plusses.

Regards,

Matthew Sherman

John,

Regarding your point #1, I've read that stuff on the Obsession website and I always have to smile because it does come across kind of thick. I've always thought of it (and other aspects of the website) as a poorly executed marketing technique.

Matthew Sherman

I also think it's perfectly natural for people to be passionate and opinionated about their choice of manufacturer. After all, who's going to admit they made an expensive bad decision?!? But I think people should use more decorum

Marty,

I have the 1.3x OCA and it resides on my TV binoviewer pretty much exclusively. I have really enjoyed using this OCA. I think the images are great, and I love having just a little more field of view around the objects I'm looking at.

With my 18" f/4.3 my 24 Panoptic gives me a 60X, 1.14 deg FOV all by itself. With the 1.3x OCA, it's 77X with a .88 deg FOV. That's about the equivalent of an 18mm eyepiece. Not bad in my book. You can hunt DSO's with that.

I noticed that you live in Westchester. I live in Lombard. We should get together so you can try out my 1.3x OCA sometime in the weeks ahead if it ever clears up again. Send me an email at your convenience and we'll work something out. : )

Matthew Sherman