Posts Made By: Bernard Kean

Hi Folks
Here is my take on this eyepiece business. If a manufacturer of an eyepiece does not want his eyepieces to be discussed for whatever reason and threatens if they are, then so be it. I will not discuss or utter a word about them. However, if I can't discuss them and find out information about them, good or bad, then I will NEVER buy them...plain and simple, I do not want them EVER.
Just my $.02
Buck

PS I can only assume they don't want their other products discussed, so I don't want them either.

Hi Folks
I guess most of you folks use larger binos for astronomy and I also have some 10x70 Oberwerks and 15x70 Oberwerk Ultras. However I recieved my Garrett 8x42 DCF-TWP roof prism binos and I have to say I have been impressed. I use these for general purpose daytime and as my scanner/finders at night. While they may not see as deep as the OB's, I have to say they are sharper and have more contrast, very light, very small and the diopter adjustment is clickstop and stays put where you set it. All in all I've very happy with them.
Just my $.02
Buck

OK, nothing special to do snd I start crunching numbers concerning secondaries and I find a problem. At present I have an 11" at 60.2" focal length, and a 1.83" Astrosystems secondary. Because of the way the holder is made it wraps around the mirror so the effective obstruction is 1 7/8" or 1.875" which is 17% obstruction very good. However, if you figure the clear portion because of the wrap you loose a bit more than 1/16" per edge or .190" total all the way around which leaves the effective clear mirror of 1.685" which the programs say is too small and I do not get full illumination. Now the next size up is 2.14 with the same type holder comes out to about 2.18" obstruction or 20% still not bad and the clear usable mirror is 1.99" which is plenty big enough (program says appox. 1.80 needed for full illumination. So here is my question. Is it worth giving up the 3% more obstruction to get the full illumination?
Thanks
Buck

Hello folks
For the better part of a week now I've been trying to determine if I could use or need a larger secondary in my scope. After carefully measureing the various components required for the Newt program I have completely confused myself on the "spare focuser in" measurement. In the help file its says to measure where the field stop is in an eyepiece and from there on it got confusing fast. However, in the NEWWIN file there is what seems to be a very simple sentance to explain it all and it says "Spare Focuser In Travel - the distance from the top of the focuser tube (when racked all the way in) to the focal plane (where the light from the primary mirror comes to a focus)". OK this sounds a lot easier to me since I know my focal length already which is 60.2". So now I place a very soft cloth over the primary mirror and measure up to the middle of the secondary face and I get 51.25" which leaves 8.95", so I carefully measure from the same point on the secondary out through the focuser and this point comes exactly 5/8" or .625" past my racked in focuser. Taking .625" and plugging this into Newt with all the other measurements the program says everything is all right...no red flags. All is good. However when I check the preformance it gives me this:

Afov 100% Illum. is 7.529e-002 deg. and 7.865e-002 dia.
Afov 75% Illum is .8855 deg. and .925" dia.

Whats with this e-002 business? Am I taking the correct measurement for "spare focuse in" component?

I have messed around with this program for a while now and have seen this e-002 before but it has always had a red flag on something that indicates there is an issue. This time I get it and NO red flag issues.
I need a bit of help with the "spare focus in" and whad does the e-002 mean.
Thanks
Buck

Greg
I sent a TV101 back to Televue for a clean and collimation and had it back in 2 weeks and great communication. 5 weeks sounds a bit long to me but the lack of communication would make my bells and whistles go off. Try this, give them a call and after the pleasantries get the name of the person that answered the call and when they say the person will call back, politely tell them "thank you, but I would rather hold". This is usually a rather strong but polite way of telling them you are not going away and want to talk to someone about your issue. If that doesn't work call the next day and ask for the name of that persons boss or supervisor (the person that didn't call back or take your call). And the most important thing is to get the names of each person you talk to before you initiate any conversation. When you have names to back up your story you have much more leverage then "I talked to a guy yesterday in your office".
Hope this helps
Buck

Hi Folks
We've all heard about scope thermals, mirror equilibrium, boundary layers, cooling fans and the like. We also have read many threads about having to let the mirror cool down before getting the best use views possible. Most all of these issues pertain to getting the mirror cooled down when setting up with the scope going from a warm house to a cooler outside or cooling it as the temperature drops. So my question is, what happens when taking a scope out from a cool house to a hotter outside? I’m not talking about condensing water like on an ice-cold beverage or anything that drastic. More like from low 70’s inside going outside the low 90’s with temps dropping slowly. I’ve never really looked to see, but rather just went with the flow and let it cool down like everyone says, even though it’s actually warming up. I’ve never noticed dew or condensation forming when I setup in the evening down here in the south. Would there be thermals, or a boundary layer? It seems to me there would be some movement of air but more like current mixing and not really developing into currents that would cause big issues so I don’t see where fans would speed this up to any extent. Any ideas or thoughts? Or is this not really an issue to be worried about like the warm mirror side of the issue.
Buck

Hi Folks
Can a Gibraltar 5 head be mounted on the older(post) style Gibraltar? Kinda wranglin my way up to a NP127 and was wondering if I can use my current Gibraltar tripod and upgrade to a G5 head.
Buck

Hi Folks
Well I got the NP127 working great on the G5 Gibraltar but I also want to mount it on a GM8. The GM8 UV mount plate I have will not work. Does anyone know of a easy way to go from the Gibraltar to a GM8 without a lot of messing around? The only way I can see is to have a custom plate made then mount it in the GM8 saddle plate then mount the scope. Anyone doing this have an easier way?
Buck

I have an NP127 and it will not fit in the case with the starbeam attached. After doing a bit of searching I found a thread saying to use the Quick Release and Dovetail to get this done. While the QRB-1002 Bracket mounts fine, I have an issue with the way the QRD-1006 mounts to the Starbeam base. There is only one screw holding these together with 2 flat surfaces, no tracks or channels. The Dovetail has two holes for mounting, so it seems that drilling a second attachment hole in the Starbeam base would be the solution or am I missing something here?
There has to be a few of you folks using the Starbeam with Quick Release on a NP127, so how did you do this or is the one screw enough to get the job done?

Buck

The big secret has still yet to be disclosed. The bottom of the bottles is already a lens. Just tape 2 empties togather and you have binoculars. Works for me.
Buck