Posts Made By: James Brown

Thomas Steinberg said:

All of the threads are started by you? Don't you have anything useful to do?

I'm working my butt off out here in Colorado. Doing my bit to save the world. Bolstering the economy etc. etc. etc.

And you?



Jim B.

Aaron Yonker said:

I am saving my posts as 4x6 images but they are coming up larger than my screen when I click on the image...

Is they how they appear to you?

Hi Aaron:

Yes, your images, the cormorant for example, are larger than the screen size when I view them too. I personally get around this for web images by saving the smaller version by "pixel dimensions." Most of the stuff I have posted here was re-sized to 850 pixels wide and that size seems to work well. The 850 pixel wide images will fit on most anyone's monitor I think. This is easy to do in Photoshop, and maybe available on your program too.

Jim

Dan Ritts said:

I've been out of the hobby for some years, and now it seems that very few of the top mirror makers are bothering with optics below 12.5" dia. Can someone point me to the best sources for smaller Newtonian mirrors in the 6" - 10" range?

Also, does anybody know what became of the 10" f/5.6 plate glass mirror that was up for sale on Astromart a few weeks ago? Does anyone remember who was selling it? I wonder if it was taken off the list because it wasn't selling?

Thanks a lot!
D

Bob Royce of Royce Optical makes nice smaller (and larger) mirrors. He made the 6 and 8" conical cross section mirrors for the popular UTI travel scopes. I bought one of his 6" conicals a while ago, but have not yet made a telescope. Eventually it is going into a compact travel scope.

Bob's a very friendly guy if you would like to call him and enquire. Also, he ships a mirror when he says he will. Unfortunately that is not something all of the makers can accomplish, even if they try.

Jim

George Blahun said:

Jim:

Most of us here on AM who post opinions on the political and other non astro topics also post on the Astronomy related subjects as well...do you in fact have any interest in Astronomy?

George

George:

Someone asks Jim Babcock or Patrick Keafer this question every couple of months. Most people who ask this are not as gracious with their phrasing as you are.

Rest assured that Jim Babcock has at least two telescopes (a dob and LX200 if memory serves). He enjoys using them. I am not sure if he is able to use them yet, after his recent illness, but I hope so. Maybe Jim will let us know.

One of my favorite posts on this forum was from Jim Babcock many years ago. He said something about how the stars he saw in Iraq were the same as the stars he sees here. It struck me as a fundamentally and profoundly optimistic post.

I always wonder why people question another person's dedication to the hobby of astronomy on a politics forum. Unlike you, most folks who ask this question imply that the other chap is no more than a troll if they post here yet not also dedicated amateur astronomers. I think that is silly of course.

Jim

Anthony Ayiomamitis said:

Folks,

Can we please try and remain on-topic within this group? During the past few weeks we have had a few threads surrounding equipment and which is most appropriate in other equipment-related groups including TeleVue and refractors.

I remind everyone that the description for this group reads "DEEP SKY IMAGERS have their own unique Imaging and Processing issues - Now they have their own FORUM" and it is both frustrating and tiresome seeing LENGTHY threads which not only do not belong here but have other groups here on Astromart where they are ideally suited.

No, I am not the administrator but an interested reader and participant!

Anthony.

Hi Anthony:

No disrespect intended, but the recent equipment threads seem to be right on topic to me. The discussion of various astrograph varieties was/is very informative and specifically targeted at the suitability of these various telescopes for deep space imaging.

Jim

She (he?) kept an eye on us, but did not fly away for several minutes.

Jim

Mike Strieber said:

No wonder the Republicans don't offer an alternate plan. Unfortunately I think we'll all feel the impact in the end.

Ouch.

Rod Kaufman said:

It appears our techniques pale in comparison to what the United Arab Emirates dish out:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7402099&page=1
Stuffing sand down the throat, driving over a victim with an SUV,(even though it's a mercedes)etc
Maybe Richard's right and what we do isn't torture afterall..

Shoot, the Japanese vivisected lots of Chinese and a few US airmen. I'm not taking a stand on any particular current events issue, but objectively, our recent activities are not likely to make the torture hall of fame.

Jim

Tony Aguire said:

BTW, yes i support partial ownership of GM by the government...and yes, I have my reasons why I believe this is best.

Tony:

How do you see partial ownership of GM by the government playing out? (Actually it looks like controlling ownership to me; existing shareholders will own only 1% of GM if the article is correct).

Here is a specific question. Let's say that the US Forest Service needs 100 new pick-up trucks. Do you want GM to get this deal since the government owns GM? Or should Ford and Toyota be able to bid on the deal, and possibly provide a better product cheaper?

I obviously want the non-government owned companies to have an equal opportunity to bid for government deals. I think (but don’t know) that the Gov. has rules in place now that assure an open and fair bidding process. However, if GM does not get most-favored-automaker status, why should we hope that the brand will be revitalized and some day return to a position of market strength? I am extremely skeptical that this will work. I suspect that this move will merely postpone the inevitable demise of GM. Also (whether fair or not) the administration is going to own a lot of the blame when GM inevitably fails. This is a bad thing or a good thing of course depending on your perspective...

Jim

Mike Strieber said:

He's got a cult following in this forum so maybe not.
Mike

Joe gets emotional jollies out of intentionally offending classes of people. I suspect that he is mentally ill, maybe even institutionalized. Joe is basically a playground bully. His entire sense of self-worth is premised upon a baseless, even fictional, belief that he is innately superior to a select class of people who are different from him. Thus, Joe is a prototype bigot and possibly a psychopath.

He is obviously a very different animal than Patrick or Jim Babcock for example. Those guys have extreme views that might offend others. It is clear from their writing though, that they are posting here to voice their views, not simply to cause offense.

It would be best if Joe were ignored, but that is asking a lot, especially from well meaning types who have not read much of his venom and thus give him the benefit of the doubt.

Jim