Posts Made By: Louis Marchesi

Rob,

You are correct. The smaller the number, the better the optics. 1/8-wave is better than 1/4-wave.

I have no experience using Discovery optics, but I offer this piece of advice. Seek out the ATM (amateur telescope makers) in your local astronomy club. They may have the know-how and tools to measure the "figure" of your mirror. I know one of my local area clubs did.

Lou

I need help finding a focuser for a vintage Meade 50mm f/12 guide scope (I intend to guide a 540mm scope).

I want to fit a 1.25" focuser on it. Possible? Where can I get one?

The closest I came was Apogee. They have one that fits 60mm tubes; but this scope is 50mm in diameter or so at the focuser end.

Should I find a way to "make it fit," just give up and buy something, or "roll my own? (say, from surplus lenses)"

Thanks for helping,
Lou

Have you visited http://www.parallaxinstruments.com/ ?


Lou

Just a few random comments ...

> We're nothing.
I disagree. Why is it necessary to denigrate humanity? To my knowledge, we are the most advanced species to have ever populated this Universe. Perhaps you have different information.

> Our evolution as an intelligent species probably hasn't even started.
It *most* certainly has. And speak for yourself :^)

> We've only been around for 1/10th of a million years and we're trying to communicate in an ocean of space 15 BILLION years older then we?
I don't see what these periods time have to do with communication. Certainly given that we humans do have communication and reasoning skills, a species *so* advanced as the ones everyone seems to pine for should be able to communicate with us. After all, we can get dolphins to punch soccer balls about with their noses and tigers to jump through hoops and they can't add, subtract or light fires.

> Is it even possible to interact with a species millions of years further along in evolution then us?
I would think so. Perhaps you might consider that humans are the one and only rational species on this planet. You cited the dinosaurs' 250 million years -- and what did they accomplish, well, nothing.

So, give us (humanity) a break. Perhaps we're not something to be dismissed as insignificant and inconsequential.

Lou

> On 3/3, I call Company X because my credit card company needs them to cancel the authorization on my credit card, otherwise the available credit will be tied up for 21+ days.

What's the word I'm searching for here ... oh, yes ... ILLEGAL. Company X may not charge your card until the product ships.

I'd stick with your revised plan ... cancel your order and do business with someone else. They don't sound like the sharpest pencils in the pencilbox. Then, call your credit card company and if there is a charge, have it removed.

Then call one of the other vendors you mention.

Just my two cents,
Lou

David,

When I'm "working" on my AL lists, I plan with SkyTools 2 --> http://www.skyhound.com/skytools.html

At star parties or observing with friends, I just "wing it."

Regards,
Lou

Paul,

It's difficult to say (not going to stop me from opining, though). My scope came with one, so I don't have any basis for comparison. And I bought another one to use with my soon-to-arrive "Mars scope."

My guess is that even if you can notice a slight dropoff in brightness using your current diagonal versus straight through, the perceptible difference *between* either your current diagonal and a premium would be even less.

May I suggest the following article from Cloudy Nights --> http://www.cloudynights.com/accessories/telediag.htm

Me? I'm one of those people who will pay extra for that last miniscule improvement. Call it a weakness.

Regards,
Lou

Tom,

I don't know enough about all of those different systems. But I do know that if you are going to go the Losmandy route, go with the G-11 saddle/dovetails. Why? First, for a 35-lb payload you need a sturdier dovetail than the GM-8 dovetails. Second, I *think* Scott (Losmandy) has merged the saddles for the GM-8 and G-11 to use the "D"-series (G-11) dovetail.

Given all that I've said, I just today ordered one of Robin Casady's "tip in" saddles (http://www.robincasady.com) for my G-11; I have a ~45lb-OTA being delivered soon (I hope I hope) and the thought of trying to "thread" a weighty OTA/dovetail into the saddle (in the dark, no less) is not appealing.

Regards,
Lou

Mike,

Of the two you mention, I would definitely go with the O-III over the Broadband, BUT ...

I think an Orion UltraBlock or Lumicon UHC would be a better overall choice. Currently, I own only one, and its the UHC (same as UltraBlock).

I found this article --> http://www.cloudynights.com/accessories/filters.htm
helpful.

I don't mean to ruin the ending, but it says if you can afford only one, get the UltraBlock or UHC. If you can afford two, add in an O-III. If you can afford three, get the H-Beta. I don't think the "broadband" (aka Light Pollution) filters are recommended very highly.

Regards,
Lou

Bruce,

I saw a similar question to yours on the "Talking Telescopes" Yahoo! group. Perhaps you could join and see the thread of discussion about the 114GT. I don't think they are highly regarded since you're paying for the electronics and the optics suffer. Please think twice before purchasing.

If you do decide to buy the scope, I think you could do digital "snapshots" of the Moon with it. IIRC it is an altazimuth scope, so long-exposure astrophotography won't work due to field rotation.

There are probably much finer scopes available for your $300, say, a 6-inch Dob from Orion or somesuch. Perhaps others can make suggestions.

Whatever you decide, good luck and clear skies,
Lou