Very often I find myself stumbling on an interesting fact, or coming upwith a practical suggestion. I am amazed how much I have yet to learn inthe wonderful world of amateur astronomy! I'd like to share these random"thoughts" on a continuing basis, as they pop in my head, right here! (warning:I also use this page to "vent" my latest astro-related frustrations, should make for a good alternate to soap-opera viewing)

OCT. 2, 2000 COLLIMATION WOES  After having different methods of collimating my NEWT disagree with each other time and time again, it finally dawned on me that the 2-1.25" adapter was the culprit. Lo and behold, it's true.. some 2-1.25" adapters are worse than others, but most are machined just right to be "off" a bit in terms of collimation if you collimated with a 2" laser, etc. Using various 2-1.25" adapter the laser beam in a 1.25" laser ended up hitting the primary in different spots. The question, yet unanswered, then is this.... should you collimate using a 2" laser and just try to get a 2-1.25" adapter that is close? OR should one really only collimate after the 2-1.25" adapter is into the focuser with a 1.25" laser or other tool only???? Email me with your thoughts. Thanks!
 

SEPT 19, 2000 SELLER BEWARE I got into a nasty misunderstanding with a buyer on the net, who "qualified" the deal and gave me an out by saying that the "deal will still stand IF I mail out the item on Monday". Apparently he wasn't aware that throwing the "if" into the equation immediately opened up the deal again., and I had told him I could get it out around Tuesday, but definitely not Monday.  I had a 2nd buyer with a cashiers check handy who I had a better feeling about and grabbed it. While I don't believe I did anything wrong, the buyer felt I broke my word, since he did not specifically say he was cancelling the deal (he never said it directly) My advice.. if you throw in a qualifier, yes, you may lose the deal. Am I wrong? Was I too hasty?

SEPT 13, 2000. JUPITER AT THE EYEPIECEAs if I wrote the comments below too quickly, my return from Florida boasted the best seeing conditions of the year in Massachusetts on 8/30/00. I have taken one of the Jovian shots from that morning and halved it's size to show you almost exactly what it appeared like in the eyepiece of the Takahashi 6" scope.

AUGUST 25, 2000 SEEING FROM HORIZON TO ZENITH
The most amazing thing happened last week while in Florida. I had the BEST and the WORST seeing conditions I have ever witnessed at the same time simultaneously. The stars in Orion at 4am were twinkling so badly near the horizon that they were actually blinking on and off entirely. In a 4" apo, they appeared completely smeared. Yet closer to the zenith, Jupiter and especially Saturn and the Moon were as rock steady as can be. . seeing conditions 9 out of 10 in that scope. Just goes to show, don't always judge the atmospheric steadiness by the twinkling of stars, especially neared to the horizon. How rock steady was it? Between 7 and 9 craterlets could be discerned (7 for sure) in Plato on the Moon. (yes in only 4" aperture)

AUGUST 16, 2000
Just a heads up. While they ain't perfect, Radio Shack is now offering a rechargeable 12 volt battery that is low cost, and good in a pinch. If WALMART is 40 miles away and it's 8pm, and you've run out of juice, with an observing session coming up in and hour... perhaps there is a Radio Shack nearby?

JULY 24, 2000 SEEING CONDITIONS REVISITED, NOT WHAT YOU THINK....
I have been told by Roland Christen of Astrophysics, Al Nagler, of Televue, and Markus Ludes of APM over the past year something that very few of us really have accepted, and yet I'm finding it more and more to be true: Telescopes do not respond to seeing conditions equally, and it's NOT just a case of aperture that determines whether or not they do.  Conventional wisdom is that larger scopes will be hit harder by the unsteadiness of the atmosphere, and this is generally true, but that's only PART of the story.  Apparently, a finely figured, non-obstructed scope will actually respond better to poor seeing conditions, and is part of the reason that most people mistake high quality refractors of smaller aperture as being more capable with planets than larger aperture scopes (which given steady seeing, actually will out-perform the smaller scopes).

A larger scope will suffer on two accounts if it is an SCT, or Newtonian for example. Firstly because it is obstructed, so when seeing varies, the light from the "airy disk" will move into the diffraction rings around a star, more readily. Secondly a larger aperture does get hit harder by the waviness of the air above.

Working at 300X this week on my C9.25" and a Takahashi 6" refractor, there was no doubt that high quality, high powered views of Saturn and Jupiter were similar in brief moments of steady skies. However, the large majority of the time, the 6" refractor out-did the C9.25" scope. The story doesn't end there however, the C9.25" scope worked in the same session to defeat the seeing BETTER than a Takahashi 8" CN212, despite being the larger scope. While tube currents may have been at work, the actual finish on the C9.25" may have been smoother, or some other factor could have been at work to help the 9.25" to defeat the 8 " in "stabilizing" the atmosphere.  For the tube current possibility, see the EXCELLENT article by Brian Greer in the Sept. issue of Sky and Telescope magazine.
 

June 23, 2000
I have been comparing 4" scopes now for several weeks, and have taken in some wonderful objects. However I have noticed that to really maximize the view, the contrast and maximum star detection specifically, one needs to remove the star diagonal, even the best ones out there! Well put it this way, if you really want to eek out the most contrast, such as along the limb of the moon, best to do it w/o a diagonal. Also, make sure if you are using a barlow that it is squeaky clean, it throws a lot of stray light into the mix if it isn't. Make sure that diagonal is clean as well if you are using it...... it does make a difference.

May 26th, 2000
I have now returned 7 "high quality" scopes, 6 refractors and one reflector, for replacement or repair (2 replaced, 5 repaired). In each case the star test error was confirmed by the seller or manufacturer except one (it only occurred below 20 degrees so they just took my word for it) I would not have been able to do this without star testing, but star testing is such a risky proposition, you have to know a bit about what you are doing first to avoid making a mistake. Just a quick rundown of some of the errors I found...

1. Two scopes with strongly noted "zones" , scopes which should not have had a zone based on their advertising

2. One scope with rough optics (and it turned out also a wide turned edge) Again this was supposed to be a high quality optic.

3. One scope with astigmatism

4. One scope with pinched optics below 20 degrees

5. One scope which was superb, but was not quite up to the wavefront rating claim
(this is a tough one although my results were more or less confirmed, I probably did not need to return it, and wouldn't recommend that others do this, it's embarrassing to all parties)

6. One case of "wedge" , seen as a collimation problem in-focus (this was a tough one, but I found it in the first and 2nd rings in-focus at high power)

While hard to read, I highly recommend studying several sections of Richard Suiters book "Star Testing Astronomical Telecopes" Remember though, you need to get the hang of it first, best to check with other amateurs, like I have done, while you are learning (I still am ... I have just "scratched the surface" of what there is to learn)
 

May 16th, 2000: One caveat you may not have thought of when ccd photographing:
I stumbled on something when I was testing the new self-guiding software from Starlight Xpress, (Star 2000). I noticed that the guiding was thrown off simply by my moving picking up the hand controller of the mount (A/P 600GTO). Then I tried moving other cables around while the scope was imaging and sure enough the slight motion that I would have thought would not have the slightest impact on the scope was vibrating the image by several arc seconds. Be extra careful to be set up so that as you handle your hand controller while imaging, you are not causing a vibration to work back to the scope. Now for instance, I keep it on a table or on the ground rather than in my hand where the cord can "swing". Very often in the past I wondered why my images would smear sometimes and not others, this is probably part of the answer.
 

May 5th, 2000: Think about how you will USE your scope before you buy it:
One reason why I often "turn over" my equipment is because I do not really consider strongly enough, the intended use and logistics of using the scope. For instance, I am constantly searching for the perfect airline portable 4" (fast, like f/6) refractor. However, I need to ask myself "How will I use a 4" refractor most of the time?" The answer is interesting. It's for CCD use, but with an intended focal length of around 800mm which I find better for imaging galaxies, but very forgiving from a guiding standpoint. That would require an f/8, NOT an f/6. (An f/6 barlowed might work but would not be as easy to use)

I always have to remind myself of my goals... I don't do that enough. Another example of this is my CN212 from Takahashi. While this scope is optically superb, will it really fit the bill with regard to focal reducing? I like to use flip mirrors when I do ccd work, but if a scope doesn' t have generous focus travel, then the combination of the flip mirror and focal reducer just won't work. I didn't consider THAT strongly enough ahead of time, although I knew there was a chance of that happening.

Then there are those practical issues, not to be ignored, just a few examples: If you buy a compound scope like those just listed, do you live in a climate that will support quick cool-down? How long will it take to set up your scope, do you need a quick setup? Will it even fit in your car? Do you want to stand on the ground when you buy a big dob, or will you be forced onto a step stool or ladder? Will you bemoan not being able to do CCD with the big dob? A C14 might be nice, but is there enough room for you to roll it out of your garage, or will it hit the garage door? What extras will you need to buy for your outfit... case, mount, etc?

Try to think about where you want to be.. write down all your needs first on a piece of paper before you buy, don't make the same "mistakes" as me :)
 

APRIL 27TH, 2000: A few mounts and considerations for smaller refractors:
Too often we focus on the aperture of a scope and not too much on general size and weight. Certain 3" refractors will be as long and heavy as other 4" refractors. Using the philosophy that the best scope is the most used scope..if you can't adequately MOUNT the heavier/longer unit, then you may end up paying for a larger mount, or something heavier or harder to use than you want or need. I recently bought a 4" scope that may out-do many others, but it's a tad too heavy for a *very* easily transportable (can sneak in my wife's luggage bag when flying) mount such as a Televue Telepod. This puts the scope at a disadvantage. When buying, always think down the road as to how you will use it, how you will carry it, and how you will mount it, based on the size and weight, not just it's aperture. With this in mind, here is a list of some of the alt-az. mounts I have used and how they work with smaller and mid size refractors:

Televue Telepod: Perfect for running in and out (legs fold in) or sneaking in my wife's luggage. (by taking off the head) Supports the Pronto, Televue 85, Stowaway, and other 3" - 3.5" scopes, and barely the A/P Traveler (4")

Televue Upswing Mount: Similar to the above, but you supply your own tripod.. not quite as stable as the Telepod in use. Traveler is pushing it.

Televue Gibraltar: Same as the Telepod, but even more stable with the 4" refractors. Even had a 4" Takahashi on it at one point (needs special ring) , I think it worked fine, but it was a long time ago.. I recall problems reaching the zenith. Legs do not easily fold in, so not as easy to run in and out of a narrow doorway

Nisur Systems Mount: Several models are now available. Similar to the Televue Upswing head that screws on to the standard 1/4-20  tripods. The heavy duty test model that I received is just that.. heavy duty, and a bit more stable than an upswing, with a 1/4-20  female accepting hole on the bottom. With a greater cradle width, and depth,  it will handle larger scopes, placing the center of gravity in the right place on deeper refractors. - 4" refractors of all kinds should fit without a problem.. HOWEVER, the mount is a bit shaky, far improved from an earlier, lightweight model that I tried, but still best for low power viewing. I'd say it may be possible for certain 5" refractors to be custom mated to the mount as well, with just a bit of plate/rings finagaling. However the mount  will likely become unsteady with weight much greater than 10 lbs. Nevertheless, my smaller, Televue bizarro DOES balance better due to the greater depth of the unit and thus better placement of center of gravity, than my Telepod mount. Altitude motions are a bit sticky, but I am told that may loosen up with time. Azimuth motions are smooth. Still evaluating, disappointed in high power.   - TG

Bogen 410 mount head on a sturdy tripod (currently I have it on a Gitzo lightweight): A bit cumbersome to move the scope since you do it mainly with the slow motion controls, however, this mount does take an off-balance situation to some degree allowing for flexibility. It also uses a quick release plate which is convenient, unless you are switching between different kinds of mounts. Perfect for the small, fast refractors up to 3.5" (like the TV85).  I personally have bought the Gitzo tripod that is only 19" long so I can pack the scope, tripod and head separately in a backpack for easy airline travel. Not suitable for any 4" refractor.

Wimberly Mount Head. Meant for a Bogen or Gitzo or similar pair of just tripod legs, this head is very expensive (about $500), but there is a free trial program. In addition, this is one of the best designs I have ever seen. It is similar to the Teegul (below) in that an arm grabs the scope, but in this case, you can adjust to that you can raise and lower the scope to maintain the proper "center of gravity". This creates a pure balance situation. Also, quick release plates make for easy balance as well. This head is fairly hefty, but could fit in a backpack for airline travel along with a gitzo carbon-fiber Mountaineer 2. Works very well with the Bizarro 85mm, through medium power, but vibrations are coming from somewhere, (possibly the tripod) at high power making it a bit jittery. Works about as well as the less expensive Telepod, but with a bit more flexibility in terms of balance and airline portability. Will try it with a Traveler, which should work fairly well, especially at low power. Cannot quite reach the zenith unless you use a ballhead for the tripod (which is heavy and/or expensive) or if you do the risky move of shortening the tripod legs.
 

Takahashi (heavy-duty) Teegul Alt-Az:  Very interesting mount, works better functionally than those above, and easily supports 4" f/8 refractors......but acts like a single fork arm, in that vibrations can go a bit wild with heavier, longer 4" scopes, mainly at high power. I like the way it can be moved so smoothly either manually or using slow motion controls.  Make sure to ask your dealer how to set this mount up, it's not as obvious as it appears. This mount is heavier than those above, and barely fits my criteria for "sneaking into" my wife's duffle bag. It does come apart, with the heavy arm unscrewing from the sturdy SLIK tripod. As mentioned, with a f/6.2 4" 14 lb. 22" long refractor, it works best at mid and low powers.
 
 

MARCH 30, 2000: So you think your scope is "cooled down"?
It took me long enough. In "star testing" optics, I usually run into a problem with the scope being "undercorrected" (rings are sharper inside of focus than outside as you defocus the star) 9 times out of 10. Many amateurs report the same thing to me. I can only think of one overcorrected scope that I currently own. Part of this problem, according to discussion on the newsgroup sci.astro.amateur has to do with the way fast optics (apochromatic refractors) are corrected, which masks the true star test. However, what I have also found is that the cool-down of optics takes much longer than one might imagine, and that can be seen by the scope's figure being "undercorrected". I've mentioned this before but didn't quite realize the full extent. I recently star tested a Yang/TMB 100mm f/8 refractor. The star test was nearly perfect one night, but then undercorrected on another. I decided to really let it cool down some more on a third night, and left it outside for 2 hours. The scope still appeared to be significantly undercorrected. Temperatures were dropping that night, it was cold outside, but I thought two hours would be enough. There was NO sign of tube currents or anything else that would have led me to believe that after 1/2 hour this scope needed further cooling. I am aware that further cooling needs to be take place, but over TWO HOURS on a 4" refractor? Indeed, that turned out to be the case...likely the scope was unable to easily catch up to the rate of the temperature fall on this night of radiational cooling.

On a fourth night I finally just left it outside, again it was cold and temperatures were dropping, but by 3am, when I got up from bed, I checked and indeed the scope was barely undercorrected, much like I would expect from it's paperwork. The bottom line is

#1. Don't judge your optics to be undercorrected too quickly
#2. You really need a significant amount of time to cool down your scope, much longer than after tube currents settle if you want absolute maximum performance
#3. Don't believe folks when they say that their 8" SCT cools down in an hour, they are flat out wrong (I have tried this with SCTs too)

By the way, since I wrote this, I had the scope out on a 5th night for testing, and the temperatures stablized outside, they stopped dropping. The scope showed little if any undercorrection... perhaps none at all. With further scrutiny perhaps I could have found something wrong with the star-test, but it was no longer a question of the cooldown. 

----------------------------------------------------------------- 

AND NOW EVEN MORE ARCHIVE.........

11/3/98 - Creative Use of Star Diagonals, and extention tubes

11/4/98 - On the use of an off-axis aperture mask on Newtonians

11/10/98 - On the long cool-down time of SCTs and larger scopes
(ISSUE REVISTED 10/22/99)

11/11/98 - On the value of observing in cold weather

11/12/98 - NO, I don't own all those scopes! (any longer)

11/15/98 - I received a TWO nasty emails....... (updated 12/23/98)
11/15/98 - On the virtues of plain ole' binoculars!

11/18/98 - Buying scopes more comfortably when you "know" the owner (of the company)

11/19/98 - Feelings about  high quality reflectors and the wavefront ratings

11/19/98 - On what "sharp-to-the-edge" means to me!

11/24/98 - Buying and selling on the 'net

12/1/98 - Latest thoughts on super-portable scopes

12/10/98 - Time for a "second opinion"...

12/22/98 - Clarification about refractors vs. reflectors ..

1/13/99 - On the "visual" benefits of astrophotography..

1/25/99 - Magnitude 6 skies at your SUBURBAN location?

1/25/99 - The new GOTO ETX, overkill?

1/27/99 - Binoviewing in LARGE aperture!

2/11/99 - On how CCD photography has helped my visual observing

2/16/99 - My thoughts on the new Nagler 4

2/16/99 - All around observer, not an "expert"

2/22/99 - On when optical quality is essential

3/24/99 - On the use of digital setting circles

4/2/99 - Astro-"value", you don't have to pay a lot....

4/7/99 - My background...

4/10/99 - When you really DON'T want more aperture (wide field)

4/16/99 - Aperture does NOT always win!!

5/13/99 - A case for building your scope

5/28/99 - Well I'll be darned (...or CCDs can do that?)

6/15/99 - 12 volt batteries.. The best are....

6/30/99 - Don't get too "cocky"...

7/23/99 - Best planetary magnification, exit pupil considerations..

8/6/99 - Optical measuring methods differ so.......

8/24/99 - Taking one's own advice

8/24/99 - The ultimate eyepiece.

9/2/99 - Florida "Seeing" and Plato, and The Traveler!

9/21/99 - On choosing a scope you will USE!

9/30/99 - CCD vs. Visual on planets....

10/7/99 - On using large aperture in light polluted skies..

11/7/99..On the importance of collimating scopes including SCTs

11/20/99."Put it in the optics"-thoughts on observatories, and GOTO vs. non GOTO

11/30/99 Thoughts on small aperture and ccd

12/3/99 Thoughts on star testing

12/4/99 If you can't reach focus with your 1.25" eyepiece...

1/6/00  Small really IS better!

1/24/00 Super-cold can affect the optics directly

2/18/00 Mounting your scope may be a problem - or not

2/25/00 Using a "control" scope to judge the others

3/07/00 "OBSESSED"!

03/08/00 Contrast

3/13/00  Using focal reducers

3/14/00 Exit pupil too wide?
 

==>RETURN TO TODD's HOME PAGE<==

11/3/98 - Many amateurs are still not aware that using a barlow creatively can
extend their eyepiece collection significantly. Most scopes that use star
diagonals will be able to reach focus if you place a barlow, such as a Celestron
Ultima Shorty Barlow, before the diagonal, or after. Before the diagonal, the
magnification will approach 3X depending on the type of eyepiece you use, after
the diagonal, it is approximately 2X. When I go travelling, I take a 30mm Ultima, a
2X shorty barlow, and a 7mm Nagler. That is it. I then effectively have 30mm, 15mm,
11mm, 7mm, 3.5mm, and 2.4mm eyepieces, all with just 3 units in hand. The barlow
only runs $65 second hand. 4/7/99 UPDATE: Many folks also aren't aware that extention
tubes can be used to reach higher magnification without a barlow on an SCT. It is one
of the few scopes that actually changes it's length based on it's focus position. You can
in effect increase the power 10-20% by adding 2-5" ext. tubes. Similarly, if you view
straight-through w/o a diagonal, you can decrease your magnification significantly. This
can effectively turn a 12mm eyepiece into a 10mm eyepiece if you use a 5" extention.
It's a good trick. (You can use either 1.25" or 2" diameter extentions for this, before or
after the 2" or 1.25" diagonal).
 

11/3/98 - A lot of folks wonder why I sell some of my best equipment. Basically, I can't afford to keep everything, but can't seem to lay my hands off of astronomy equipment,
thus a viscious cycle. However, I have been slowly working towards an ideal setup,
with less trading, buying, and selling. This week I sold a 55mm Vixen Fluorite scope, with
just about the best star test I have ever seen. However, my latest "kick" is that you can obtain more "bang" out of an 80 or 90mm aperture scope (that's a given) of high quality, and yet still be able to find them light enough and small enough in that size. So for instance, I have picked up an ETX with 90mm aperture, and superb optics to use as a guidescope, favoring it over the 55mm fluorite. However, I will suffer in that the maximum field of view is under 2 degrees, even with a reducer.

11/4/98- Time and time again I have recommended the use of an "off-axis" aperture mask on larger newtonians. This can be utilized is most "seeing" conditions to sharpen up the views of the moon and planets. When seeing is truly excellent, it defeats the purpose in almost all of these scopes, but when seeing conditions are mediocre or worse (which is the "norm" in many areas), sometimes the apparent "gains" in how crisp the planet looks is considerable. The mask can be made of cardboard, heavy stock, with the off-axis hole cut to a size of less than 40% of the primary size. The hole should be strategically placed between spider veins, and between the secondary and the edge of the primary mirror. Most of the time the mask is placed at the front of the scope, but I have heard of some which are placed right down near the primary. One of the reasons that this works so well, is that it also effectively increases your focal ratio by 2.5X. This means for instance an f/4 scope will become and f/10. Aberrations are reduced apparently corresponding to that F/R increase. Therefore , if you have a 1/2 wave mirror, you will likely have something better than 1/4 wave, etc, after the mask is placed on the scope. This could account for why my old 16" scope with Pegasus optics (excellent!) consistently beat out any refractor that I threw against it when stopped down to the same aperture. In fact, stopped down to 4" I was able to see such a surprising amount of detail, compared to other 4" scopes, that it makes me realize just how important quality optics are when you get towards the smaller aperture. Most of the time I used 6.4" aperture (40%) on planets with the 16" scope, and plan to use 7.2" or so on the new 18" scope if it ever arrives.

11/10/98- It has been my opinion for some time now, that the poorer performance (at least poorer, more often) on planets and the moon that SCTs (and other larger scopes) exhibit relative to somewhat smaller APO refractors might have more to due with thermal issues of the sky and internal to the scope more than anything else. I first received a confirming opinion of this from Roland Christen (who makes Astrophysics scopes) a few months back, and now Jeff Medkeff has done a an internal temperature study on a C-14. The conclusion is that it took FIVE HOURS for the scope to cool down in a fall-spring like temperature regime. It may be even more the internal temperature aspect MORE than the seeing conditions aloft that effect the views in these mid and larger size scopes. Mr. Christen is attacking the problem on his new "Maks" with vents in the tube. Others have tried internal fans, which help, but don't solve the problem.

Oct 99' Update: In testing various Newtonian reflectors lately, I am discovering that there is superior performance for quite some time until scopes are "cooled" when mirrors of less thickness are employed. In other words.. the supposedly "cheaper" thin 1" mirrors, if supported properly, cool so fast that they consistent provide more pleasing views within an hour or so after taking them outside, or when temperatures vary quickly. This is no small matter and should be considered when purchasing a scope.
 

11/11/98 - I recently read a page on the 'net from an Observer who admits to putting his scopes away during the long, cold, upstate NY winter. What a waste it seemed to me for him to miss nearly 1/2 year. A quick set-up scope would allow him to grab quick peeks from his driveway this winter of Jupiter, Saturn, the Moon and Mars, among other brighter, easy-to-find nebula. Mars in particular is coming up on opposition, and should not be overlooked. The Starmaster 7" that I currently own has provided that quick "set-up". It literally (no exagerration at all) takes 30 seconds to set up the scope, and if the eyepiece is already in place, just another 30 seconds to grab a chair, and with the Telrad place a planet in the eyepiece. In about 1 minute, I can grab a look to see if the "seeing" conditions are special, and if so.. I'll brave the cold for 10 minutes even if it's 0 degrees fahrenheit. Keeping the scope outdoors though is the trick, as it has to be cool. Keep it outside the house or garage if you can, covered, but cooling - ready to be placed nearby in 30 seconds! And by the way, this sort of patience paid off.. I finally got to see my first real detail on Mars on 11/10/98 for this apparition while it was only 4.8 arc seconds large. A dark feature hung underneath the polar cap, which is apparently shrinking a little faster than normal this martian spring.

11/12/98 - A friend of mine emailed me a few weeks ago that he was corresponding with people that were under the impression I owned many, many telescopes. (they also thought I had a car collection) Actually this isn't true at all (especially about the cars!!). I usually have only a few scopes at any one time, as I am constantly striving for the perfect set-up. However, this means an airline portable scope, a car-portable scope, and/or astrophotography scope, and a large aperture scope. My fickle behavior, not being able to "settle" on any one thing has led to my scope reviews. In a sense, I've tried to turn my "indecision" into a positive thing. (I admit I have a bit of a weakness for buying great scopes, especially second hand... it's habit forming as many of you would agree!) I felt it odd to just buy and re-sell something without having written about it on the net. In trying to make the scopes work even better, I have stumbled across many eyepieces, binoviewers, and more.. again leading to the mini-reviews.

11/15/98 - This "thoughts" page is pretty good self-psycho-therapy. A professional on-air
meteorologist once told me (before I got into the field) that there will always be someone out there
who just simply doesn't like you. As a teenager, I hardly believed him at the time, but have since found it to be quite true...........................

I was contacted by a certain optical expert with a brief e-mail this past weekend that I wanted to share. Here was the entire contents:

>Please leave the optical testing to the professionals. Thank you<

While I have helped this person with a certain endeavor in past, I thought it would be ill-willed to be overly insulted by his e-mail. Instead I offered that he post his bench test reports anywhere on the web, including my web page if he would like, and I would be honored to post or link to them. He ignored the request entirely. In an attempt to see what kind of "quality" this fellow was looking for, I sent him a copy of my Binoviewer article.  He was seemingly unimpressed. If fact, if you the reader of this web page,  are NOT impressed with the practical advice of that Binoviewer article, I suggest you will not understand where this web page is "coming from". Anyway, as stated in the equipment review section, I would be happy to post any kind of additional input from folks who may disagree, or understand something better than I. While no optical expert, the little star testing ability that I have has allowed me to return two scopes, both of which the manufacturers agreed needed to be re-done. 1/99 UPDATE.. The person involved has since exchanged much more positive emails with me :)

Also recently, after publicly inquiring as to the whereabouts of my 'net friend E. Jamison, an excellent planetary observer who seemed to have disappeared on me,  I received a terse email from him indicating that he would never read or return any of my emails again.  He said that he thought I didn't take his advice to heart, and thus had no desire to communicate with me in any way. Quite the contrary, I found his advice invaluable and still use much of it today. One example, is he was first to inform me that a .8mm exit pupil is ideal of planetary observing. It took me a couple of years to
settle on that as gospel myself! In fact, the only thing I can think that I ever doubted him on was his weather observer reports on snowfall measurement. He was also a channel 7 weather-watcher, and was regularly a  bit shy on total snow when he called in. Alas, Mr. Jamison will never know (unless you tell him) that his astronomical advice was some of best I ever got. The reason.. ..all my notes of inquiry & explanation were returned to me by American Online, unread.

I was asked recently if I was trying to humiliate the above two people. I thought long and hard about that. That is NOT my intention. My intention is to "vent" as my feelings were hurt, and to send a signal that I really would like it if people would think twice before hitting the SEND key after writing something so hurtful to me, or anyone for that matter.

11/15/98 - I went "crazy" this past week and once again have REALLY gotten into binoculars. Many amateurs don't realize, you can do astronomy with a variety of aperture and magnifications. Some of my best binocular views to date have been through 8x32s, even though you can't go quite as "deep" into the sky. In testing binoculars vs. the scope with the binoviewer, it is quite apparent that the binoviewer has better contrast and edge sharpness and resolution. However, the light gathering power of a 4.1" (105mm) scope with the binoviewer just barely matches a typical pair of 15X70s. Furthermore, 15X binoculars (some of them) can even be used hand-held! How easy that makes it to find deep sky objects, by star hopping. Getting the "bug" again though means going to stores, testing, and ordering, and re-selling some pairs. I am very impressed with the contrast on the Nikon Superior E series as an example. It was significantly more contrasty and resolution-sharp in the store (the 8x32s) than my Ultima binoculars, also 8x32s, which I have been so impressed with as it is to date. The comet LINEAR is visible tonight, and my first stop will be with binoculars.

11/18/98 - Finding myself "confused" by claims and counter-claims about the quality of scopes and the written reports that sometimes accompany them... it suddenly dawned on me this week why I tend to favor certain companies. While I have a completely "open mind" regarding the quality of scopes made 'round the world.. I feel most comfortable with smaller companies whose owners are "reachable". Starmaster, Televue, Astrophysics, & Starlight Express (CCD) are some of the manufacturers with whom I have spoken with directly. The owners of each one of the above companies are so proud of the product they produce, it becomes very apparent that their heart and soul is right there inside the scope (or product) you purchase. Some of the most memorable scopes I have ever tried include Takahashi, Vixen and Intes, but the comfort factor, for me, is just a tad less with those companies, because I don't even have the faintest idea how to contact the owner of those companies directly. Oh yes.. many of you are probably wondering about the "big two" in the United States. Larger companies also tend to make me feel a bit uncomfortable because it can be (and is) difficult to reach the owner. I once wrote a letter to the head of Celestron for instance, and it was never returned. (Don't get me wrong, I do love many Celestron products as you can tell from my mini-reviews)

11/19/98 - Seeing conditions (how stable the atmosphere is) went surprising good for this time of year last night in my Massachusetts location. Detail through the scopes on Jupiter, Saturn, and even tiny Mars (only 5 arc seconds, but much detail was discernible) was vivid. There was plenty of detail within the various Jovian belts for instance. The Cassini division on Saturn was black, sharp and etched. This gave the 7" Starmaster with Zambuto optics a workout. While I did not receive "papers" with this custom-ordered mirror, I recall how just about the best views I have had on planets have been with Newtonians outfitted with Pegasus or Zambuto mirrors, which tend to have paperwork with wavefront numbers that are often doubted by many folks. In one case, the p-v wavefront on a 12.5" mirror I owned was 1/24th wave. After discussing this fully on the newsgroup sci.astro.amateur, and John Hall of Pegasus, and Rick Singmaster of Starmaster, I have come to the conclusion that there is generally no real disagreement. All sides agree that a test with an Interferometer might yield different results. Perhaps even a wavefront rating of 1/2, or less, of what the Focault (or whatever test they use) is coming up with. In addition, rarely has anyone been able to refute the views at the eyepiece. If it's rated very high, even if you half the numbers, those numbers are generally speaking, indicative of the relative qualitiy of the mirror, especially within the line of mirrors coming out from a single mirror-maker. Assuming a  collimated system , and if the skies are steady, these particular scopes have been wowing just about everyone, with detail even reported, and corroborated on Jovian moons at well over 1000X.  To say that the numbers are "inflated" is missing the story, as the very companies (US domestic anyway) that are coming out with these so-called "inflated" numbers happen to be the ones also turning out some of the best optics available, whether the techniques producing numbers are to your liking or not. Again, let me clarify.. there are plenty of great mirror makers in the US, I know of at least 4 or 5 outfits, including my Internet friend Mike Spooner. Some have techniques which produce higher "numbers" than others for the essentially the same quality mirror. My point is: don't get "hung up" on the numbers one way or another... as it is technique - dependent... find out which companies are putting out the consistently finest figured glass - and go for it!

11/19/98 - I can't tell you how many times people have told me that their binoculars were "sharp to the edge". The fact is, I have only tested ONE pair of binoculars that truly were sharp enough to the edge of the field, to be considered "sharp to the edge". The excellent Fujinon and Leica binoculars, while much better than most, aren't even close. Even the Nikon Superior SE, one of my favorite binoculars of all-time, that I once called sharp at the edge myself, are simply.... not. They are the "runners up" (as I understand are other Nikon models, which to be fair, I haven't tried yet, like the Prostar) The way I can tell is either watching a star blur at the very edge of field, or trying to read tiny text on-axis, and then bringing it to the edge of field (it becomes unreadable, if it was barely readable on-axis). The ONLY binoculars where the drop off at the edge was so miniscule that I couldn't really tell if it was my eyes playing tricks on me, or the binoculars themselves.. were the Canon IS series. Edge sharpness becomes especially important when viewing broad star clusters, but it is not necessary for the binoculars to be truly sharp all-the-way to the edge to be pleasing. Personally, the more I view, the more important it becomes to me. The next time ANYONE tells you that their binoculars are as sharp at the edge as on-axis, take it with a grain of salt. (unless they own the above-mentioned)

11/24/98 - I can't be sure how much the reader may know of my "habit" of buying and selling on the Internet. It is a bit maniacal. What brought this to mind was that a friend of mine, who is a dealer, was under the impression that I get "special" test units when I evaluate scopes... loaners from the manufacturer. Actually, this isn't true, but if you think about it.. I get 80% of my stuff second-hand anyway, so it doesn't even apply. What I would like to share with you is that generally speaking I have had very positive experiences on Astromart, the Astronomy Mall, and SCIBID (the auction site) Recently, someone agreed to sell me an Astrophysics Traveler, his name was John. (couldn't resist) It was a 100% rock-solid deal. Even though I was buying it pretty close to the new-retail price, and more than his asking price, he found out he could get even more for it, and put it up for auction. He  advertised it on Astromart too while he knew I was waiting for the scope. No money was exchanged, but it was a crummy thing to do. Other than that.. in the hundreds of online deals I have made, once in awhile something is not in the condition I expect, or it takes longer to receive something than I had thought. Basically though.. ALMOST NO PROBLEMS. I highly recommend trading on the 'net, but with your eyes wide open, that is try to deal the most you can with people you have already gotten to know, use COD, and credit cards where you can. Buying second hand equipment is really great in that you can usually re-sell for a similar price, avoiding a loss, and will let you "try out" what is best for you!

12/1/98 - Many folks come to me for advice as to what scope they should buy in the small aperture arena. The problem is that it really depends on budget. Personally, I gravitate towards small APO refractors for my travel scope, with it's huge field at low power, and relatively incredible planetary performance at high power.  I have become frustrated at the limits of light gathering from 4" scopes and less, and therefore, budget allowing, cannot recommend 70mm scopes. Even my Televue 85mm, while fantastic, I find limiting on many astronomical objects, such as galaxies. It's the TV85, the Brandon 80 apo, and the upcoming Astrophysics 90mm EDL that are the most portable. It's the 105mm astrophysics traveler, and the upcoming Takahashi 106mm that will perform the best. (although I am not yet convinced that the 106mm Tak will be airline luggable, we'll see) With all the new offerings in the 80-106mm f/5-f/7 range from Televue, Vernonscope, Astrophysics, and Takahashi, if  you can swing it - I'd go that route in terms of an airline-portable scope. The G5 SCT from Celestron is also worth a second look, despite the more limited field of view.

12/10/98 - I can't tell you how many times people I really trust, who are REALLY knowledgeable have lead me the wrong way. No amateur, or even professional, seems to know EVERYTHING about this astro-hobby of ours.  A second opinion is always wise. (even after reading THESE pages!) Examples of this include a dealer friend who is quite knowledgeable, but not only stated to me....but actually believed.... that his 50mm Takahashi refractor would outperform (on planets) a typical 8" SCT. While some SCTs are not up to par, and "seeing conditions", "cool-down" time and other factors get in the way of SCT performance, the inference that the 8"  optics would allow the planetary view to fall short of a better made 50mm refractor is just plain wrong. Similarly, a 'net friend of mine once told me the best view he had of Jupiter was through his 90mm Vixen fluorite. While the view through that scope was tremendous, again it was limited by it's aperture. Aperture again came up recently when someone told me that the 15x45 Canons perform like 70mm binoculars. While the view is sharp, right to the edge, (and the Image Stabilization is very convenient) unlike any other pair of binoculars I have ever tried (even the Nikon superior E, see other article) it does NOT gather light like "giant" binoculars. No way. No how.

12/22/98 - I received yet another email from a friend who opened with this: "Of course I know refractors are better for planetary than reflectors..." WHOA! Stop right there! While SOME of the finest 6" and larger APO refractors offer contrast and resolution that is extremely hard to beat, there is no reason that a finely made reflector won't offer equal to, if not better the refractor performance on lunary and planetary observing. The very best planetary observations made for ALPO are usually with larger reflectors, which offer higher resolving power. Generally speaking, 10" and larger reflectors are utilized for this high resolution work, and Don Parker's images for example have been done with 16" reflectors and SCTs. I personally have a 5.1" APO refractor that has offered tremendous planetary views, but find it inferior when the skies steady and the large reflectory with excellent figure can be utilized. The fact that "seeing conditions" (turbulence) often lead to reduced planetary performance at large aperture and that collimation is not routinely "dead on", and that reflectors often have less of an excellent figure depending on the source does not change the fact that even with the central obstruction, the planetary resolution is usually greater and contrast is darn good as well. Now there are several caveats. Firstly, contrast will be down on an SCT because of the large central obstruction, and light scatter will cause the surrounding sky background on many reflecting or compound systems to be inferior to an APO. In addition, larger aperture tends to cause bright stars to look less sharp. All in all though, it is simply false to make a blanket statement that refractors are for planetary and reflector deep sky. I don't believe John York, a 'net friend of mine has even read this paragraph above, and yet he sent me THIS ARTICLE on January 16, 1999 about his agreement on this matter..

1/13/99 - After struggling (but having fun) for two days to process a nice shot of M51 from my 9.25" Celestron that exceeded earlier efforts, I inevitably discovered a much better one on the 'net taken with a C14. "Why the hell am I doing this?" was the thought at the time. Well, the answer is partially because it aids in my visual observations. Using a large scope for visual, I am able to discover things while at work , or at home on a cloudy day by examining some of my ccd shots while I am processing or afterwards. I suppose this can be said of examining other people's work, but it just doesn't receive the same scrutiny. Plus, you can process the images to "mimmick" the visual look if you want. For instance, in that the M51 shot, the dark lanes and the foreground stars are something I look for visually on good nights. In my latest M13 globular  picture, I have discovered something that many deep sky observers apparently were aware of.. that there is a SECOND "propeller" in M13, not just the Y shaped dark lane, but a little X of stars near the center. I went searching around, and found all the better M13 shots that are well resolved also shows this feature. Some for me to look for indeed next time at the eyepiece!

1/25/99 - You know, it happened to me again this morning. I looked outside, saw it was cloudy, and took my time getting the scope out. Being a meteorologist, I knew it should clear shortly, but only had a 1/2 hour or so to observe before work. (I work EARLY) However, I didn't rush, thinking the partial clouds would hinder the observing anyway. BAD MOVE. Had I rushed a little bit more, I would have captured the darkest skies of the year. When I went outside, the skies had just cleared, and I was down to magnitude 5.5 or so at the zenith. Normally I reap magnitude 5.0 only. This had happened before after a Tropical Storm in the summer, when suddenly the milky way was apparent as can be. WHY? Because when clouds leave my area, it is still often cloudy over Boston, it blocks the Boston light, and skies are DARKER than usual! During the case of the tropical storm departing, clouds were actually covering at times the nearby lights of two neighboring towns as well, and every time I was in a hole in the clouds, my skies were magnificent! Unfortunately, this morning, I was a bit late by taking my time, and by the time I hit the eyepiece.. skies were back to the normal "grey", not black. This effect, by the way, is similar to what happens up on Fremont peak in California where observers find magnitude 6+ skies as the fog settles over the bay region and blocks their lights. If you really want to maximize your skies, for a few minutes of darker-than-normal observing, be ready as the storm moves out, leaving YOU in the clear, but not your light polluting pain-in-the-you-know-what neighboring towns!

1/25/99 - As much as I like the idea of the new Meade ETX and it's GOTO capability, all for just $750.00, I can't help but be concerned that this could be detrimental in some ways to Astronomy as a whole. There is going to be a huge number of newcomers who buy the scope, take it out in the suburbs, and fully expect to see more than the few dozen or so objects that can detected in suburbia through the scope. I'm imagining hundreds, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people totally confused. I mean, I knew better and I was still confused as to why I couldn't see galaxies readily in my 5" scope in my return to observing in the early 1990s. I was remembering times when I was viewing in dark rural skies, and fully expected galaxies to look like, well,  galaxies... even in suburbia... which of course, they don't. (smudges of light at that aperture in most cases at best) To tell you the truth, it's the galaxies which are the problem. The newbie LIKES the idea of seeing galaxies, and they are the hardest objects to get a good view of. Even in my 18", only a few of them look like the photos, and in those cases, they are still low in contrast. Throw in an f/14 system which isn't that great for deep sky anyway, and a general apathy among newbies for star clusters and doubles (which are great through the ETX) and you have mass confusion. That's just how I see it. I am imagining answering a lot of emails regarding the ETX. Perhaps when it comes down to photography, it makes more sense (but how will the scope slew with a camera hanging off of it?? I'm not quite sure) Again, don't get me wrong, I probably will end up getting one of those suckers for myself one day, it's irresistable, but no doubt, overkill!

1/27/99 - I was out observing a couple of nights ago, and turned towards one of the best objects in the sky for both visual and photographic observing: NGC4565. This amazing, sprawling edge-on galaxy features a prominent dark lane, and a glowing core with a foreground star of around 14th magnitude close to the central bulge. It is best in dark skies, and with moderately large aperture. In this case, I was using the 18", and I was trying to remember whether or not the views were exceeding my previous 16" scope. It was close. One thing I was able to ascertain though, while playing with various magnifications and my binoviewer: This galaxy looked not "just as good" , but even better WITH the binoviewer, even in terms of how the brain perceives brightness.

This may not sound like a big deal, but for a device that splits the beam in half, with something less than 50% of the total throughput reaching each eye separately, that is pretty good for an extended object like a galaxy. Binoviewers give more enjoyable views in general, but on dim objects, they can take away a bit in terms of the apparent brightness of the object. Turns out, that as your aperture increases, this becomes less of a problem, to the point where at 16", I noted that galaxies looked about the same in the binoviewer. However, in the 18", there was even mild improvement, right down to bringing out the star next to the central bulge more prominently. The extra discerning power is enough to make up for the light loss, when you use larger instruments. What then, is the advantage to using a binocular telescope of let's say 12 or 14" which would give comparable views? Isn't a twin telescope large and bulky to the point that it would discourage ownership or use? Why not just put the money into a larger aperture, and use a binoviewer... along with ways to reduce the magnification (magnification is needed to reach focus see http://www.weatherman.com/nagler3.htm for info. on focus options with binoviewers. ) I guess I won't know for sure until I try one of the giant scope binoculars, but for now.. it's the large scope and the binoviewer for me!

2/11/99 - In processing some CCD photographs of late, it has become more and more apparent to me that making the photos is instructive to visual observing. Take for instance my photo of M13, the Hercules Globular cluster. While the main "Y", or propeller (Y shaped dark lane) is just barely visible near the top, the less reported "little propeller" can be seen as an "X" of bright stars nearly on the cluster's core. Going back to the scope and looking for this visually I was surprised at just how easy and rewarding (at least in larger aperture) the view of this internal asterism is. In fact, when processing CCD images, one can be careful NOT to overexpose areas that would otherwise be washed out in conventional photographs, and try to correllate what one can see through the scope(s) with what one is observing on the computer screen.

2/16/99 - The Nagler 4 line has been announced, and will start out with a bang.. a new 12mm Nagler coming out in March, and more importantly, a 22mm 2" Nagler coming out in the summer of 99'. The 12mm is reportedly just a tad shorter, and fatter than the old 12mm Nagler 2, but has three important improvements. Firstly 17mm eye relief. Secondly a click stop in-out eyeguard. Thirdly, less pin-cushion distortion allowing for a wider true field of view. Also, one less element will likely mean higher contrast images, or better light throughput. Most importantly though is the 22mm Nagler 4 which does further the old 20mm (now discontinued) revolution. Lighter than the 20mm Nagler 2, the 22mm will also have an 82 deg. apparent field of view, but like the 12mm Nagler 4, will have less distortion, thus a wider true field of view. How wide? A tad wider than a 27mm Panoptic.  It also has the click stop eyeguard and the 17mm eye relief. The reason this has caught my attention is because for my Dob, viewing through light pollution, I need to pump up the power to around 20mm to bring out the contrast of many galaxies, and extended objects. This previously was at the expense of field of view, but no longer. This will be my perfect "low" (really medium, but you get the point) power eyepiece for this scope. It also means that even with any scope, you will get nearly (not quite, but nearly) the "real" field size out of an eyepiece with 2+ X magnification of a 55mm plossl. Quite a feat.Most objects look better with higher magnification even though the exit pupil size shrinks (diameter of the beam of light that exits the eyepiece corresponding to overall brightness one perceives). Exciting times indeed.

2/16/99 - I receive enough email from folks reading these pages to know that I am given a little bit too much credit. I am NOT an expert in this amateur astronomy stuff. I am just well rounded. That is, these pages sprung up from my wanting to document everything I was doing so that I wouldn't forget, and would have a chance to share my experiences. I started writing stuff down around 1995 when I didn't know a whole heck of a lot. I have been observing for 38 years, but have been obsessed with it for only 6 years. I have, however, tried a huge number of scopes, and eyepieces. I have also become familiar with binoviewers and binoculars. Lastly, I've dabbled a bit in astrophotography, and recently quite heavily in CCD imaging. I observe all kinds of objects intensely from the planets to deep sky, and am working on my Herschel 400... however, I'm afraid to say I have become an expert in exactly NONE of the above.  :)

2/22/99 - It's funny, but I've taken for granted lately the error in the old rule of thumb.. that slow scopes (f/10 and slower) are generally better in performance than fast scopes (f/8 and faster). The way mirrors and optics are being finished today, fast scopes like the f/6 Astrophysics' offerings perform even better than slower scopes of equal aperture, when they are of  lesser optical quality. It is apparently harder though to figure the faster scopes to reach this fine quality... but it IS being done now, somewhat routinely. What I have found in testing (really "playing around with" more than testing..but testing sounds more official) dozens of scopes, is that the importance of a well figured optic comes especially in the smaller apertures, specifically, I am referring to the 3-6" range. The resolution for instance of a 5" scope is pretty darn close to 1 arc second. This is barely, and I mean BARELY sufficient enough for high resolution views of the planets. Anything less than great optics will set you back to weak performance at higher magnification over 175X (inability to make out fine detail)  ....although perhaps still offering a crisp view at low magnification (75-150x). This is not necessarily the case with larger aperture. A less-than-perfect figure can be tolerated in larger scopes, (8" on up) and when skies are steady enough, detail can still be observed (although the optics apparently still have to be 1/2-decent) even if there is let's say.... 1/4 wave of spherical aberration. In larger apertures over 12" even worse figures can be tolerated. The extent of this is not clear to many people and certainly not to me, but as a broad overall statement, I can decisively say that when buying a scope in the 3-6" range, if you want to do serious planetary observing, you need to throw your money into getting the best achievable optics rather than on other bells and whistles. A final related note.. the 3-4" category is shut out of truly fine-detailed planetary views by their aperture alone but can still offer up some mighty impressive detail, just not the smallest stuff.... so one should still consider how fine an optic they can get when looking into that 3"-4" range.  For instance, viewing with the Televue 85mm in Florida last summer, I could make out The Cassini division on Saturn like it was child's play, and discerned the white ovals splitting the Southern Equatorial belt on Jupiter. However, I was NOT able to break those ovals into individuals like I could with 5" and greater aperture scopes.

3/24/99 - It always amazes me how vehemently people argue for and against the use of Digital Setting Circles (DSCs), and telescopes that GOTO (point themselves) . It seems so clear to me that there are benefits to both "star hopping", and using DSCs. Star hopping is obviously the best way to learn the sky, and holds the most potential satisfaction as you track down your deep sky object and then observe it. I use a Telrad for this purpose, and would have been in big trouble the other night when I was showing some school-kids a few objects if I didn't know how to star hop. M42 is obviously very easy, but I surprised even myself by putting it in the eyepiece in less than 3 seconds. The Pleaides 2 seconds, and M35 only took about 15 seconds too. It would have been nice had my mental data-base included about 100 objects or more, but I think I only had about 20 objects in that brain of mine for the given sky, without a star chart handy. Part of the reason I didn't know even more off-the-cuff is my partial reliance on DSCs. However, there are many times when the use of DSCs is a big boost to an observer. First, if you use a CCD camera and wish to pick out faint objects, DSCs are a must. If you have a very limited amount of time to observe in a session, the GOTO systems in particular can allow you to scrutinize several objects in the amount of time it would take to find an object otherwise. Consider that I often observe for 30 minutes before I leave for work early in the morning, and you can see why DSCs are helpful in that situation. Twilight and/or daytime observing is greatly enhanced by using DSCs. Lastly, if you have light polluted skies, star hopping becomes a very trying proposition. I'm on the verge of that situation too. Darwin Bagley, a friend of mine recently summed it all up.. with THIS NOTE.  Overall, I can't imagine heading out without being comfortable star-hopping, but those that mock DSCs and GOTO systems are missing the point of the other side: Some folks like to spend more of their time "observing" rather than "finding"!

4/2/99 - A funny thing happened to me this week. I bought a pair of 15x70 Little Giants from Orion four weeks ago. I then found a pair of Fujinon 16x70s used this week. The Fujinons were a tad brighter than the 15x70 Orion's. They also had much better edge performance. They were however, much heavier, and could not be hand held for more than a moment. In addition, on-axis, the clarity was superb.. but SO WERE THE ORIONS! Anyway, I sent back the Orion 15x70s in favor of the fujinons, and then I realized while viewing Venus that the Fujis were not 100% collimated. It would run at least $55 plus shipping to have them fixed. I returned the Fujis, and called back Orion, and begged them to ship back the same pair of 15x70s that just left my door 2 days before. Imagine that, on-axis performance similar to binoculars that are over 2X as expensive. $269 for a very serious astronomical tool.
4/11/99 update.. Believe it or not, I have learned YET ANOTHER lesson from this whole thing. The first was not to rush to judgement, the second is to always check sources of discount items. Orion did NOT return my pair, but instead put them up on their bargain page, and not only did somebody else snatch them from under me, he emailed me to let me know of his feat! He got a nice pair of binoculars, for a nice price! Hopefully my next pair, bought back at full price will be equal in performance.
 

4/7/99 - A few people have asked me more about my background lately. So here it is...I started in Astronomy in 1960 at age five with a Spitz junior planetarium and a few books. I taught astronomy "classes" to a bunch of 4 and 5 year old friends who thought I was a bit nuts. I believe I may not have gotten the planetarium until I was around 6. I still remember running my fingers along the globe feeling the holes for the stars. I am trying to buy one used just for old times sake currently. I followed with a Harmonic Reed Moonscope when I was around 6 or 7. I did re-purchase that last year. The instructions are great!  I was first into Lunar/solar views, then planetary with a 60mm Monolux refractor that my parents bought me before I was 10 or so. I can barely remember my first view of Saturn only because I was so young. However, I do recall my first view through the moonscope as being totally amazed at the craters. I then went into deep sky when I built an 8" f/8 Newtonian on a GEM when I was around 14. My favorites were the ring nebula and M13. I also observed the Mars apparition of 1971 through that scope. Someone gave me a pair of 20x70 binoculars, and I viewed galaxies through it in dark country skies. I also tried my hand at astrophotography, mostly unguided, and developed my own pictures. I attended Stellafane in 1972 and saw the amazing Aurora. The scopes there were large, and intimidated me to some degree.

I got into eclipses in 1970, which took over my astronomical interest from 1972 to 1994. I went to Cap Chat and was barely clouded out of totality in 1972. I was also interested in meteor showers and comets, and viewed Comet West in the mid 70s. I published my first article (it was about the solar eclipse) in the Amateur Observers Society (of New York) magazine in early 1970. In effect, my deep sky and planetary observations took a back seat to solar observing, meteor showers, and interesting conjunctions. I still looked occasionally through the scope and binoculars. I teamed up at my "Weather Service"  (Compu-Weather Inc.) with Joe Rao in 1978, and we still communicate today. He furthered my interest in solar eclipses and meteor showers. Hearing of the comet impact due on Jupiter in 1994, I suddenly went nuts in May of that year. I started shopping and observing again, and couldn't make up my mind on the right kind of equipment. I wanted to try it all! Somebody suggested I keep a running log of the equipment I tried, and I began the web page by early 1995, starting with weather-astronomy articles. These were published in group newsletters right away nationwide. I took over the Meade Advanced Product User Group from Robert Fields around 1996, and administered it for well over a year. I learned a number of "tricks" (many posted on this very page) while playing with so many different kinds of scopes and eyepieces. I got into CCD astronomy very early in 1998, after dabbling with astrophotography for many years. Meanwhile, I was getting interested in weather, also since 1960, and went to school to become a meteorologist. I have been working in radio field since 1973 and television since 1980. I am a regular poster to NETASTROCATALOG, a deep sky observers log over the net, and to the newsgroup sci.astro.amateur. I have been invited to speak at NEAF in Suffern, NY May 1999, regarding weather & astronomy. I truly appreciate the number of people who have advised me over the past several years. Currently, I observe roughly 250 nights per year (over 90% of the time it is clear), and participate in astronomical discusion and/or tinkering very close to 365 days per year.

_______________________________________________

04/10/99 - I had to remind myself this week why I have the Starmaster 7" f/5.4. I almost jumped at the chance to buy a 10" f/6 as my car portable scope. The performance of the Starmaster with the Zambuto optics is not only great, but now I've added flocking, a three vein spider, and a neat little knob which aids in the manual tracking (cost 50 cents) But the allure of greater aperture if the size of the scope remains portable was very appealing. However.. why, with greater aperture at my fingertips, do I often observe with this scope? I remembered:  It's the wide field views. Put a 35mm panoptic on that baby (Starmaster 7) and I'm seeing 2.5 whopping degrees of sky. Not only that, but I've maximized the exit pupil to it's limit (Assuming young eyes and dark skies.. 7x5.4 should be the limit of the eyepiece that I select) with the 35mm Panoptic. If I went with any greater aperture at roughly f/5, I'd not only be unable to get a wider slice of sky, since the 35mm panoptic is almost the limit in terms of field stop diameter for a 2" eyepiece,  but in order to do it, I'd have to go to a higher focal length eyepiece which means wasted light. (like 55mm, or alternately using a faster scope like f/4, or f/3.5)  You see, the cone of light coming out of the eyepiece would be bigger than my pupil! The bottom line: for wide field, I'd STILL have only an effective 7" scope, even if it was 8, 9, 10". That's not to say that the larger aperture wouldn't do better at higher magnifications than the 7", but there is no advantage at a 2.5 degree field on larger aperture since the light is "wasted" and since you can't really get to those wide field views without being extremely "fast". (you'd need roughly f/4 or lower on a 10"+ scope to get that field size) Similarly, for a 4+ degree field of view, the best bet are some of the 4" fast refractors. (like the A/P traveler, TV101, and Tak FSQ106) One of my beefs with the Meade ETX as a perfect scope is that here you have the small aperture perfect for utilizing a wide field to it's limit, something large scopes can't do,  but the f-ratio prevents you from doing so! With available optics as fine as they are lately in both refractors and refractors , one should decide what the maximum field size they will want to view .. and then buy a scope that can do both high power and low power views successfully. Small and medium aperture fast scopes sure have something to offer!

4/16/99 - Generally speaking, the term "Aperture Wins" is a good rule of thumb when deciding on a telescope. However, some of the pitfalls to the rule are well known, but some are not at all, and I am uncovering them now for myself. For instance, it is well known, and written up on this page previously, that high quality scopes such as fine APO refractors, and well made small reflectors, will outperform larger scopes in times of fair-poor seeing conditions, on planetary performance. What isn't as generally publicized though, is that the contrast and light transmission combination actually make certain kinds of scopes act as if they are of larger aperture on DEEP SKY objects too! A few years ago, my friend Eric Jamison (who you know isn't talking to me from my earlier write-up for some still unknown reason) told me that his 7" refractor seemed to be performing closer to a 10" scope than a 7" in terms of deep sky. I was skeptical (maybe THAT is why he isn't talking to me!) but have since come to the conclusion that if he was talking about an SCT, he was probably right. You see, I was comparing scopes last weekend.. the 5.1" A/P , the 7" Starmaster with it's new flocking paper installed, for baffling, and the C9.25" SCT from Celestron. ALL SCOPES test out 1/6th wave or better at the eyepiece. There was no question that the 5" was falling just short of the performance of the 7" on deep sky, and surprisingly, the 7" was performing just about EQUALLY to the 9.25". Now considering the central obstruction of around 3.3" or so, I would have expected the 9" to act closer to an 8" due to the approximately 12% obstruction (by area) However, I was just as easily able to identify a magnitude 14.2 star in both scopes, and M51 looked equally good in both scope. M13 was equally resolved in both scopes. I was using similar eyepieces to reach nearly identical magnifications in this test. While this will take some further looking into, as I only tried about 4 objects, it confirms an earlier finding. When comparing a 6" Mak-Cass from Intes to my 16" reflector STOPPED DOWN to 5.4" off-axis, the clear aperture reflector showed much better contrast and apparent light grasp. Similarly, I noticed that the 12.5" portaball seemed to be more impressive on M42 than the C14 SCT... although I didn't have them side by side. Is it possible that the compound scopes, possibly due to the corrector plates, or the larger central obstructions, are not quite acting up to their own aperture? The old rule of "aperture wins" may apply within lines, but may not when comparing different styles of telescopes.

5/13/99 - Persistent cloudy weather last week gave me the perfect excuse to build a 6" air-line portable reflector that I had planned for a few weeks prior. I'm awaiting an official "Michael Spooner" mirror, but am using another 6" f/5 mirror for the time being. In perusing the Internet for ideas, I have found others have come up with tremendous scopes that are well beyond my current abilities. However, I also noticed that these folks have built scopes far in excess of the quality of what is commercially available for about the same price or less than those you can buy. As usual, the bottom line to all this is ..."if I can do it, you certainly can". I even built the primary mirror cell without much incident, using guidelines from Richard Berry's "Build Your Own Telescope" book. I had to borrow some parts of another scope to get this prototype completed, and it still is slightly unsteady, however, I now have a full 6" aperture that tucks in a camera bag, that will make it through airline carry-on check-in. Mel Bartel's ATM mail list is wonderful, check it out.. subscribe by sending email to atm-request@shore.net
and write "subscribe" in the main message.

5/28/99 - Alright, so I have a homebuilt scope behind me. What next? New ccd camera. Borrowed an ST7 for a few months, and what an experience after playing with it for a week. It is DIFFERENT from the MX5c, but not necessarily better. It can't do color as easily, and I like the image processing better on the MX5c, however, it is easier to track, and combine images using the ST7 while taking the photos, among other advantages. One of the oddest things that happened to me though was this: I heard about photometry, but didn't really think I'd do anything about it, out of my league. However, in calling up my ring nebula photo I just happened to punch up the "crosshairs" and placed them over the various stars near the ring nebula. I knew from Brian Skiff's study, that the brightest star adjacent to the ring was magnitude 13.1, next to it, a 14.2 magnitude star, and on the other side, the double star coming in at magnitude 14.6. What the heck.. I tried it: What did I come up with from my dinky 2 minute shot? 13.14, 14.29, and 14.76. I still can't believe it. What a rush!

6/22/99 Okay, I give up. My normally fabulous 7 amp-hour 12volt battery just won't run for very long at all driving the Inverter and the ST-7 CCD camera. I know one that will though. I have a deep cycle marine battery that I got at WALMART that barely needs a charge after roughly 20 , 1-2 hour uses with my AP 600 E mount. With so many pieces of hardware running off of 12volts, OR requiring a 12volt battery to drive an inverter and supply 110v A/C.... it was a great tip that the folks on the LX200 mail list gave me regarding this battery. I'm going to go buy another one for the CCD.

6/30/99 I missed a tremendous opportunity this morning because I was a bit too hasty, a bit too cocky. I had only a 25 minute window to image Jupiter, and was very impressed with myself that I setup totally in 8 minutes time, from Polar Aligning to completely setting up the scope, eyepiece, flip mirror, ccd camera, etc. I was actually imaging within that 8 minute time. I wanted to try out an IR filter on Jupiter, and needed to increase exposure time to compensate, which was risky, since seeing was really bad to begin with, meaning that shorter exposures would be best. However, I lucked out, and one image came through as the clearest pre-production image I have ever seen. Let's see.. setup time 8 minutes.. tremedous photo in poor "seeing" conditions.. what could go wrong? You guessed it! I forgot to turn on the AUTOSAVE feature in my software, and I started imaging again, wiping out the good image before it was saved. I realized my error within a second of it being "too late". Don't worry I told myself, another fine image will come through.. and I'll put it on AUTOSAVE now. WRONG! The subsequent images were okay, but nowhere near the quality of the lost one. And before too long (3 minutes) clouds rolled in, and shut me down. Not only that.. but I can't even hope to get out tomorrow or the next day, because of more poor weather coming. The only thing I can do is write this down on my "thoughts" page, and remind the reader to always dot their i's and cross their t's. Just to show you how good the image COULD have been.. take a look at the one that came through seconds later, this one may look nice, but it seemed to have less than 1/2 the resolution of the one that came through that was "zapped"! Less than 1/2!! Grrrrrrrrr..........  At least I know the scope works :)

7/23/99 - There is a lot to see again on Jupiter this apparition (1999). From a very pale Great Red Spot, to a strange S-shaped feature right next to it, to numerous festoons, Jupiter 99' will again offer up a great view. While viewing the planet I noticed once again, that given steady skies, and good optics, the best high-powered views are often when the "exit pupil", the beam of light shooting out of the eyepiece is,  .5mm to 1mm. You can determine the exit pupil by dividing the eyepiece focal length by the telescope focal ratio. So, when I viewed Jupiter through the 3mm Radian eyepiece in the f/6 Astrophysics traveler, I was using .5mm exit pupil. If you own an f/10 scope, you probably noticed that you used a 5mm eyepiece as your ultimate high-power eyepiece on rare nights. Again, 1/2mm exit pupil. A 1/2mm exit pupil also corresponds to 50X per inch of magnification. So in the 4" Traveler, that means 200X. In an 8" f/10, 400X, and so on. You can go higher, but the planet dims quite a bit, and you will lose some features. On the moon, however, you can go to .25mm exit pupil easily given steady skies and good optics.

There is a problem with "eye floaters" when you go to this size exit pupil, those annoying microscopic dead-cells that reside in your eyeball, and are impossible to avoid. They show up at the lower exit pupils. There are two ways to avoid them, 1. To use a larger scope at the same magnification, raising the exit pupil towards 1, instead of 1/2.  Above an exit pupil of 2, and you will have too bright an image.  2. To use a binoviewer which reduces the "noise" level of the image quite a bit, since the floaters are only in 1 eye and not 2. Next time you purchase an eyepiece as your "high power" one, remember the exit pupil rule focal length(eyepiece) / focal ratio (scope), it will come in handy.

8/6/99 - There has been much confusion regarding what the actual wavefront accuracy is on various refractors, reflectors and compound telescopes that are offered to the public. The reason, it turns out, is that there are different ways to measure how good an optic is. Although it can vary from unit, to unit, good interferometers give an accurate measure of how good an optic is, or how good the whole system is "at the eyepiece". Apparently they are expensive, and there aren't many of them around. There are many mirrors that are still being finished with the "focault test", and other long-standing methods, that when performed carefully, can offer repeatable results when done by another individual. These tests help ATMs and professionals alike finish off their mirrors and optics to high degrees of accuracy, and help to judge these mirrors relative to each other. However, the wavefront p-v ratings tend to be inflated quite a bit compared to if they were measured with an interferometer, as they miss parts of the surface, and therefore the numbers should be used with that in mind. The actual star-test may not reveal the kind of accuracy that you think you have in your optic. I feel safe in saying that if you get a mirror 1/15th wave p-v or better, you will likely have "diffraction limited" performance, with 1/4 wave or better "at the eyepiece" as determined by a star test. There is still much debate over this subject, and I hope some day testing methods will be standardized throughout.

8/24/99 - In France, I almost missed the total eclipse of the sun. I was heading with my family to Noyon, France to join some 8,000 others. It appeared to be cloudy and drizzly everywhere as we approached Noyon. I was going to keep going, and wait in the drizzle to see what would happen, when I remembered the advice that I had given at talks many times regarding total eclipses. I had missed two due to cloudy skies in the past, due to the lack of mobility. I even gave myself a pep-talk at 3am that very morning (8/11/99) about this subject. The key was to move to a crossroads and get ready to make a move... even if that meant not being "set up" at all. So, I had picked out a crossroads near Compeigne' France at 3am, and now at 11am, moments before the eclipse was to begin, we drove to the nearby crossroads instead of Noyon. Looking around, it appeared a tad brighter west. Driving about 5 or 10 miles brought us out into an open hole in the clouds. Driving a bit west , then west again, then finally east to 3 minutes before totality, brought us into the middle of the "hole" as it started closing in from all sides (typical during an eclipse with low clouds present, as I found out in Hawaii) This meant that we did not miss one second of totality in the middle of this drizzly day! Take your own advice when you give it. I didn't in Hawaii (I knew about mobility) but I took my advice this time.

8/24//99 - In comparing eyepiece after eyepiece, I have come to the conclusion that the best overall eyepiece on the market in terms of size, weight, eye relief, versatility of use, performance on both deep sky AND planetary (contrast, clarity, lack of scatter or internal reflections), field size, edge performance, low kidney bean distortion, low pincushion distortion,  and even price is the Televue Radian. Through the myriad of mini-reviews it may be hard to tell just how pleased I am with the Radian line. My favorites right now are the 14, 10 and 3, but have liked any that I have tried.
 

9/2/99 - A recent comparison of the A/P Traveler and the A/P Stowaway convinced me that the A/P traveler had just enough "edge" in performance that I would want to take it along with me to hopefully steady Florida skies, on an upcoming trip. Despite the recent astounding performance of the 5" Intes Mak-Newt (1/8 wave) that I tried (slight planetary edge over the 4.1" apo), The A/P Traveler is THE scope of choice as far as I am concerned when travelling, being only 19.5" long or so. It fit easily in one of those airline tote-able rolling bags they are selling nowadays, along with lots of other stuff for the trip, not just astro-stuff.

Anyway, after admiring sub-features on Jupiter, most of which can be seen in the ccd image (taken here, up north, through the C9.25" a few days earlier) at:

http://www.weatherman.com/j082599.jpg

I turned towards the moon. I've always had difficulty in smaller scopes making out the craterlets in Plato, counting no more than 5. HOWEVER, this time, the only thing holding me back, even at only 200x (3mm radian) on the Traveler, was the "no-see-ums" a form of miniature mosquito or something that was having me for an early breakfast, or late dinner. (it was gibbous btw, 8/28)

"Ok, the middle craterlet, no problem.. ah- there is the double craterlet.. oh, such a clean split.. that's three.., there's the fourth easy craterlet SE . Now, let's see. Hmmm, the double craterlet is pointing to another one!" That's 5. Hmmm, there's another one, or is that a string towards the rim from there? That's 6?. Ah-ha!! One just under (south) of the central craterlet, that's 7, and another one .. SE of there .. 8!???  "

Well, I saw even more hints, but the bites did me in, I had to go in. I drew it all down, didn't really believe my own observations, then compared it to the Plato picture when I got home to Massachusetts in the Backyard Astronomer's Guide. They were all for real! (try this for yourself during the gibbous phase rather than when the terminator is lurking)

Seeing conditions are vital. They make a HUGE difference.

What crossed my mind next? Doing CCD on Jupiter with the Traveler. I had recently had great successes with the C9.25" (as expected), but how about the traveler? Previously, I found it fell short of the 5" by a fair margin (and still do, kinda) HOWEVER, I lucked out, it was a pretty good morning here in Mass. with the High stalled over us, just enough to grab at least a few nice images to averge together, and compare directly to the co-mounted C9.25"

The results are at:
http://www.weatherman.com/travjup.jpg

Notice the equatorial band, and it's festoons. Not quite as clear as in the C9.25" , especially when the image is magnified, but still quite good. Enough
detail for certain ALPO observations. I tried to unsharp mask to about the same point, to be fair. It is pretty clear what is going on, but admittedly, with differing image scales and focal lengths, it's hard to get everything to "match" exactly. Also, I picked off good images from both scopes, the traveler had more numerous "good" images due to the seeing conditions, but both scopes caught some steady shots.
 

9/21/99 - ON BUYING A SCOPE YOU'LL "USE"
You probably have heard this before: "The BEST scope is the scope you will use the most." This has a lot of merit. I sat dormant for many years in amateur astronomy in the 1980s due to owning a kludge of an 8" homebrew reflector on a heavy German Equatorial mount that I had no way of even getting outside without assistance. Now, I have my heavier 2 scopes on wheels, as I am not an observatory-blessed observer, and I am going to be experimenting with some extremely car-portable 8-10" scopes in the near future. That said, I still would recommend maximum aperture/minimum effort. That seems to be a running theme through my web pages.. extreme car portability and airline portability, but maximizing the aperture and quality as much as possible. That is a fairly expensive proposition, and I apologize to the reader that I often recommend units that are "pricey".

This extends to other areas of practical use as well. For instance, if you keep your scope in the garage.. it has to be compact enough to fit with the cars AND short enough to roll out onto the driveway - all with minimum effort. One of the best scopes out there is the larger Ceravolo (over 8" ) mak-newt. One look at the length of the scope "turned me off" and yet I know that it would provide many hours of outstanding views. I had a chance to buy one of these once at a really nice cost, but turned it down, because of my experience with the 8" Newt that I built when I was around 16.

9/30/99 I'm often asked if I actually see as much detail on Jupiter as in my ccd photographs. (such as      http://www.weatherman.com/j092899b.jpg ) Actually, the answer is yes, and then some. (more resolution on specific features such as ovals, rifts in the NEB, etc)

While it only happens for brief moments of clarity, and I can't take it all in at once........aside from less contrast the actual detail that I can pick out visually is pretty significantly more than the ccds images (especially in my larger aperture scopes). Now the very best ccd images provided by Parker, DiScullo, and others do just about match the visual view, with more contrast to boot, but much to my surprise, I have to say that given the right scope and "seeing conditions" it is remarkable how much detail can be picked out.

10/7/99 People often wonder whether large aperture is "overkill" in heavy light pollution. On certain objects, such as globular clusters, and planetary nebulas, and even compact galaxies the answer is no, you can never have too much aperture. However, on extended objects it really doesn't help at all. In fact, I discovered even on bright extended objects, such as M42, this morning that the larger aperture barely helps, in fact might hurt. I inadvertantly had my off-axis aperture mask in place while observing M42 through the 18" this morning.. It was a fairly dark night, but M42 was low enough that there was some light pollution, maybe limiting magnitude of 4.7 or thereabouts. The view of M42 was better than ever, but without much color. When I realized I had the mask on, I viewed again at full aperture just to find M42 looked more colorful, but also more washed out. Aperture did not help very much on M42 in light polluted skies... at least not at this low magnification (80x

11/7/99 In reading more from my favorite astrophotographers, it is becoming quite obvious that collimation is one of the biggest problems for both reflectors and other compound telescopes such as SCTs. What someone may attribute to sloppy SCT performance may not really be due to the optics, but more the lack of a perfectly collimated system. Defocusing a star at high power, and making sure the central shadow is centered is the least one should do in collimating an SCT. Using high magnification and making sure the airy disk and rings are centered is a more precise technique, but hard to do on normal nights when the atmosphere is unsteady. I have to admit my C9.25" has yet to fall out of collimation, but for now on.. I'll check it periodically.

11/20/99. Here's a fun bit of circular reasoning...
I have been considering lately going through the effort and expense of building an observatory. So many folks have one, and they do seem convenient. In fact, many people just assume I have one already. Something bothers me about it. It's not that I wouldn't like one to be there already... but I've identified three problems to building one brand new, one of which offers some advice:
a. It is a hassle.. to do it right, one really needs to carefully plan it.
b. There is something about being out under the stars without any walls or ceiling of any kind surrounding me that is irresistable. (although some observatories really do open up wide.
c. If I had the money to spend into it, knowing that the return on investment isn't all that great... why wouldn't I spend that kind of money into the optics?
This is the same issue that people bring up when newcomers ask about GOTO drives. "Put it in the optics" is a typical response. In that case, I must question the advisor. GOTO drives take away some of the fun and mystery in tracking down an object, but they really can help finding/observing quite a bit on dim objects (esp. in suburbia), or when time is short. GOTO systems are especially crucial with CCD applications. Great GOTO systems include the A/P GTO mount, or even the LX200 series, and others. Likewise, I guess you can say something similar about observatories... after all, if you DO put it in just  the optics.. and spend 25,000 on a vintage Astrophysics 8" refractor,  you do need someplace to put the scope don't you?!? Well, back to the drawing board..........I'm back to square one.  I guess the moral of the story is that if you do "put it in the optics" make sure it's easy to set up and move around, an old theme of mine ;)

11/30/99 - Thoughts on small aperture and ccd. If you have taken the time to weed through my pages to reach this point, I think it's worth sharing with you something that I discovered by mistake early on. SMALL APERTURE FAST SCOPES do a tremendous job with ccd cameras, especially on deep sky. Turns out, that one can't really image more detail routinely than 2 arc second resolution on deep sky anyway, due to "seeing" (unlike planetary where sub-arc second resolution is routinely possible with over 4" aperture). Therefore, the resolution limit of around 1.5 - 2 arc seconds on smallest aperture scopes is not really a hindrance. On one of my web pages, I have posted two photos from a mere 70mm high quality celestron fluorite refractor that only runs around 750 second hand.

12/3/99 - I have now returned three quality (actually, just returned a 4th) scopes because of a faulty star test, or star test that revealed the scope wasn't performing as it was supposed to by manufacturers guidelines. In each case the scope was returned, with replaced or refigured optics. While I am NOT an expert in star testing....moving the focuser in and out of focus once a scope has sufficiently cooled while pointing at a bright star (at high power) can be very revealing. Is there a flaw in the star test? There may well be. Whether it be severe spherical aberration, "zones" or astigmatism, or some other unusual "look" to the pattern, it is worth learning how to do this rudimentary test. Make sure to pick up Suiter's book "Star Testing Astronomical Telescopes". It is tough reading in parts, and certainly can be misused, but if you use it as a basic guide to hel p recognize approximately what your star test SHOULD look like, it may really pay off, and put your mind at ease.

1/27/00 Update: I have now returned FIVE quality scopes. There is a "thread" on the sci.astro.amateur newsgroup where it is pointed out that quantifying the star test is difficult, but finding gross errors still is useful. That is for sure. I have now found many problems in many scopes, but of the five in question..... One had rough optics (but I'm not 100% sure what the problem was on that) , one had a zonal error, one had astigmatism, one had pinched optics in cold temperatures, and one had slight spherical aberration that probably didn't really need to be corrected.
 

12/4/99 - If you cannot reach focus with your 1.25" eyepieces on your particular scope because too much "in-travel" is required, don't forget that MOST 1.25" eyepieces can fit snugly into the Astrosystems 2-1.25" adapter.. that has a "negative profile" and allows the eyepiece to sit further down into the focal plane. If you have a 2" focuser, this will cure your problem most of the time!

1/6/00 - Welcome to the last year of the 20th century! Look at the advances we have made! On a recent trip to the tropics, I took along a portable DVD player, a Sony minivideocamera, my superslim notebook computer, and my homebrew 6" airline-portable reflector. (bogen tripod went in luggage) I couldn't help by admire just how small everything was. The DVD player and  video camera I could carry right on my body, aside from carryon luggage on the plane. And the scope.. well it's so small it fit among a collection of other stuff in the standard carry-on bag...including the computer which slipped into the outside pocket!  But what I really noticed when I got to my destination was that all these mini-items simply worked great. The videocamera had image stabilization and high resolution, the DVD, nearly fit in my palm, but allowed me to watch movie after movie, the computer served my internet needs just fine, and the scope was WONDERFUL. I had previously tried to resolve Omega Centauri with the Televue 85mm, and a Meade ETX. I did so partially, but never really got it to break into individuals across the nebula. (I had viewed it in the 10" LX200 in Aruba, so I knew what to look for) This time, armed with the 6", despite suburban-type skies, I resolved it easily (best with a 7 nagler, and 5.5 mm Czech. eyepiece, f/l of the scope 762.) although not nearly as impressive as viewed through another friend's 10" SCT on a previous trip.  Costing a fraction of a 4" refractor that performs similarly, (such as the A/P traveler) the little 6" homebuilt reflector reminded me that smaller, when utilized right, is indeed better! I would have never been able to pull this off with my previous 7" Starmaster as an example, which is a car-portable, not airline portable scope. Always consider your needs.

1/24/00 What a weekend! Below zero every night.. and trying to observe. Instant frostbite without gloves. The whole routine of trying to observe in the cold though was thwarted as I was testing a FSQ106 from Takahashi to no avail. Apparently, some scopes react poorly when it gets to a certain temperature. Somewhere under 10 degrees, possibly it didn't happen until around 5f , my optics were "off" due to the cold. Trying to star test the scope proved impossible, with a "space needle" sticking out of the star on one side of focus. The next day when it was 20 degrees, all was a-okay.  The moral of the story, if you first get a scope, and want to make sure the optics are okay.. better wait until it's far enough above zero unless you routinely observe in that kind of weather (in which case you need to know about any odd aberrations like that).

2/18/00 With the recent arrival of an FC125 I once again am in business with a Takahashi scope to play with. The only problem ... the rings did not fit my mount or G-11 style plate.  Chin up, I remembered that I always manage to mount these scopes somehow despite my limited ability in the shop. Despite a couple or three hours of simple measuring and drilling (which would take a "handy person" 15 minutes) I did manage to PERFECTLY mount the scope. This is about the 15th time I have pulled something like this off, and I do it with a drill, and sometimes with the hole tapping device I bought at Sears. It occurred to me that while many of you are apt to do this as well, some may get stuck buying different rings, plates, and adapters when you don't have to. A 1/4" metal plate (various lengths and widths) and some holes can work wonders to mount a variety of scopes, either directly or to the associated dovetail plate. You don't have to be handy (I'm not) to drill a few holes, or even "tap" (allow it to be screwed into directly) them, and you'll save time and money to boot.

2/25/00 I have been pondering how I can test my latest group of scopes. I only have one mount, and four optical tubes that need to go on it. After testing one of them against my 10" Teleport (dob), and remembering what Rick Singmaster from Starmaster does, it dawned on me to consider the dob.. the "control" scope. The 10" has been my best overall performer, with just startling results. As an example, it was childs play picking out some 7 or so craterlets in Plato the other morning with this scope in good, but not perfect seeing. The 18" is currently in storage. I remember Rick saying that HE uses a 10" super planetary , proven performer to judge his other scopes. One by one, I'll take the OTAs off and compare on specific objects, and specific features against the 10" Dob. While this is NOT as good as comparing each OTA to each other directly, it will at least allow me to come to some sort of judgement.

3/7/00 - It's an addiction...there must be something wrong with me. My breath quickens, and my problems seem to melt away when I daydream about getting a new scope. (Perhaps that is why I sell so many of them, so I can try yet another!) On a cloudy day I am sometimes content to play with a focuser, or just admire the lime-green of Takahashi scopes. At night I'll revel in a super-sharp, star field, but if its partly cloudy, I'll just aim for any star and do a star - test on a nearly perfect scope - In and out - admiring the symetry on either side of focus.  M101 this morning floating 3-D in the 4" refractor on top of an unusually dark sky for my location. A tight double near M42 in a scope with super-high contrast. All of the above just "turns me on". I can think about it by day too. It's 24 hour stuff.

03/08/00 - I'm becoming convinced that what is making the difference to a lot of folks as to whether or not they fall in love with their scopes is the "contrast". It's a tough one to judge because usually you need to do a scope to scope comparison to see the difference blatantly, and in suburban skies, light pollution clouds some of the otherwise obvious contrast. Contrast comes in two forms, at least. The kind between the object and the sky - particularly important with double stars, planets, and the moon. (deep sky as well) The other is intra-object. As an example the contrast with my 7" starmaster was superb on the festoons within Jupiter, but not so great to the sky nearby compared to my 5" APO. (Although still very impressive.. it was also plagued by diffraction spikes from the spider veins as is normal for any NEWT) Ed Ting recently wrote the same on his Scopereviews page when he did a shootout between those same two scopes. (In fact the Starmaster involved WAS my specific scope that I had refigured by Carl Zambuto)

What has made me think about this recently though is the contrast I have been running into in two recent refractor purchases. A Takahashi 5", and a Yang 4". Previously the big difference that I found was on a C14" SCT which was bright and washed out on M42, vs. the 16" Starmaster, which was more impressive because of the contrast which even helped to bring out M42's bright color. Contrast seems best in refractors, but varies widely in reflective and compound optics as well and can come pretty close. Contrast also is greatly affected by dust on the reflective surfaces I have noted, such as on a star diagonal, which needs to be kept clean. I find contrast is best judged with an "exit pupil" of around 3 or 4 in dark suburban skies.

3/13/00 - I just want to clarify that you can use focal reducers in a variety of ways on your scope, to help get a "faster" scope. This can also be used with certain eyepieces to give you a wider field of view, and wider "exit pupil". The typical screw-on SCT type f/6.3 reducer (largest selling unit) is just the beginning. Some of these can be snagged that screw onto 48mm threading (such as 2" diagonals, and eyepieces) Some , such as the Televue ".8" reducer has threading for a T-ring, and if you get the appropriate T to 2" adapter from Lumicon, you can use 2" accessories with that. Some, slide right into 2" openings, such as one that I got from Spectra Optics.

How you use these units will be up to your own ingenuity but two things should be considered. The greater the distance from the reducer, the stronger the effect of the reducing will be, and the more in-focus travel will be required.  If you use one BEFORE a two inch diagonal, you will have a very fast scope, but your will have to have the leeway to bring the focus in a lot. If you use one just ahead of your eyepiece, AFTER a two inch diagonal for instance, you will have a slightly reduced scope, but less in-travel will be induced. This is important to understand as you play with them. The further the eyepiece is from the unit, the stronger it seems, but the more focus travel that is eaten up. Someone recently out-did me in utilizing this with a televue "bizarro" . Already 5" shorter than a normal Televue 85mm, the bizarro has plenty of room for focus in-travel, in fact, two much as it is designed to be used with the Televue binoviewer. If you utilize the .8 reducer before the eyepiece (but after the diagonal) by buying the Lumicon T to 2" adapter. . .  your focus will be out pretty far, but it will reach focus WITHOUT extention tubes. I had originally brought this up with Televue, and they did not conceive of it being used visually, but apparently it works just fine.

3/14/00 - I have been thinking a lot lately about "exit pupil". Exit pupil of course can be calculated by dividing the focal length of the eyepiece, by the focal ratio of the scope. ie.. an f/10 scope will have a 3mm exit pupil when utilized with a 30mm eyepiece. This means the beam of light coming out of the eyepiece is 3mm wide. While most people are told that you can optimize your wide field views with an exit pupil of between 5 and 7mm to match the width of your own pupil at night, I find that through telescopes, through my eyes, sharpest views are only from 4mm and below. This is with my glasses on which correct my astigmatism. I looked through enough wide field eyepieces and saw problems (flaring stars)  to eventually realize it was ME and not the eyepiece despite the correction of my glasses. I'm sure a lot of folks too have residual aberrations within their eyes that comes out with wider exit pupils. Take a 35mm panoptic and use it in an f/6 scope and then an f/10 scope. Even on-axis (center field) the excellent eyepiece will show problems at f/6 to some users, more than in the f/10 scope, because of aberrations within the observer , not the eyepiece or scope!
 
 

.
 
 
 
 
 
 

.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  old that you can optimize your wide field views with an exit pupil of between 5 and 7mm to match the width of your own pupil at night, I find that through telescopes, through my eyes, sharpest views are only from 4mm and below. This is with my glasses on which correct my astigmatism. I looked through enough wide field eyepieces and saw problems (flaring stars)  to eventually realize it was ME and not the eyepiece despite the correction of my glasses. I'm sure a lot of folks too have residual aberrations within their eyes that comes out with wider exit pupils. Take a 35mm panoptic and use it in an f/6 scope and then an f/10 scope. Even on-axis (center field) the excellent eyepiece will show problems at f/6 to some users, more than in the f/10 scope, because of aberrations within the observer , not the eyepiece or scope!