Posts Made By: Bill Meyers

Hello,
Decsdes ago I used a handheld 4.25 RFT reflector from ANRA,
very extensively, using a 28mm Kellner that gave 19x. This was great
for sky sweeping, and I could find some objects, like the Auriga
clusters, but in general it was hard to aim it so as to find a
specific object. The use of a small RFT this way is not new: Clyde
Tombaugh used a 5" and Roger Tuthill used a 4.25" in this way, as
reported by them in Sky & Telescope. I sit in an upright sturdy canvas
chair that I got for $29 at my local Pep Boys auto supply store.
Recently i got the idea from Ron Raveneburg of using a green laser
finder to find specific objects with this kind of telescope, and to
use a Vixen LVW eyepiece to get low magnification and plenty of eye
relief so I could keep my glasses on, a big plus with hand held
observing. I therefore acquired a 22mm Vixen LVW eyepiece, which gives
a three degree field at 21x and a 5mm exit pupil, which is appropriate
for city observing. Iamge quality is excellent all across the field; I
could see no field curvature or astigmatism.
I can now report that this observing system works very well
indeed. Specific objects are easily found this way. There is less
shake in the image than with 10x binoculars, in my experience. The 4.5
inches of aperture is enough to give some very pleasant views, even in
the city. One project I have in mind is to observe binocular double
stars. The best source for wide or binocular double stars I have
found is Brian Skiff's Bright Star Atlas, which provides such a list
for each constellation. I use S&T Pocket Star Atlas to find cluster
and asterisms. .
I highly recommend this combination of telescope, chair,
eyepiece, and atlases to other observers, urban and rural, who have
rich field observing interests.
Bill Meyers

Hello, all,
I have been interested for a while in upsizing, and have noticed ads and posts speaking of downsizing instead.
This leads me to wondering why they are going in the opposite direction from what I am contemplating.
It would also help me to know from what size of scope they are downsizing (present scope) to the what size smaller new scope.
Many thanks for your ideas,
Bill Meyers

I am very impressed with the image from Roland's 10 inch MakCass and
would love to own one. I can see lots of Trapezium members in addition
to E and F in Rolando's image.

But something occured to me as I read these posts about splitting
clsoe doubles. Long long ago,before you all were born, in a faraway
land that still protected habeas copus (R.I.P 1215-2006) Edmund
Scientific Co. in its Mag 6 Atlas, spoke of a "comfortable split" of
double stars.
The meaning was the use of sufficient magnification (and now we know,
aperture as well) so that seeing the companion(s) would not require
squinting.

This seems such a relaxing, though archaic, way of viewing the sky.
and it has always appealed to me. I have been little concerned with
barely spotting close stellar companions, and indeed with anything
else barely discernable. Instead I have concentrated on comfortable
splits and with beautiful views rather than bare discernment of DSOs.
I am sorry that this approach seems to have fallen into utter disuetude.
Clear skies,
Bill Meyers

Hello, everyone,
The shadow of the diagonal bothers me greatly when I observe the moon with my reflectors (11 inch fr4.55, 6 inch f5, and Starblast 4.5 inch f4r). I often have to look in the eyepiece from the side to avoid it somewhat.
How do you cope with it? More aperture to get a bigger exit pupil at the same magnification? (This will help with floaters, I am told)
Or more magnification with the same aperture?
Thanks,
Bill Meyers

My interest for my urban observing is in double stars and wide field star asterisms.
Does it make sense to you to use an 80 or 90 or 100mm apo for this, or is this overkill and a small achro would do the job as well? This far I have used only larger Dobs, so I am quite unfamiliar with refractors in this range.
Thanks for your help,
Bill Meyers

Hi, everyone,
I already own as Starblast and i am on a waiting list for a 90mm f/7 apo (I'm not quite sure why I did this), but I am wondering if they are redundant?
Or if one is superior to the other for viewing from an urban site?
I am highly familiar with reflectors but I have never used a small refractor.
Specifically, I am concerned that discussions on the refractor forums deal almost entirely with image quality worries, such as false color or lack thereof, and with imaging, which is not an interest of mine. I am beginning to wonder if these 80-90mm apos are primarily breautifully made collectors's items ( many of the posters to the refractor forums have several small refractors quite close in aperture) and whether the reason for this is that one can't see much through these optical jewels since they are so small, hence there is little value in posting observing reports with them?
As for my Starblast, which is well collimated, I am not too happy with the star image quality (I am used to premium mirrors) and I find that the focuser is so coarse that it's hard to get an object focus much above 50x (I am using premium eyepieces). But in theory at least it gathers a lot more light than a small apo.
Thanks for any information,
Bill Meyers

Hello, all
There is a great deal of discussion on the various chat groups of FLP-51, FLP -53, mating elements, aberrations, and star testing. Unlike many posters to these forums I am not an engineer and I don’t really understand these discussions. These subjects sound very complex I would never undertake star testing or any other procedure of optical validation myself (except collimating my reflectors).
When I am deciding what telescope to buy, I listen very carefully to what people say. I listen to the words, and also to the music. Often the music is very loud, almost deafening. Pretty easy to decide from whom to buy a telescope.
A few years back Carl Zambuto posted an article in the articles section of Astromart, called, “How to buy a mirror.” He said. “look for a line.” “Look for effervescent babbling enthusiasm.” (My paraphrase), And a number of other interesting things, which I agree with.
I would never buy a premium scope and then star test it. Why buy a premium scope if I feel I have to star test it to see if it is really any good? That is the maker’s job, and if I feel I don’t trust him, I will buy from someone else. I have two Wessling mirrors and a Zambuto mirror and I have never star tested them. People who look through them do express awe at the quality, though. That’s plenty good enough for me, since I feel the same way.
It’s really easy to decide from whom to buy a telescope. Listen to the music. It’s pretty loud.
I should mention that I originally posted a very similar message to this on Cloudy Nights, on a thread on the new William Optics Ferrari telescope, and the thread was “moved temporarily for review” by a moderator. It has not reappeared yet.
Listen to the music.
Bill Meyers

Hello, all,
Has anyone tried this? It might produce good high power wide field views of the moon, for example.
I have tried with a TeleVue 1.8x Barlow, and later a 2.4x 1.25 inch Barlow, but the combination of 1.25 inch Barlow and my Ethos produced such a spindly result from a mechanical viewpoint that I felt it might be too mechanically unstable to be worth the risk. So I didn't get far enough to actually look through this combination.
Has anyone tried Barlowing an Ethos?
Bill Meyers

Hi, all,
I am thinking of getting a 16.5 Dob for observing from my driveway in the city. I have mag 3 skies. My favorite objects are globular clusters. I do have OIII filters for planetaries and galactic nebulae. I often use an 11 inch Dob from my driveway and sometimes from a dark sky site, but the 165.5 is too large to transport often.
Is 16.5 too large for city observing?
Any advice will be appreciated.
Bill Meyers

This 16 inch f/4 scope is new on the market though it has been discussed on AM ATM forum.

I had the use of a borrowed one for a few weeks and quickly decided to buy one.

Deciding factors for me were the low weight of the heaviest component (37 lbs.), and the integral wheels so that it can be pushed around easily with one hand.

Very important to me also is that the eyepiece height at zenith is only 62 inches, so it can be used seated in all positions.

Other features that others may also value are the quality of construction, the ease of putting it together, even in the dark, and the Dick Wessling or Mike Lockwood mirror.

It is heartening to see another premium scope by an Americn craftsman, become available to amateurs.

http://www.shootingstarsmodel.com/jpastrocraft/sixteen.htm

Bill Meyers