Posts Made By: Thomas Dey

Well, I'm 67 years old and would certainly go on a colonization trip as breeding stock. That, and looking out the window at the stars would be my assignment. I assume I would also get 160 acres and a mule (a local mule accustomed to Mars). Tom Dey

Darian's response is right on. We had a Q7 at work and just the OTA was something like $7000 about 20 years ago when we bought it. We used it as a collimator! Also did full AC interferometry on the thing and it was really good wavefront...not perfect, but so much better than other brands (we had them all). If it's capability and performance you want...could get more (bigger and great wavefront) elsewhere...but for something to enjoy looking AT and through - the Questars are classic head-turners. My Zeiss 20x60 IS bino is like that...I like flashing it and using it. OH...if $$$ is NO object...get the Q7! Tom Dey

I sold off my Cave Astrola 12.5 with massive observatory mount for $2000 a couple of years ago! And that was with a superb upgrade to Byers 11.3 inch drive! I had not used for 10 years just festering in an old dome. All I can remember now is that the LEAD counterweight was 100 pounds! The thing was a beautiful monster and had a superb mirror! The stock drive was terrible...always fighting it trying to DS imagery. Anyway - your scope looks great and will be quite the showpiece! Tom Dey

Hmmm...Indonesia. I visited their site and guess I would be a bit leery although sites like this are becoming more and more common and getting good reviews. Their prices didn't seem particularly out of line for stuff that I am familiar with. I'm trying to figure out whether they carry stock (seems unlikely) or are primarily dealers who have the stuff drop-shipped from the manufacturers. Probably a combination. They probably contract with suppliers accordingly. They (and other GOOD?! suppliers) are for some reason extraordinarily closed regarding describing their business location, etc. Most traditional suppliers proudly provide a field showing their building, staff, events, etc. I guess that would make me a bit gun shy. Hopefully someone will relate (positive) experience with these guys?! I recall (with amusement) drooling over LARGE mirrors available from someplace in Russia. And I KNOW these guys do indeed have the facilities and skill to produce. But I sure wouldn't risk dealing with them in the driver's seat, even though they may be sincere. Come to think of it - Jim Jacobsen (RIP?) of the original Coulter Optics got like that toward the end when they just couldn't fill (pre-paid) orders for big cheap scopes and mirrors! Tom Dey

I've read dark adaptation stuff over the years with interest, amusement and sometimes amazement. My own background includes physiological optics at the U or Rochester Boynton Center for Visual Sicence, where I used to run experiments on human subjects. Other than discovering that subjects try to cheat a lot, if they are rewarded for correct answers...I also found that dark adaptation wisdom includes a lot of folklore. That, and the photopic (cones) and scotopic (rods) math models don't correspond very well to actual human vision. I absolutely believe your observation and have noticed when I do Deep Sky that my vision returns far faster than what the experts say ... if I accidentally flash my eyes with that damned white button on my red/white LED pocket light. FAR more pertinent to most of us (non-youngsters) is that photopic has already declined substantially by age 35 Yikes! I'm 67 and got elective cataract surgery, Lasik and posterior capsule ablations done a year ago. Amazing!!! My mag 5.5 jumped to an easy 6.5 no kidding! And I can see ultraviolet again. CaK solar is SO bright that I have to attenuate the scope. Anyway...whatever WORKS for your dark adaptation - just keep doing it!!! All the theory in the world will never trump experience. PS I DO believe that the deep red LEDs are fine and that the white ones are better than using tungsten. Not sure why, but I agree with your observation. I DO keep them not too bright though. Tom Dey

I see what you mean. I visited their site and the 6x30 has a 7 deg quoted true field, the 9x50 has a 5 deg quoted true field. That seems comparably correct: 6x7=42 and 9x5=45. i.e., they probably incorpoate the same eyepiece so would expect to see similar/identical "aparent" fields of view. The photos can be deceptive and you would probably want to measure the field once you get what your order. I have no direct experience with these. Tom Dey

There's a mag ~7 about 10 arc-min away in the approx direction toward Beta. I just now (11pm EDT March 11) took a look with my 20x60 IS binos and it looks like it should. If it were brighter by a LOT it would certainly be naked eye, probably similar to Mizar and Alcor...but that companion is very dim...especially that close to Alpha. On the other hand, there is decent evidence that a couple of the ancients have seen at least one of Jupiter's moons naked eye! I think if something peculiar were going on...it would be in the astro-news by now? Tom Dey

Thanks for the tip! The only scope I have access to now is APM 100mm binos "the good ones" that can handle high mag. Supposed to be clear tonight so I'll look see, even if I have to wait for it to rotate around! My 29-inch Dob with (big!) off-axis stop also gives great resolution...but still has a foot of snow on the ground and is 1500 ft from the house and 150 ft up hill. Will have to wait for that! Tom Dey

I'm with you on the preferred chips! We bought several FLI MaxCams incorporating the giant KAF 16803s for use at work. What a pleasure to just open the oversized shutter and admire the chip! The EK chips always and deservedly enjoy good reputation for uniformity, low noise and typically better (often MUCH better) than indicated class. I have the more affordable KAF 6803 for home use. Tried back-thinned, which have near ideal QE but dissappointingly non-uniform. And I think CMOS have their advantages but seem inherently noisier? Remember when (was it Sony) came out with a hexagonal array chip?! Creative idea with advantages...but (understandably) not embraced by the market. Tom Dey

I've always had TERRIBLE luck with trying to use projection lenses for astronomy imaging. They are just optimized for a completely different application. Things like absolute field, F#, color correction, resolution AND the light goes "the other way" which DOES make a giant difference! I worked in optics all my life, so not surprised regarding the disappointment. Lenses were all over the place at work and finding one that would be useful for astronomy was RARE. (I worked at Bausch & Lomb back when it was a true full-capability optics house and then Eastman Kodak.) The most I ever got out of the scrap bin was very nice unmounted Hastings magnifying lenses and some discarded Pyrex blanks, small mirrors...stuff like that. Tom Dey