Posts Made By: dan coyle

I have the sky atlas and am wondering if the companion will be interesting. The listing says it's an alphabetical listing of what is in the atlas, which could be pretty dry.
So, I'd love to hear opinions of why you value it, and when its of use.
Thanks
Dan

Just curious, I'm a 6mm owner.
Dan

Mike et Alias...
I am prompted by the thread on moon filters to ask a question that had been in the back of my mind...
Mike, you said you had returned some baader filters, and I wonder if you would explain why and what satisfaction you got?
Any other comments about the baader filters quality/efficacy from any one?
Thanks
Dan

I got my 10" Discovery mirror f/6 newt collimated pretty much on. ( By using a 2" catseye autocollimator, which proved much more useful, with the chesire, than the laser. The laser is only as accurate as the collimation on it, and that's a pretty coarse affair, IMO)
So in a moment between welcome precipitaion I went out and tried my tv 20mm plossl and a RKE 15, which are new to me, and both of them are soft on the edge, compared to my 12mm ortho.
I know this is an apples to oranges comparison, but do other people notice softness at the edge of plossls at f6 in daytime?
Thanks
Dan

Why are there no (few) ortho designs above 25mm fl?

What stops working so well? I ask cause as much as I love my 9,12 an 18 orthos, the 25 is not as easy to use, for me.

What are the optical problems of long fl's in orthos?
Thanks
Dan

From reading about the parracor I gather that the point of the tunable top is to allow height variations for different eyepieces. The tuneable top seeems to have 5 set positions. Would one be better off with a variable distance from the eyepiece to the paracorr?
I am thinking about a f/4.5 scope so I have been thinking about building a paracor in, somehow, to optimise performance.
For me in this instance, expense is second to performance, but I note it seems one could also use the less expensive baadder coma corrector if one were providing the tuneablility via a focuser assembly.

Comments?
Thanks,
Dan

Several times I have had people represent sale items (eyepieces and a barlow, specifically) as in excellent condition, yet when I got them they were not clean: eyelash oil, dirt, etc.

I used to be willing to clean them, but I am reluctant to do that now for fear of finding a scratch under all the grime, and then not being able to return the eyepiece "as received".

I think these are decent folks, they were willing to take them back, so I feel there was no intent to misrepresent, just very different standards.

To me an "excellent" condition eyepiece has to be clean.

(I'd much rather buy an uncleaned, unscratched EP than one poorly cleaned, I just want to know I'm going to have to do some work when I get it and have the price reflect that.

It can't be excellent and have any, no matter how small, scratches in the glass.

We have a standard form for EP evaluation, what do you all think of standards for the terms of EP condition at sale?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Dan

I read on the TMB optical site that he died 9/13.
What a very sad thing for Mr Back, his family and associates, and what a sad thing for the world of optical design.
Dan Coyle

I am curious to hear any comments about any of the Burgess tmb eyepieces.
Burgess lists the 9mm as in stock, Astronomics says they have none, as of last week, and Burgess hasn't returned a call.
I want a planetary eyepiece for Mars, but it looks like it won't be them, which is a disappointment, because the promo sounds good...
Dan

So the problem is that the children have trouble getting and keeping their eye lined up, or.... ?
Dan