Article: Part 2 - What's Wrong with each of my Scopes

iceman (Mike) · #1 07-12-2005, 07:40 AM

Hi all.

Brian (Miaplacidus) has written a fantastic 2-part article for beginners.. this is the second part. It's well worth a read.

You can access the article from the Projects, Articles and DIY section of the site, or directly from the link below:

Part Two: What's Wrong with each of my Scopes

Thanks to Brian for writing such a comprehensive and complete article to help out the beginners.

slice of heaven · #2 07-12-2005, 08:29 AM

And again, Brilliant!!!

davidpretorius · #3 07-12-2005, 09:13 AM

Again, fantastic!!!

chunkylad (David) · #4 07-12-2005, 11:09 AM

What a great read!!! Ireally enjoyed both the content and the writing style. Congrats Brian;well done.

Hitchhiker · #5 07-12-2005, 11:18 AM

Parts I & II should be required reading for all beginners!

Well done, Brian.

33South (Chris) · #6 07-12-2005, 11:34 AM

Great stuff, I could relate to the ETX105 bit.

fringe_dweller · #7 07-12-2005, 07:47 PM

I tips me hat, sir

...so in conclusion dobbies rule! (if you are on a budget) cant repeat that message too much methinks

G00GS · #8 07-12-2005, 08:07 PM

rmcpb (Rob) · #9 07-12-2005, 08:31 PM

Read both articles. All I can say is thanx, I learnt heaps

Miaplacidus (Brian) · #10 07-12-2005, 08:53 PM

Thanks for your positive comments, guys. (Now I'll just wait for the lawsuits to pour in.)

Seriously, reading over these articles again, I feel I was a bit harsh on both the ETX and the Megrez. I probably use the Megrez far more than any other scope at the moment. And I DO actually have a list of the SAOs of nearly every interesting double star south of declination +50 (I've even used an Excel scatter chart to turn it into a sort of star chart), so suddenly I find that the ETX has increased my potential observing opportunities to include even nights with a full moon. (Both these preferences probably reflect where I live. When you practise astronomy in cloudy Hobart, you have to maximize every opportunity you can!)

Anyway, guys, get stuck in. Aren't you all going to leap to the defence of your respective telescopes (and start denigrating all the others)? Else, where is the fun in writing the articles???!!!!

Cheers,

Brian.

davidpretorius · #11 07-12-2005, 09:26 PM

brian, how can it be attacked????

as you say, nothing is perfect, and yet most guys will not tell the noobie what is wrong with their scopes.

you have pointed out what is wrong. so unless you have made it up, then you can't be attacked.

if you had simply said a dob is best and left it at that, then "gloves are off".

but no, you have written a very very good article.

now all ou have to do is bring that to our little launceston get together.

actually, i am trying to organise a tassie IIS star camp in the next few years. I drove down the huon valley on business on tuesday, over to rokeby and then up thru cambridge. lots of nice dark sky sites. any tips??? from ross to campbelltown looked lovely and flat 360 degrees. Great lakes?????

gaa_ian (Ian) · #12 07-12-2005, 10:18 PM

Brian, well done, Great article's lots of laughs, mixed with good advice for the beginner.

bono · #13 08-12-2005, 04:39 PM

Many thanks for the time taken to write this very useful article.

Can anyone suggest for me a $500 equivalent telescope (maybe from Andrews) to your 80 mm F6.25 (500 mm FL) short tube achromatic refractor (William Optics Megrez II SD) ?

I was about to get a DOB, but I see it is still a little too big for my liking.

thanks
Jono

davidpretorius · #14 08-12-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bono

I was about to get a DOB, but I see it is still a little too big for my liking.

thanks
Jono

coming to melb to see bono and his mates late march!!

8" dob easy to carry!!! 6" even easier.

i would be interested to know what "too big" is for you?

bono · #15 08-12-2005, 09:07 PM

Actually a 6" DOB would be right in size. I am all for size and portability, durability, maintainability and versatility (terrestrial viewing?). I'm looking to nurture my beginner enthusiasm for now (quantity over quality I guess).

I'm having my sights set on the april fools concert David. Spent an unfruitful 2 hours trying to get arena tickets for the sydney ticks.

davidpretorius · #16 08-12-2005, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bono

Actually a 6" DOB would be right in size. I am all for size and portability, durability, maintainability and versatility (terrestrial viewing?). I'm looking to nurture my beginner enthusiasm for now (quantity over quality I guess).

I'm having my sights set on the april fools concert David. Spent an unfruitful 2 hours trying to get arena tickets for the sydney ticks.

6" or 8" dob gets ticks on:
size
portability
durability
maintainability

but for terrestrial viewing you would need a right angled finder which i think now comes with most dobs. mine does not so it the view is upside down and back the front.

also i would think a dob too close to the ground to be any good for terrestrial. a refractor on a tripod would be heaps better here!

as they say, have a look through them both and get it clear in your mind!

u2:
we spent 1 hour ringing and got tickets for melbourne, but with the damn comm games are on and accomodation in melb is sky high. got a mate in the city where i can crash!

iceman (Mike) · #17 09-12-2005, 05:13 AM

bono, where abouts in Sydney are you?

Your best bet would be to come to one of our Sydney or Central Coast meetups and look through some telescopes yourself!

We're having one at Kulnura tomorrow night. Don't forget the Lostock AstroCamp in January as well, would be a great place for beginners to learn the ropes.

iceman (Mike) · #18 09-12-2005, 05:14 AM

Quote:

but for terrestrial viewing you would need a right angled finder which i think now comes with most dobs

I don't think the last part is correct Dave.. that is, dobs rarely (if ever) come with right angle diagonal (I assume you mean diagonal instead of finder?).

Reflectors aren't really meant for terrestrial viewing, though of course they can be used that way if you like looking at upside down trees

davidpretorius · #19 09-12-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman

(I assume you mean diagonal instead of finder?).

Reflectors aren't really meant for terrestrial viewing, though of course they can be used that way if you like looking at upside down trees

spot on mike, that is exactly what i meant, sorry bono

Starkler (Geoff) · #20 09-12-2005, 06:51 AM

I believe the size of the 6 and 8 inchers with respect to tube length and base size is the same for both, with the 6 being a little lighter. If cost isnt a concern go for the 8 if you decide on this type of scope.