Saturn March 16, 2009Posted By Rod Mollise |
Very nice indeed!
Posts Made By: Rod Mollise
March 18, 2009 06:50 PM
Forum:
CCD Imaging and Processing/Solar System
March 19, 2009 05:31 PM
Forum:
Astro Binoculars
Filters for Deep-Sky Binocular ObservingPosted By Rod Mollise |
Chuck Burton said:
I have a pair of 125mm binoculars that have been modified to take interchangeable eyepieces. I'd like to get recommendations on what types of filters folks are using for deep-sky work with 100mm+ binocs. I figure my O-III filter would block too much light. Thanks - Chuck
I've frequently used OIIIs with 80mm scopes with great success.
March 22, 2009 05:57 PM
Forum:
Astro-Physics
The Mach 1 a lil mount that "really can"Posted By Rod Mollise |
Bruce Karbal said:
Thought ya'llz might get a kick out of this, I spent last night up by Ft. Sheridan playing with some toys
I've gotta say that of all the mounts that have been introduced in recent times, the Mach 1 is the only one I haven't heard _anything_ bad about. I never seriously considered an AP GEM, an AP900 or 1200; they are way beyond anything I would ever need...but this one could be different.
March 23, 2009 11:23 PM
Forum:
Binoviewers
Is it a "waste" to get a binoviewer for a Pronto??Posted By Rod Mollise |
paul oppenheim said:
The subject line pretty much says it. I'm hooked on binocular astronomy, for which my Canon 10x42 IS glasses serve me admirably. But my Pronto sits there, whispering "you can make me into a classy binocular." Thoughts?
I don't think it's a waste. I do think at this aperture level you'd probably be more impressed by, say, 20x80 "real" binocs. On the other hand, you'll want a mount for 80-mm binoculars and up, and if you already have a good one for the Pronto you would be set with just the addition of a binoviewer.
Howsomeever...I vote for "large real binoculars over Pronto."
March 24, 2009 05:27 PM
Forum:
Equipment Talk
Focal Reducer for visual observationPosted By Rod Mollise |
Vaclav Novotny said:
Hi All
I am thinking of getting a .5 Focal Reducer for my ETX90 Has anybody used a Focal Reducer for visual observation
Yes...I've used one of the Baader reducers on my 125. Does it work? Yeah. To a point. Don't think you're gonna slap one on a 40-mm eyepiece and get widefield. What you will get is considerable vignetting. It works ok with medium focal length eyepieces.
March 24, 2009 05:31 PM
Forum:
Mounts
Mount Mod QuestionPosted By Rod Mollise |
Herbert Shaffer said:
Lets hear from the experts
Have a LXD75 mount. Going to replace the stock tripod with a much heavier LX200 standard tripod.
I can have a 4" tall by 4.5" diameter by 1/4" thick aluminum tube as part of the mount adapter OR a 12" one which would in effect become a 12" pier on top of the heavier lx200 tripod.
Thanks!
Greg
The shorter one on an UNextended tripod. Never extend the legs and always put them on vibration supression pads if you need max steadiness.
March 24, 2009 10:55 PM
Forum:
Binoviewers
1 1/4"-->2"...?Posted By Rod Mollise |
John Levine said:
I have a Universal Denk II setup that has served well, but lately I've been giving serious thought to having a go with a 2" system. It would be mated to any of the following: 18" f/4.5 reflector, 8.25" Achromatic refractor, 11" SCT. I may at some point move up to a C14.
Issues? Thoughts?
Bring it on!
I've thought about this a time or two. But given the weight and expense in a 2-inch binoviewer and good eyepieces for it...I'm a-sticking with my Denk. LOL
March 25, 2009 02:54 PM
Forum:
A Day in the Life of the Administrator
How badly is the Astronomy Industry is on it's buttPosted By Rod Mollise |
Without knowing the who and what of who or what you are referring to, it's impossible to comment specifically.
Yes, astronomy dealers are hurting. People, some people anyway, do have less disposable income.
But not all people. Most people, like me, are still secure in their jobs. Did not speculate in the housing bubble, and didn't use equity to buy astronomy-stuff.
Frankly, a large part of the reason dealers are hurting is prob'ly psychological. Most folks are doing fine, but can't help but be worried because of what they hear on the dadgummed television set. For these folks, some price cuts may stimulate them to buy. There may not be as much of a profit margin for them or the maker as before, but they may sell more astro-widgets and be better off than they were when they were not sellin' NUTTIN, HONEY. LOL
In the past, astronomy has proven to be at least somewhat recession-proof, with people still willing to spend for a good eyepiece in lieu of a trip to Vegas.
Yes, astronomy dealers are hurting. People, some people anyway, do have less disposable income.
But not all people. Most people, like me, are still secure in their jobs. Did not speculate in the housing bubble, and didn't use equity to buy astronomy-stuff.
Frankly, a large part of the reason dealers are hurting is prob'ly psychological. Most folks are doing fine, but can't help but be worried because of what they hear on the dadgummed television set. For these folks, some price cuts may stimulate them to buy. There may not be as much of a profit margin for them or the maker as before, but they may sell more astro-widgets and be better off than they were when they were not sellin' NUTTIN, HONEY. LOL
In the past, astronomy has proven to be at least somewhat recession-proof, with people still willing to spend for a good eyepiece in lieu of a trip to Vegas.
March 27, 2009 11:51 AM
Forum:
CCD Imaging and Processing/Solar System
AviStack planetary experiences?Posted By Rod Mollise |
Eric Todd said:
AviStack, fairly new program from what I've read. Uses thousands of alignment points. So far, I've seen some lunar images compiled using it, but hardly any planetary. Any links/ images for using the program for planetary processing?
Thanks,
Eric
I've tried it, but didn't notice much difference in the results obtainable with Registax. There's a new Registax on the street too. I'll maybe try a more serious evaluation here shortly.
March 27, 2009 12:06 PM
Forum:
Ham and Shortwave Radio
Re-VisitPosted By Rod Mollise |
jon roewer said:
It seems to me we might want to look into returning to where we were before SWR, (BFG) was melded into Ham Radio. They are two different critters.
Rod's comments on this post are now solicited.
_jon
My preference is to focus mainly on amateur radio. However, since there is not an OM or YL out there that don't (or ain't) owned a general coverage receiver, there's no reason GCs can't be discussed, neither.
Y'all keep up the chatter here...hell...might even encourage me to buy a modern rig and get on the air again with somethin' more than the dadgummed Echolink.
QRZ?
Funding Member
