Posts Made By: Barry Simon

Does anyone have any first hand documentation as to how far beyond visual magnitude limits they are able to reach photographically?

Specifically I am trying to ascertain if it is worthwhile to try to reach down to about magnitude 17.5 to 18 photographically with a Celestron C9.5 or a 6" refractor. I know this is well beyond there usually quoted visual limits of about 14.6 and 13.6 respectively.

I typically shoot with Kodak E200 slide film. My question also assumes photos taken from dark skies and close to the zenith and exposures to the limits of a dark background vs sky glow.

Thanks for any help!

Barry Simon

Maybe a fire dragon or maybe a hummingbird that got into somebody's hot tamales; anyway here is a photo of the eruptive prominence that developed quickly over just a few minutes on 9-30-03. Photo taken with the Solar Max 60, BF15 and Olympus 3000 with afocal projection thru a TeleVue 32 Plossl.

Barry Simon

Here is a series of shots showing the rapid development and progression of the 9-30 solar prominence. Photo data is the same as the "Fire Dragon" shot.

Barry Simon

Some of you may have noticed the new metal "mag wheel" type focusing knobs offered by Meade. I got a pair for my Vixen 4" refractor to replace the plastic focusing knobs. Ubon attaching the new knobs I found that the holes in the back side are not cut deep enough (at least not for the Vixen 4" refractor. As the ends of the focusing knob shaft are conical shaped, even a tightened focusing knob has a tendency to pivot or gimbal on the end of the shaft. A quick inspection revealed that there is adequate metal to cut out an additional 1/8 to 3/16" using a drill press with a drill bit that fits the hole snugly. Go slow, you can always take out more metal, but "ya can't put it back" if you take out too much!

With this quick fix the fit is much better and the attachment screws have more thread to grab on the shaft that the knobs attach to.

Barry Simon

I evaluated the prototype pair for Burgess in April and a second, revised pair in August. The 2nd pair had better coatings and less prism cutoff (but still not optimal). Images seemed ok at low power, but this second pair, like the first was not collimated well.

What is the current status of this model. Are they shipping? Are all the bugs worked out? Any info from anyone?

Barry Simon

Since I got my SolarMax 60 and BF15 over a year ago I have used it on a variety of telescopes. Originally it was used with a Takahashi FS78 with dedicated adapter. It worked great with that 630 mm f.l. scope. I also wanted to use it with a Takahashi FCT76, and eventually did, but beware, the Tak FS78 adapter will not fit. The reason being that the objective cell was a little bit too long with the FCT76 so that the walls of the FS78 adapter were too short and would not reach the threads of the FCT76. (I was able to make my own with a SolarMax 60 adapter for a TV102 and an extra FS78 dewshield.

Another scope I use the SolarMax 60 with is a University 80 f/6.25 refractor. It's adapter slips over the dewshield and works well on a Unitron 3" refractor I have too.

With all my setups, I usually piggyback a second scope that can use a Thousand Oaks Type II white light solar filter. Viewing the Sun in both hydrogen alpha and white light adds to the experience.

Recently I refurbished two 60 mm f/11.7 (700 mm f.l) tube assemblies. I have them mounted in tandem. The extra focal length (700 mm f.l.) gives me better image scale and I believe is better matched with the Cemax 25, 18 and 12 mm eyepieces. There is no wasted aperture with either filter or telescope objective. The matching all metal 1.25" focusers came from Apogee and cost less than $40 each. One of the tube assemblies was purchased on eBay for $12.00. Both were cleaned, repaired and repainted with Krylon Ivory spray paint and then oven baked to quick cure them 24 hours after they were sprayed. See the attached photo.

Barry Simon

I have seen postings, perhaps a website, regarding someone who offers machining and parts fabrication services to amateur astronomers. I can no longer find the link or e-mail address. Can anyone help? I believe the person I am looking for is located in Florida (but not certain).

Barry Simon

It has been awhile since anyone posted anything about these. Does anyone have any news? I tested the prototype pair for Bill Burgess last April with 20x77 Miyauchi binoculars being the comparator. In short, those prototype pair could not compete because only a few lenses/prisms were coated, they were out of collimation and their was significant prism cutoff. The light gathering was no more than the 77 mm Miyauchi.

A second pair received in August were compared to 20x100 Miyauchi and did better. While improved, there was still slight prism cutoff, this pair too, was not collimated. The light thru-put was better. It did have a few features that I liked better than the same feature on the Miyauchi (the Burgess has a better grab handle, and the Burgess has a little bit more objective cell separation so the objective dew shields cannot hit each other). On the other hand the Miyauchi has much nicer eyepieces, no prism cutoff and internally the Miyauchi has a much nicer finish, looking elegant rather than industrial. The Miyauchi also has a much better interpupilary range, the Burgess minimum separation, while improved, may still be too large for some with close-set eyes.

More changes were promised, as there was room for improvement. However that was August and it is now January. I have heard nothing, does anyone else have any new information?

Barry Simon

It has been awhile since anyone posted anything about these. Does anyone have any news? I tested the prototype pair for Bill Burgess last April with 20x77 Miyauchi binoculars being the comparator. In short, those prototype pair could not compete because only a few lenses/prisms were coated, they were out of collimation and their was significant prism cutoff. The light gathering was no more than the 77 mm Miyauchi.

A second pair received in August were compared to 20x100 Miyauchi and did better. While improved, there was still slight prism cutoff, this pair too, was not collimated. The light thru-put was better. It did have a few features that I liked better than the same feature on the Miyauchi (the Burgess has a better grab handle, and the Burgess has a little bit more objective cell separation so the objective dew shields cannot hit each other). On the other hand the Miyauchi has much nicer eyepieces, no prism cutoff and internally the Miyauchi has a much nicer finish, looking elegant rather than industrial. The Miyauchi also has a much better interpupilary range, the Burgess minimum separation, while improved, may still be too large for some with close-set eyes.

More changes were promised, as there was room for improvement. However that was August and it is now January. I have heard nothing, does anyone else have any new information?

Barry Simon

Anybody compare these 2 very similarly configured telescopes yet? It would be interesting.

Barry Simon