Posts Made By: Alex McConahay

Don't believe everything you hear. And these scientists are not always honest people when dealing with government funding.

I remember when I was working with the space program, I was asked to be part of a collaboration where I was one of three scientists asked to launch three million dollars into space. We were each given instructions to prepare a capsule that would safely launch one million dollars into space (there would be no need to worry aobut safe re-entry we were told).

Well, we each came up with compatible capsules, and were appropriately paid for our work. Then, to test the results we were given a million dollars in twenties and hundreds to put into the respective capsules.

Launch day came, and everything went well, including the re-entry, where everything burned up.

I was happy I had done a good job.

The other two guys were looking a little sheepish, though. And I asked them what was going on. The first looked at me and finally said that he felt a little guilty because he had kept $100,000 back to fund an observatory he and his students were building. Therefore, only $900,000 had gone up. The second tried to avoid the conversation, but then admitted he had kept out $200,000 because he had a new project going and his NSF grant had run out.

In short, their two million was at least $300 k short.

So, don't believe all this stuff you read.

I, of course was an honest scientist just trying to do what was right. If you don't believe me, you can check my bank records. I had deposited the whole amount in my checking account, and then immediately written a personal check, which I placed in the capsule before launch.

Alex

Herbert, Yes, they retain an advantage. It is not as obvious that they are superior because you cannot easily see the false colors. But they are still there. They result in a smearing of detail, and so forth across the object--even in the extended object. In short, that false color is throughout the image, just more obvious on the edges.

So, yes, apos still win, not counting the false color fringing.

I think the main reason people buy colored filters is that it is something we can afford, and the ads for them ("emphasizes the Great Red Spot on Jupiter") makes them sound like they do a whole lot more than they in fact do.

In fact they do what the are advertized to do.....but it is a lot more subtle than the ads would have us believe.

Most observers I know put them in their scopes now and then for planets, and then remark how much they can see with the filter, and then they remove them after a while, and remark how much more they can see without the filter......In short the changes in the colors (or lack of colors) make one think they can see more. I doubt, however, that they are make it or break it types of things. It's kinda like getting new stereo speakers.

My best advice. Leave them on the Christmas or Birthday or whatever list. People can afford them (I mean, you can't put a Nagler on the list--who can buy one of those for you).

Alex

Actually, Keith, there are a whole lot of results you can get from a digital SLR. While they are not as capable as a cooled CCD astro camera, they do a wonderful job. To start with, just treat it as if it were a film camera--that is, piggyback it or use a simple camera adapter as you would for a film SLR-- and take a few pictures. You will see just how capable it is. In the latest Sky and tel, I think something like half the pictures in the Gallery section are taken by Digital SLR's.

So, yes, it's been done.

Alex

Hi all,

I realize that it will need something, but 230 Meg of overhead (The difference between 384 total physical memory and 147 or so) seems a lot. Jarno's answer that his 2.0Gig system has only 1.5 left means, though, that I am in relatively good shape. If I had his overhead, I couldn't start at all--or it would be off in virtual memory......Come to think of it, maybe some of my overhead is off in virtual memory--I just don't realize it.

Well, I think I'll go off and try your sources and see what happens. If you don't hear from me, I guess my computer has blown up........

Alex

Joe,

Jon has good advice. I should advise you, though, that the 9.25 already has a lot of power, since it has a 2350 focal length or something.....So, don't worry too much about buying barlows or powermates. It has lots of power all by itself.

Alex

No, the polar scope alone will not get you close enough for astro-imaging. You should still drift align.

Alex

I don't understand what you are saying.....

You have a permanently mounted scope.

You adjust the mounting every night to make sure alignment is right.

You have found that you need three bubble levels to determine that in fact your pier top is not level.

IS that what you just said?

Sorry, I'm just not following.

Alex

I have (or at least had) both a CG-5 early generation and an LXF 55.

The mounting brackets are interchangeable. I had a storebought one, and a couple of home made. THey are pretty well the same dovetail.

I have not noticed much in the way of differences as far as capacity, smoothness, machining, error, stability, etc. between the two. However, the LXD 55 is obviously autostar, and my cg-5 was not.

Alex

>>So, is there something in the standard sizing just up from each of those that would be big enough to allow new threads to be cut, allow use of my existing taps, and give me a chance of success?

Did you mean allow use of existing holes? Existing screws?

Have you tried just re-tapping the existing holes, You may be able to rethread the stripped threads using your new taps?

Alex