Posts Made By: David Colton

About a year ago I asked for opinions about the various Crayford focusers (JMI, Apogee, and William Optics) for an LX90. I did not purchase one at the time but I'm still thinking about it. However, I recently read a description of the Starlight Instruments Microfocuser and was wondering which is the better way to go, as the Starlight costs about the same as a Crayford. Any suggestions?

Is there a website that provides current information about solar activity?

Here's an interesting research article and we even have a name for our addiction:

"Development of an instrument to measure noctcaelador: psychological attachment to the night-sky"

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_1_38/ai_n6073202

Is the new Auto Align Autostar hand controller usable with a telescope that does not have GPS, such as an older LX series scope with the Autostar 497? The Meade description, for what little there is, does not make this clear.

I've commented on this site that while I like the Gibraltor mount, it craves manual slow motions controls. As no one is offering this as an "after-market product," I'm wondering if anyone has built their own? Any ideas of how this might be done, for example, where could I obtain the gears to fabricate my own?

I've read that the Starlight micro focuser for Televue refractors (I have a TV102) has a finer adjustment than the Televue micro focuser, but that the Televue is easier to install. Comments and recommendations?

I was just over at the Cloudy Nights site and was reading Ron Bee's review of Sue French's Book "Celestial Sampler". Like Ron, I am a big fan of Sue's writing, as she used a 4" Apo for most of her observations. Thanks also Ron for pointing out that the book has expanded on her monthly S&T pieces, as I have cut out and collected them, organizing them by month. However, having them in book form with updated information (and at a reasonable price) is motivation to purchase the book.

I do have two recommendations. First, Ron's article, at least on my monitor, does not align, so that some lines contain only one word. That may be due to all of the graphics. I hope that gets fixed as it may it difficult to read the review.

Second, I wish S&T hadn't put all those nice Mt. Palomar or Hubble photos of galaxies and star clusters on the cover of the book. The book excels because Sue tells you want to realistically expect when looking through the eyepiece of a small telescope. The cover photos diminish rather than add to the graphics that you'll find in the book.

I have seen refractors advertised as achromatics with a doublet lens and Apos advertised with a doublet (such as my TV102). So what in the lens design makes (or doesn't make) a doublet an APO? (Or am I just confused about the term - I'm assuming it means two lenses, right?)

Celestron's new Sky Scout is due out in April with a list price of $300. Of course it's too early to tell how accurate these instruments will be, but it has me wondering if they may prove to be economical replacements for digital setting circles? From what I have read, they will work, just like dsc, with the user either pointing to an object or being lead to one. We just need someone to make and market a mounting device.

They're the exact same OTA, but a different mount. Although the LX200 gets higher marks for astrophotography, a search of the Internet will demonstrate that some folks are taking great photos with the LX90. There are YAHOO groups for both scopes which you might want to join.