Posts Made By: Thomas Dey

Going thru some of my old notes. Came across this poem, written by my friend, and mentor, Chuck Spoelhof ~RIP~. Chuck was on the Investigation Committee, that was so painfully constrained by political considerations. He told me that he composed the poem, while sitting in his hotel room, proir to the official softball announcement regarding the Committee's findings. Also attached is a picture of ~Me!~, next to our mirror, the Kodak One, on display in the Air & Space Museum on The Mall. That mirror turned out to be perfect... the one that Should have flown! A great book on the problematic Hubble Build, is Eric Chaisson's ~The Hubble Wars~, available online at AbeBooks, shipped for $4! Hubble has done great astronomy, at astronomical expense and embarassment. It would have accomplished far more, had it been built properly. Tom

Well, here it is. I figured Telescope Making is the closest category. I'm thinking fringes is what it looks like... But not so sure. I'll research it and report back, hoping some guesses come in in the meantime... Tom

I was a kid and made a 6-inch mirror from scratch - never looked thru a scope before. 1st view of Orion Nebl and Jupiter blew my socks off! Just to realize I had made the mirror walking around a barrel and MAGIC could see these things from my back yard! Decades later 29-in Dob - M57 central star, Horsehead, Veil in all its glory, zillions of galaxies...but never matched that 1st view off 6" home made mirror...Tom

I actually studied physiological optics (vision) at the Boynton Center (U of Rochester) as an Igor and then did lighting and astro design all my life. Bright planetaries can be distinctly bluish or green. And M42 ever since I was a kid looks greenish. Beyond that gray, gray, gray...to my dark-adapted eyes. Never red. Aperture helps only to a point. Contrast (very clear, dark sky, superb scope baffling) and "surface brightness" matter more. And that strictly depends on exit pupil equal or greater than eye pupil. So sometimes reducing the mag actually helps color perception because the surface brightness of admittedly a "smaller" object is maximized. Only distinctly red object to me is our sun in H-alpha - alas, stellar! Tom Dey

Hi Robert,

I've had, made, used scopes from 50mm to 29". Of them all, my 17.5-inch Dob was the best value for deep sky. These were all in domes, so transport was not an issue. Provided visual deep sky is your goal, the simple Newt Dob is best. For portability, I would recommend 8" Dob or bigger. Orion is good value. I notice many truss Dobs are way deficient on stray light baffling. You can see WAY more contrast if you use a dark shroud and extension up beyond the secondary. I use the 29 and a Meade 14 now - but must admit they are too big. Even in domes on my own property they are still a hassle to use. Of course I still want bigger ones - resist this mental illness... Tom Dey

Very nice! I did a lot of sketching as a prelude to getting into imaging. And I highly recomment that, because imaging is just tougher and more $$$ than people expect. I'll try to attach a couple but not sure if I know how to do that. BTW - I call this "Apostolic Astronomy!" Tom Dey

Did the seller respond "Yes" and then ignore you after that? If so, that's indeed questionable. I've happily used AstroMart classifieds a lot for a couple years now and also long ago. A few hefty deals in there, too. So far not disappointed. Their drop-down cuts off at 90-days. I don't even know how to find older ads, unless I've saved them off-line. I especially like their 5-star rating system, but wish it were weighted for the $ transaction. As it is, a $5 deal counts same as a $5000 one. A stale older ad generally requires an extra layer of prudent inquiry to the seller, "Is it still available?" I always ask that - even when offering on a recent ad - esp if it's an extraordinarily good deal. If a seller has great reviews and many transactions --- I send cash without concern. Tom Dey

Thanks for the tips. Galaxy clusters and groups are my favorites. I actually check them off with a pencil in Uranometria and make a few comments in a journal. So often surprised with what I can and can't see. Good 29-inch Dob in a dome from my dark rural backyard. Some ostensibly "easy" ones I just try and try and miss. Other "impossible" ones sometimes just pop. And sometimes just hanging in there for like 10-min and finally, "OH - so that's it?!" Tom

Hi Mark et al, I used to obsessively sketch and photograph decades ago. Love all the OCs in that region (Gemini, Auriga, etc.) I think the short answer to these morphologies is that nearly all OCs are dissipating because their gravity isn't strong enough to hold them together. They are young and leaving the nest where they were born. Varying escape speeds encourage "concave" edges. And of course our eyes and brains create streamers and shapes even if G dynamics didn't actually associate the participants very much. Globulars are old, massive and indeed gravitationally stableish...hence "convex." The in-between clusters (dense OCs and sparse borderline globulars) are interesting with gravity barely holding them together. My background: Intended to work the "N-Body Problem" for my thesis. Prof Emch lamented "Noooo - people have been working that for hundreds of years without much progress!" So I proposed and completed the best seller, "Mathematical Reduction of Systematic Errors in Telescope Pointing." Hah! I recently retired from aerospace and became an OBSESSIVE binocular enthusiast! This mental disorder includes: Zeiss 20x25, Zeiss 7x42, Zeiss 20x60 IS, Oberwerk BT100/45, APM BT100/45 (the improved $$$ ones), Vixen BT120/45, JMI RB66, (6-inch) JMI RB16(custom optics 16 inch!), LUNT 80mm Ha DS TRUE binoculars!), 29-in Dob in a dome and 36-in Dob (to replace the 29). I recently got cataract surgeries and plastic lens implants in both eyes and now Lasik - AMAZING improvement: WAY brighter, vivid colors, super contrast and resolution (20/10 left, 20/7.5 right). I'm composing a Tech paper on that co-authored with the Surgeon (opthomologist) and the optometrist who recommended him. I'm rambling - no doubt what retired 66-year-old astronomers do? Enjoy and continue to share. I LOVE the stars - they are our friends. Tom Dey

Sorry to take so long. This actually relates: I recently got a bunch of surgeries on my eyes and now have great vision in both...just like when I was a kid. So then back to the optometrist for new (very mild) eyeglasses. "You're better than 20/15 in either eye alone but improve to 20/10 when using both eyes. So (for nearly ALL of us) two eyes are better than one for TWO reasons! 1) Your L, R are different and used together blend their individual advantages. 2) TRUE binoculars (vs BinoViewers) combine the (uncorrelated) "seeing" from both eyes. Your brain is smartly filters the uncorrelated noise and you literally see more. And of course with double the photons! Physiologically and psychologically the stars "feel" more real and definitely clearer, brighter and more contrasty. VERY simple test affirming this: Just look at the stars naked eye with left only, right only and both. Unless one eye is terrible --- both is by far the best. P.S. I have many binox from Zeiss true pocket 10x25s to the giant JMI RB16s (takes a trailer...not a pocket). Tom Dey