The War on Truth: The Triumph of Newtonianism Part II.

Seeing the light.

Continued from Part I

New entries indicated by ***

Of late I have been observing primarily with my 8” f/5.9 reflector.  After collimation, I check the seeing via visual observation at moderately high power on tight and/or magnitude contrast doubles—this is how I happened on this pair of doubles in Draco.

STT 312AB and STF 2054AB appear to the naked eye as the single star Eta Draconis.  Starting in Ursa Minor, a straight-line path from Kochab through Pherkad gets me to Eta as shown in the annotated Cartes du Ciel screenshot below.

 

DRADblDblPath_GIMP.jpg

 

I like to start with the fainter pair, STF 2054AB which is  a mere 12’ due North of Eta Draconis.  In 2017 this mag 6.2/7.1 pair had a separation of 0.943”, which is in line with historical speckle data.  At 345x, I saw two whitish stars of slightly uneven magnitude that were clearly split with dark space between the stars.  I gauged the seeing by estimating how often the image sharpens to two distinct discs.

The 2nd Ed. of CDSA lists STF 2054 as a (2) + 1 triple, meaning the A component is really AaAb.  Stelle Doppie informs the AaAb pair is CHR 138AaAb with a separation of 0.222” (1990)—perhaps those with larger glass can see this as oblong?

Moving on to the brighter object, Eta Draconis or STT 312 AB is where the fun starts.  This mag 2.8/8.2 pair has a separation of 4.68” as measured by Gaia satellite (2015.5)  Using the same eyepiece you used for STF 2054AB, try to find the faint secondary without prior position angle knowledge.  It will be quite small and about 4.5x farther than the distance between the stars comprising STF 2054AB. 

My first attempt at detecting STT 312 B required almost a half hour of moving my eye from averted to direct vision before I definitively saw the tiny speck of light corresponding to the companion.  On a subsequent night, I found the secondary right away because I knew where (and how) to find it.  The more steadily the diminutive B presents as a dot of light, the better my seeing.  Of course, darker skies will also aid your efforts for seeing the faint companion. 

STF 2054AB and STT 312AB help me gauge my local seeing and are fun to look at.  Have you looked at these stars lately?

Nucleophile(Austin, Texas, USA): from an online thread entitled, Fun in Draco: Proximal Pairs STT 312AB and STF 2054AB

Perhaps the aforementioned objects are too easy and you desire a greater challenge; if so, head about 11 degrees due south of Eta Draconis to Hu 149

This pair of ~matched magnitude 7.5 stars has a separation of 0.66″ (last precise in 2017 = 0.665″; my own measure in 2017 = 0.662″)  The pair are slowly widening:  Burnham (1978) lists the separation at 0.5″

Using my 8″ reflector, I observed this object last night and logged the following observations:

345x:  image transforms from elongated to notched (snowman) about 30% of the time; both stars are light orange-yellow

460x:  now seen as sitting on the border of resolved to two discs and split with the tiniest of black space between the discs

Below is an inverted image of Hu 149 I assembled in 2017 using my 15″ reflector and an ASI178MC camera at f/23 operating in mono mode.

 

HU149_JDSO.jpg

Nucleophile(Austin Texas, USA), from an online thread entitled; Fun in Draco: Proximal Pairs STT 312AB and STF 2054AB

Attached are some recent pictures of these double stars.  In all cases, N is up and E is left.

I obtained the images using my 15″ reflector and an ASI 290MM cooled CMOS camera.  An imaging train of Paracorr type 1 (setting 5), Powermate 2.5x and a Baader Orange filter gives an f ratio of 13.3  Images were collected using either SharpCap or Firecapture. 

Measures were made with Speckle ToolBox.  Composite images were assembled in Registax.

First up is STF 2054AB

STF2054AB_DRA.jpg

Dear Mark,

Thanks a lot for your interesting and well-documented presentation of a pair of doubles so well suited to gauging seeing  all year round. Last night I made these my first port of call with a 140mm Maksutov (an OMC 140 made by Orion UK, a good instrument). The physics suggest that the separation of 0.943” which you state for STF 2054AB is at the physical limit possible with this aperture, so I was keen to find out how I would fare.

The day had been hot, seeing was mediocre. I know from experience, though, that the air may calm down in certain phases of the evening, so I just hoped I would catch a good moment. At 75x I saw no hint of a companion of Eta Draconis, but STF 2054AB was definitely elongated. At 130x still no sign of Eta’s companion, but the elongation of STF 2054 became even more evident and it was clear at which end the weaker component stood. Encouraged by this, I went up to 210x. Now STF 2054 was a stretched figure-8 that popped apart into separate discs in better moments of seeing. Somehow quite charming!

I had gone in without PA knowledge and estimated this at 330°. Stelledoppie says 351°. So deviation <10%, that’s OK.

After having trained the eye in this manner, I turned my attention to Eta Draconis at 210x. All I could spot was a disc within a wildly dancing diffraction pattern. Although the B component, with its separation of 4.68”, is more than 4.5x further than the distance between STF 2054 A and B, it is evidently much harder to spot. This was an interesting lesson in the effect of Delta-Mag.

I find STF 2054 quite charming and Eta quite challenging, and will certainly be returning to them often. So thanks again, Mark.

CS, Christopher

C.Hay(Germany), from an online thread entitled; Fun in Draco: Proximal Pairs STT 312AB and STF 2054AB

Finally, here is Hu 149

I measured this one 21 times over three nights in order to gauge repeatability of the measuring protocol.  The current measure matches very well what I obtained a few years back.

Hu149_DRA.jpg

rugby, on 19 Jun 2019 – 06:11 AM, said:

I just finished observing STF 2054 AB and STT 312 in Draco using an  SW 120 ED and a Meade LX 10. A very bright moon with Jupiter brightened the eastern horizon.  Unfortunately these pairs lie directly above my house and thus suffer from heat rising from the roof.

What I saw was surprising. 2054 was elongated but not separated in the 120 at 200x.  I had not expected anything because it is on the edge of this scope’s capabilities. I did not try the 8 inch.

STT 312 AB was exceedingly difficult. Without prior knowledge of PA I kept seeing flashes of a tint dot south south preceeding the primary. I used the 120 at 200x. The view in the 8 inch was too turbulent for any resolution.

I am notoriousy poor in estimating position angle.

Hi Rugby,

Give ’em a try with your 8″–I think you will like the views!

Nucleophile( Austin Texas, USA), from an online thread entitled; Fun in Draco: Proximal Pairs STT 312AB and STF 2054AB.

Last night was about my 10th try to find that little bugger hanging out in the diffraction ring. I had tried repeatedly and without success with my 120mm ED. I’ve tried before with my 8″ [Newtonian], even on an EQ platform a few nights ago. This time I managed to see it with the 8″ at an ungodly 498x without the EQ, so constant nudging and then allowing it to drift (if the drifting was near rapids) . I would call it my “great white whale”, but it’s more like a tiny white pimple.

You’d expect the 8″ should easily split it, if I could just get improved seeing.

Chesterguy

Chesterguy( Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA), from an online thread entitled: Zeta Herculis…finally!

 

Well, I confirmed my sighting of Zeta Herculis las night. Same instrument, equal or better seeing and this time on my EQ Platform. Despite not getting my platform aligned perfectly on Polaris because it was blocked by my house, I still managed enough accuracy so that, while it drifted through the EP, it wasn’t like the prior night. Still a tough split at 498x in my typical seeing. I salute those of you who are splitting it below 140mm.

Chesterguy(Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA), from an online thread entitled: Zeta Herculis…finally!

I observed this double with the 8″ reflector twice in recent days:

345x:  just split with smaller secondary appearing yellow against bright white primary; secondary appears to be sitting between first and second diffraction rings

314x:  when seeing permits, the yellowish secondary is seen sitting atop the primary

I did a few Aberrator simulations for the expected view using either my 8″ or 15″ reflectors; these are shown below.

 

ZetHERAberrator_Gimp.jpg

The 8″ inch simulation is fairly close to what I saw.  The 15″ simulation shows the secondary now sitting near the second diffraction ring.  In some images I obtained recently with the 15″ and an ASI 290MM camera this is pretty much what I saw.  In the composite image below the first diffraction ring appears as a fuzzy halo while second ring got washed out a bit in processing.

 

STF2084_Zeta_HER.jpg

Nucleophile(Austin, Texas, USA), from an online thread entitled; Zeta Herculis…finally!

I just made a 7 inch aperture stop today for my 18. Worked great tonight. I’ve made them many times before but it’s been a while. Seeing tonight was so good the better views were at full aperture..

Darren Drake(Chicago, USA), from an online thread entitled Aperture Mask

DavidC, on 19 Jun 2019 – 03:41 AM, said:

I am making an off axis aperture mask for my 10 inch lightbridge, but using a single 4 inch hole. I got the idea from san francisco sidewalk astronomers, but they had it as plans for a solar filter. I’m making it for planets and double stars. I’ve been told by stepping the aperture down to 4 inches, planets won’t be as bright, therefore I can use more power on them. At 1270 mm focal length, I’m hoping for impressive views on planets by using more power. Am I thinking this correctly?

 

Thanx, David

Waste of time IMO. I have a 10” LB with a very good mirror set. I also have excellent 100 and 120 mm ED refractors. If seeing is equal, the 10” reflector slaughters the excellent refractors in planetary detail.

SteveG(Seattle, Washington, USA), from an online thread entitled: Aperture Mask

Vla, on 20 Jun 2019 – 2:55 PM, said:

Smooth edges have more of a cosmetic effect. Rough edges don’t induce aberrations, because they don’t affect wavefront shape, and unless the edge is ridiculously rough, the diffraction effect will be negligible. As an illustration, effect of a 2-inch focuser protruding into the light path of a 200mm diameter mirror. As much as 1 inch into the light path will take only about 1% of the energy out of the central maxima (which, expectedly, becomes somewhat elongated, because the vertical mirror diameter is effectively shorter).

Yes indeed! The effects are diffractive and tiny, not what we optics guys call aberrations. I also like your focuser signature there… Fourier Transform (impulse-response) says it all.

Masks roughly-cut with scissors or a knife are perfectly fine. The one thing to try to avoid is long straight edges. Those will give noticeable spikes. The three straight edges of the focuser there… do a little bit of that.

On the tech/theory side… there are infinitely many wavefronts that will produce the same impulse response. That’s because the sensor (eye or camera) detects only amplitude, but not phase. So you can’t inverse-transform back to the wavefront by processing on the one image of a star… unless you use two or more (ideally many) focus positions’ images. And that is what we call ~phase diversity analysis~ (what was used to assess Hubble’s flaw). And what is implicitly involved in the various casual ~Sar Tests~ that we often talk about here. 

Tom Dey(Springwater, New York, USA), from an online thread entitled: Aperture Mask

Deep13, on 14 Dec 2018 – 06:56 AM, said:

In my mind, the ideal planet telescope is a 10 or 12″ EQ Newt (split ring?) in a permanent location with a clear view of the south and overhead. Add a good binoviewer, pairs of long ZAOs, and an easy way to reach the EP, and I’d be all set. In reality, it would be too expensive and I have no place to set it up permanently. So-o-o-o, I’ve arranged to buy a used 8″ f/8 EQ-mounted Newt. I’ll need to have some servicing done on the mirrors. I’m thinking that within the realm of likely possibility, this may very well be my ideal set-up. Right now it has no fan and a tall R&P focuser, so I may change those things. And I’ll built a cart for the Meade RG mount. I already have a tall adjustable chair and a Denk II with pairs of TV Ploessls.

 

Any thoughts? What’s your ideal planet scope?

 

I had both a very good 8″ Zambuto f-7.5 and a 10″ Waite f-5.8 on an EQ mount, the 8″ I had rotating rings but still a very big pain in the rear to use on an EQ mount. I am considering a slightly different set up 10″ f-5.3 through f-5.5 for a shorter tube and mounted on an EQ-AZ mount, in AZ mode viewing will be far more easier as the EP will be on one side and accessible.  At the focal lengths mentioned as long as you get a premium mirror and build it well you can achieve 50x per inch with sharp image on the planets, and you can use a 1.83″ secondary, CO 18.3%. good luck.

dag55(Hamburg, Illinois, USA), from an online thread entitled; Ideal Planetary Scope

The Orion 4.5 in f/8 dobsonian could be an option. Seems to get good reviews on the optics here on CN. Lightwieght. I believe the focuser is plastic, but, it should be ok with normal weight 1.25in eps.If the moon with a 4 -5 in reflector is the ojective, this little scope should do a decent job.I have not used the Orion, however, I do have a 4.5in f/8, and I think they are capable little scopes.

Good viewing,

dmgriff, from an online thread entitled, 4-5” reflector recommendation

 

+1 on the AWB OneSky.

I was surprised at how well it works. At 14 pounds total, it might be just what you’re looking for.

Havasman( Dallas, Texas, USA), from an online thread entitled: 4-5” reflector recommendation

The AWB One Sky is fine for the money but its burdened with an very poor helical focuser, preferable is the Lightbridge 130 , discontinued but still available from some dealers, the Zhumell 130, the best of the bunch IMHO or the slightly smaller Zhumell 114 , very similar to the Orion Starblast but less money, the Zhumell is also sold as the Edmund Astroscan Millenium, D.

Binojunky, from an online thread entitled: 4-5” reflector recommendation

 

The Onesky is a fine scope. I have no problem with the focuser.,and the mount is quite stable.,Some of my best spent astro money.,cheers.,

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20190327_183143.jpg

 

Clearwaterdave(Western Maine, USA), from an online thread entitled: 4-5” reflector recommendation

How is a 4″ apo a “no brainer” when the OP specificly asked about a reflector? The OP has other scopes and seems to have some idea of what he’s lookin for.,What scope you think would do a better job for doubles or planets is not what he asked about. If you have used and liked a 4-5″ reflector of any type and you want to share your experience here that would be helpful to the OP.,waytogo.gif

Clearwaterdave(Western Maine, USA), from an online thread entitled: 4-5” reflector recommendation

I have had the OS up next to a 102ed and “to my eyes” the views are too similar for me to say either one was “better”.,And there are many many very happy OS owners.,So yes.,you can expect a quality reflector for $200.,That’s the no brainer.,and the OS isn’t the only one.,there are a few good quality 5″ reflectors out there for $200.,YOMV.,

Clearwaterdave(Western Maine, USA), from an online thread entitled: 4-5” reflector recommendation

Thank you again for all the great responses. I’m always pleasantly surprised at the information you guys have and your experience. Yes, optics are my primary concern for the scope, but I haven’t really read one bad review concerning them so I think the OneSky is what I’ll go with. I have a pretty large back deck with a decent view to the south so it will be easy to track the moon every night, even if only for a few minutes. Concerning refractors: the truth is I have little experience with them (I know they’re not hard to figure out) and my comfort level, if you will, is with Dobsonian type reflectors. I have a neighbor down the road who has a 4” Takahashi (I think), and the views through it are really something else. Then he told me the price tag and my mind went to how how big of a Renegade or Teeter I could get for the same price. Plus someone told me that owning a refractor will lead you down to the perilous and very expensive road of astrophotography.
The reason I don’t put the 8” out on the back deck is that I use it specifically for planetary viewing now. I have it in the garage ready to load up for a quick drive into the foothills next to the house. The view is better and I get away from all the house and street lights. At f/7 that 8” gives just wonderful views of the planets. I was also able to complete the AL double star program with. If you haven’t looked at that program, I recommend it as it was one of my favorites to do. The 8” was the first scope I ever owned and I had to rebuild it out of disassembled parts, which I found at a flea market. That was a journey, let me tell me you. But now it’s dialed in with a great mirror and I’ll have it forever.
And with the 10”: that’s my deep-sky, dark site, fall into the heavens scope. I try to get out there at least once, if not twice, a week. It too has great mirror and makes it hard for me to financially justify a larger scope given there’s so much to see with it.
Back to the OneSky. Hopefully it will be what I’m looking for. I have perfect cover and place for it, it won’t get dirty, and when I’m out enjoying the late evening and want a quick peak, it’ll be right there.

Mick Christopher, from an online thread entitled: 4-5” reflector recommendation

One of my all-time favorite 4ish inch scopes is the Orion XT4.5, mentioned by Dave and Ed earlier. It’s a very nicely engineered and accessorized product, and provides sharp high power views with very minimal focus wiggles and immediate dampening times. The long focal length makes the scope forgiving of the somewhat imprecise focuser, which works quite well. It’s also very easy on simple eyepieces, which is handy. It’s not a do-all scope, owing to the focal length and 1.25″ ep limitation, but it’s still capable of providing pleasant low power views, yet shines at moderate and high powers. Add a 5 gallon bucket, inverted, as a “chair” (which can pull double duty as a caddy for charts, ep case, and binos) , and the scope works well for adults without the need to raise the scope on a platform.

KerryR( Midwest Coast, Michigan, USA), from an online thread entitled: 4-5” reflector recommendation

 

If the OP can handle the extra size and cost the Orion XT6″F8 is a fine scope, I picked mine up last years for $300 Canadian brand new shipped to my door, take it out in two pieces, plonk it on the ground and away you go, D.

Binojunky, from an online thread entitled: 4-5” reflector recommendation

 

This report is the third installment of a series of observational investigations I have made using an 8 inch f/5.9 reflecting telescope. 

Check out this link for goals and methods used in this study:

https://www.cloudyni…-and-monoceros/

Corvus
Bu 920 (12158-2321) mags 6.86/8.22; pa = 308°; sep = 1.934”, 2016 (solid data)
345x:  well split with secondary a bit smaller; both stars are yellow; well above resolution limit

B 1716 (12247-2004) mags 9.42/9.42; pa = 230°; sep = 0.701”, 2014 (solid data)
345x:  single star
460x:  a bit elongated, but never resolved despite best efforts; below resolution limit; important data point to set lower limit for fainter stars

Hydra
STF 1273 AB, C (08468+0625) mags 3.49/6.66; pa = 310°; sep = 2.824”, orbital estimate for 2019.3 (solid data)
345x:  easily split to two yellow stars of widely varying magnitude; above resolution limit

Bu 587 AB (08516-0711) mags 5.75/7.41; pa = 121°; sep = 1.186”, 2017 (solid data)
345x:  blur of light that sharpens to a small secondary that is just split
460x:  spit 100% of time; above resolution limit

Bu 219 (10216-2232) mags 6.70/8.52; pa = 186°; sep = 1.773”, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  split 100% of time; secondary is much smaller and both stars are white; above resolution limit

A 3064 (08403-1518) mags 9.15/9.00; pa = 357°; sep = 0.681”, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  just resolved to two tiny discs 40% of time; just above resolution limit; important data point to helps set minimum value of rho for faint, equal mag pair

A 338 (08207-0510) mags 8.83/9.39; pa = 17°; sep = 0.569”, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  slightly pointy
460x:  slightly elongated, but never resolved; well below resolution limit

HJ 4478 (11529-3354) mags 4.67/5.47; pa = 52°; sep = 0.578”, 2015 (data needs confirmation)
627x/orange filter:  elongated that becomes notched 10% of time; just below resolution limit; difficult due to low altitude; requires re-measure to firm up separation value

B 1175 (10582-3540) mags 8.25/9.23; pa = 251°; sep = 0.61”, 1998 (data is old, scant)
345x:  resolved 50% time to two similar magnitude yellow stars; a bit above resolution limit; separation likely greater now; requires newer measures of separation and delta mag

B 218 (12002-2706) mags 9.11/9.69; pa = 340°; sep = 0.472”, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, scant data)
627x:  very faint; rod shaped at times, but no hint of resolution or notch; well below resolution limit; requires re-measure to firm up separation data

HWE 72 (12136-3348) mags 6.48/8.55; pa = 159°; sep = 1.231“, 2016 (solid data)
345x:  just split 30% of time to two white stars; secondary is much smaller; above resolution limit

Bu 411 (10361-2641) mags 6.68/7.77; pa = 303°; sep = 1.33”, 2017 (solid data)
345x:  just split 100% time to two light yellow stars of somewhat dissimilar magnitude; above resolution limit

Bu 219 (10216-2232) mags 6.70/8.52; pa = 186°; sep = 1.773”, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  split 100% time; secondary is much smaller and both stars are white; above resolution limit

Leo Minor
STF 1406, aka STT 211 (10056+3105) mags 8.37/9.42; pa = 219°; sep = 0.728”, 2017 (solid data)
345x:  just split from resolved 30% time; stars are faint, white, and seem to be of similar magnitude; above resolution limit; a newer delta mag measure desired

Lynx
STT 159AB (06573+5825) mags 4.45/5.50; pa = 236°; sep = 0.704”, orbital estimate for 2019.3 (solid data)
345x:  single star
460x:  possibly pointy
627x:  at times elongated showing secondary as smaller, but never resolved; below resolution limit; it is unclear why this is so difficult—perhaps there is a ‘brightness’ factor that needs to be incorporated?  Revisit next year using orange filter and get a new measure.

COU 2607 (07441+5026) mags 5.33/8.43; pa = 164°; sep = 0.973”, 2012 (data is a bit old but is considered solid)
460x:  secondary pops into view as just split 50% of time; just above resolution limit

STT 174 (07359+4302) mags 6.62/8.26; pa = 92°; sep 2.170“, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  split 100% of time; both stars are white and secondary is much smaller; fine mag contrast double; well above resolution limit

Hu 850 (08094+3734) mags 9.42/9.23; pa = 349°; sep = 0.57“, 2016 (scant data)
345x:  viewed for an extended period of time using averted vision shows the pair exhibiting a notch just past extended a mere 10% of the time; never resolved and is considered below the resolution limit; a re-measure of separation is needed

Ursa Major
STT 232AB (11151+3735) mags 8.02/8.90; pa = 243°; sep = 0.623”, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
552x (Pentax 2.5XO/Paracorr Type 1, setting 1):  pointy about 25% of time, but never a hint of being resolved; below resolution limit

STT 235AB (11323+6105) mags 5.69/7.55; pa = 44°; sep = 0.949”, 2019.3 (orbital estimate, solid data)
345x:  on the resolved/split border with secondary seen as much smaller
460x:  cleanly split; primary is yellow, secondary is light orange; above resolution limit

STF 1770 (13377+5043) mags 6.93/8.18; pa = 128°; sep = 1.722“, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  cleanly split; primary is light yellow while the smaller secondary is light orange—a fine pair; above resolution limit

STT 200 (09249+5134) mags 6.53/8.57; pa = 337°; sep = 1.251”, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  close split (AV helps to see fainter secondary)
460x:  easily split to two stars of unequal magnitude—very nice; above resolution limit

STT 232AB (11151+3735) mags 8.02/8.90; pa = 243°; sep = 0.623“, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
552x (Pentax 2.5XO/Paracorr Type 1, setting 1):  pointy about 25% of time, but never a hint of resolution; below resolution limit—important data point for calculator development

A 1346 (09591+5316) mags 8.84/9.66; pa = 179°; sep = 0.624“, 2019.3 (orbital estimate; data is incongruent between orbital estimate, historical speckle and Gaia DR2)
345x:  slightly elongated; very difficult
460x:  moves past elongated to notched <10% of time
627x:  possibly seen as resolved 10% of time with averted vision; just below resolution limit; requires re-measure to firm up separation value

STT 229 (10480+4107) mags 7.62/7.92; pa = 254°; sep = 0.63“, 2019 (estimate from 4th Interferometric Catalog; data incongruent between historical speckle, orbital estimate and last precise)
345x:  moves past pointy to resolved 30% of time showing secondary as a bit smaller versus the primary
460x:  persistent snowman shape that sharpens to nearly split 30% of time; just above resolution limit; re-measure of separation needed for this important data point

Bu 1077AB Dubhe (11037+6145) mags 2.02/4.95; pa = 336°; sep = 0.802“, 2019.4 (orbital estimate, solid data)
460x/orange filter:  very difficult; secondary pops into view 30% of time as just split—otherwise, it is merely a blur of light/brightening of first diffraction ring; at or just above resolution limit

**Have you observed or imaged any of these objects recently?  Let me know.  Perhaps you have a suggestion for a double I should observe—I’m all ears!

Nucleophile(Austin, Texas, USA), from an online thread entitled; Investigations With an 8 Inch Reflector. Part I: Canis Major, Canis Minor, Lepus, and Monoceros

My preference is in the “or” category. I have used all of my scopes for doubles, but I love my 10 inch reflector… it is a double star magician… except for Sirius B… just can’t get that one in the 10 inch. But I have split it ONCE with my 4 inch achro (retired this one to give to my granddaughter)… she loves doubles too…

SeaBee1, from an online thread entitled; scope preference for doubles

I use my Stellarvue 105mm APO most of the time for doubles wider than 1″ and when the seeing is only fair.  It gives such nice images with no central obstruction.

If the seeing is above average I use the Intes 180mm Mak-Cass with its astro-sital 1/9 wave optical system on the tighter doubles, and planets.

I don’t usually use the 10″ LX 200 on doubles, but one night when the seeing was very good I was using the Baader 8-24 zoom on the double double in Lyra and zoomed all the way to 660x,  the stars looked perfect and the separation was enormous.

I usually don’t use my 18″ Obsession for doubles, but once while doing a two star alignment on Antares with my 12.5mm cross-hair eyepiece, there it was a bright orange star with a little green orb next to it.  I hade to just stop and take a good long look, it was beautiful, and so was the seeing that night.

Astromaster; from an online thread entitled; scope preference for doubles

Last seen this star for a long time. Seeing that the closer stars that I knew are either already inaccessible (too close) or have gone beyond the horizon, I decided to observe those that are less mobile. In particular, this one. Since there are days with an excellent atmosphere and they should be used. In comparison with the double in the zet boo, this star looks obviously wider and accessible. It is interesting that the difference in the sizes of fragments of diffraction disks is visible. This is quite unexpected, considering that the difference in brightness is only 0.2. Maybe this star is variable? and therefore I see that parts of diffraction discolves of different sizes (this happens when the difference in brightness is more than 1 … 1.5 magnitudes). This is weird.  I used a large piece of paper to accurately mark the track of the star and its position. Such dimensions allowed me quite accurately, without using devices, to note how exactly the disc is stretched..eta crb1.png
Constantin 1980, from an online thread entitled: Observation Eta CrB (0,38 “) 9\04\2019

This report is the fourth installment of a series of observational investigations I have made using an 8 inch f/5.9 reflecting telescope. 

Check out this link for goals and methods used in this study:

https://www.cloudyni…-and-monoceros/

Bootes
BU 224 (14135+1234) mags 8.94/9.35; pa = 95°; sep = 0.65“, 2015 (last precise; not solid, opening)
345x:  single star
460x:  pointy but never resolved; well below resolution limit; magnitude data is from Hipparcos (1991, 515nm); needs a re-msre of delta mag and separation

 

STT 287 (14515+4456) mags 8.40/8.62; pa = 5°; sep = 0.575“, 2017 (last precise vs 0.659” orbital estimate for 2019.3; data incongruent)
345x:  seen as elongated 30% of time
460x/averted vision/extended viewing:  elongated only, never resolved; below resolution limit; needs a re-msre of separation

 

STF 1866 (14417+0932) mags 8.48/8.65; pa = 205°; sep = 0.733“, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  on the border of resolved and split to two even magnitude light yellow stars; above resolution limit

 

STF 1863 (14380+5135) mags 7.71/7.80; pa = 60°; sep = 0.654“, 2017, (last precise, solid data)
460x/orange filter/averted vision/extended viewing:  moves past elongated to resolved 20% of time
627x/orange filter: just resolved 50% of time; just a bit above resolution limit; important data point (equal mag pair) to set minimum value of rho

 

STF 1867 (14407+3117) mags 8.36/8.83; pa = 355°; sep =0.674“, 2017 (data needs confirmation)
460x:  just split 50% of time to two white stars of slightly dissimilar magnitude; need re-msre of separation

 

A 148 (14220+5107) mags 8.32/8.96; pa = 190°; sep = 0.535“, 2019.3 (4th Int. Catalog estimate vs 0.58” last precise in 2015; data not solid)
627x:  a bit elongated but never resolved; well below resolution limit; need re-msre of separation

 

KUI 66 (14148+1006) mags 5.44/8.43; pa = 111°; sep = 0.99“, (my own measure in 2017 with ASI 178MC camera; data tentatively considered solid as it is a match with 4th Int. Cat. estimate)
627x/orange filter:  much smaller secondary seen as a resolved dot very near first diffraction ring 30% of time; just above resolution limit; important, large delta mag data point so re-msre with ASI 290MM camera needed.  See image below.

 

AGC 6 (14339+2949) mags 9.81/10.30; pa = 133°; sep = 0.752“, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x/extended viewing:  seen as elongated rod, never resolved; very faint and difficult; below resolution limit; important data point to set ‘faintness factor’

 

STT 298AB (15360+3948) mags 7.16/8.44; pa = 187°; sep = 1.208“, 2019.4 (orbital estimate, solid data)
345x:  easily split to two small light yellow stars of similar magnitude; very pretty; above resolution limit

 

A 1110AB (14497+0759) mags 7.69/7.93; pa = 245°; sep = 0.692“, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  oscillates between resolved and split; both stars are yellow with secondary seen as smaller and *delta mag is likely >0.24
460x:  seen as split 100% of time with secondary possessing a hint of orange; above resolution limit; Gaia DR2 gives a delta mag of 0.67 which does not agree with Tycho value of 0.24—will attempt a measure of delta mag to rectify

 

Canes Venatici
STF 1606 (12108+3953) mags 7.44/7.93; pa = 145°; sep = 0.611“, 2019.3 (orbital estimate vs 0.627”, last precise in 2017; data not solid)
460x:  elongated but never resolved
627x:  moves past notched rod to resolved 20% of time; at or just above resolution limit; observation supports tighter value of rho [0.611”]; this is an important data point; will re-msre (possibly annually) to firm up value

 

STT 251 (12291+3123) mags 8.35/9.27; pa = 61°; sep = 0.781“, 2017 (last precise; data not solid)
345x:  just resolved 30% of time with secondary much smaller
460x:  just split 50% of time; a bit above resolution limit; faint secondary plays role in difficulty; re-msre of separation needed

 

STF 1768AB (13375+3618) mags 4.98/6.95; pa = 95°; sep = 1.656“, 2019.3 (orbital estimate; solid data)
345x:  well split, primary is white and secondary is light yellow and considerably smaller—a fine sight!  Above resolution limit

 

Coma Berenices
STF 1639AB (12244+2535) mags 6.74/7.83; pa = 324°; sep = 1.855“, 2019.3 (orbital estimate; solid data)
345x:  well split, primary is white and secondary is light yellow; very pretty mag contrast pair; above resolution limit

 

STF 1687 (12533+2115) mags 5.15/7.08; pa = 200°; sep = 1.18“, 2018 (last precise; solid data)
345x:  a bit past just split 100% time with secondary noticeably smaller; both stars are yellow; above resolution limit

 

COU 397 (12575+2457) mags 9.06/9.71; pa = 63°; sep = 0.70“, 2015 (last precise; solid data)
345x:  single star; faint!
460x/averted vision:  slightly elongated but never resolved; below resolution limit; important data point to establish ‘faintness factor’

 

A 567 (13328+2421) mags 6.21/9.71; pa = 256°; sep = 1.450“, 2015.5 (Gaia DR2, solid data)
345x:  secondary seen as split 50% time and appears as very small, very faint dot a bit past first diffraction ring of primary; above resolution limit

 

Ursa Minor
STF 1989 (15396+7959) mags 7.32/8.15; pa = 23°; sep = 0.67“, 2013 (last precise vs 0.603”, orbital estimate for 2019.4; data not solid)
345x:  moves past elongated to exhibit a snowman shape
460x:  resolved about 40% time with secondary a bit smaller; above resolution limit (observation supports separation closer to 0.67” value; re-msre of separation needed)

 

BU 799AB (13048+7302) mags 6.60/8.45; pa = 265°; sep = 1.39“, 2017 (last precise; solid data)
345x:  easily split; both stars are white and secondary is considerably smaller—very pretty; above resolution limit.

 

A 1136 (16135+7147) mags 9.22/9.47; pa = 9°; sep = 0.727“, 2007 (last precise, data is old)
345x:  barely split; both stars are very small and white, and secondary is just a bit smaller; helps to establish ‘faintness factor’; above resolution limit; a re-msre of separation is needed

 

Virgo
BU 797AB (12345+0558) mags 9.10/9.39; pa = 146°; sep = 0.61“, 2010 (last precise, data is a bit old but considered solid)
345x/averted vision/extended viewing:  slightly pointy
460x:  elongated and on the border of resolved, but never did resolve despite an extended view
627x:  moved past elongated to resolved about 5% of time; at or slightly below resolution limit; a very important data point that warranted 45 mins of study under very good seeing conditions

 

RST 4484 (11447-0431) mags 8.46/8.39; pa = 64°; sep = 0.738“, 2017 (last precise; data not solid)
345x:  just split to two ~even magnitude yellowish-white stars—beautiful!  Above resolution limit; re-msre of separation needed

 

BU 935AB (13459-1226) mags 5.66/8.47; pa = 304°; sep = 1.03“, 2001 (last precise; data is old)
460x:  brightening of first diffraction ring sharpens to much smaller secondary 30% of time; both stars are yellow; above resolution limit; a new measure of separation is needed for this important mag contrast binary

Have you observed or imaged any of these objects recently?  Let me know.  Do you have a suggestion for a double I should observe within one of these constellations?  I would like to hear about it.

Nucleophile(Austin, Texas, USA), form an online thread entitled, 8 Inch Reflector Investigations. Part IV: Bootes, Canes Venatici, Coma Berenices, Ursa Minor, and Virgo

Here is an image of KUI 66 I obtained in 2017 using an ASI178MC camera operating in mono mode.

 

KUI66_JDSO.jpg

Cool, another crop! Here’s some of mine for comparison:

STT 287, 552x 12.5”. Wow! Hair-split, ~0.7″, near equal or half a delta mag.

STF 1867, 552x 12:5”. 0.5 delta mag, hair to figure 8 split, white. Not especially good seeing

Kui 66: 12.5” Unresolved faint haze at 553x, but adding the apodizing mask I had a glimpse of the B star 15% of the time, very small and faint, ~3″ and 4-5 delta mag. Both orange. Definitely there.

STT 289: 8″ 205x: Noticed a very much fainter star emerge with averted vision then could hold direct. Very fine, well split. 8″ 410x: Tried to bring out the B star with higher magnification, but oddly it disappeared. Curious. 20″ 410x: B star easily seen though the disks are bloated, seeing not good.

STT 298. 12.5” 552x Wow! Almost didn’t look at this one since it was split in the 80mm finder. One component is a close equal pair, ~2″.

STT 251. 12.5” 553x: Decidedly not round disk — there’s also a brightening in the diffraction — but not really split.

STF 1768: 8″ 205x: Very tight pair, a little more than hairline split, ~2 delta mag. 8″ 333x: white and dull blue, ~1″, split, Nice!

STF 1768. 12.5: 553x: Very pretty pale yellow and orange, 2-3 delta mag, ~2″

STF 1639: 8” 205x White and slightly blue pair; close, around 3″ [overestimated the split, it was so clean!]

STF 1687: 12.5” 553x = 35 Com: Bright orange & fainter B, showpiece, ~1.5″

A 567: 12.5” 553x: very faint B, very close, ~1″ when seeing stills, 3-4 delta magnitude. Surprised it is not so difficult. B looks like it doesn’t have any light of its own and is illuminated by A.

BU 935 = 86 Vir: 12.5” Pretty orange star but @ 553x poor seeing won’t allow split of 3 delta mag, 1.2″ B.

mccarthymark(San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA), form an online thread entitled; 8 Inch Reflector Investigations. Part IV: Bootes, Canes Venatici, Coma Berenices, Ursa Minor, and Virgo

Excellent info, Mark.

my notes on your notes:

a.  STT 287, inclined to think it is tight–like 0.6″  I will def msre next year.

b.  the much studied KUI 66, nice use of mask to glimpse the companion!  I used an orange filter and very high power on an excellent night

c.  STT 289–I will add this large delta mag object to my list (thanks!)

d.  STT 298AB  something is askew here with the delta mag as both of us describe the mags as being similar–I didn’t catch this first time around but have made a note for next year to try and get a msre of delta mag for this one; I looked back into my log notebook and also noted:  “tiny headlights; beautiful!”  Additional note based on the 4th Int Cat.:  the same year as the Tycho mag values [as listed in the WDS] are those from Hipparcos (albeit at a slightly shorter wavelength = 511nm) which found  the magnitudes to be 7.59 and 7.78–a much closer match to what we observed.  This is humorous:  WDS notes say the ‘D’ component at 167″ is actually a galaxy (possibly a quasar)!  How’s that for ‘optical illusions’  At mag 14, I will be chasing that one for sure with the 15″ scope.

e.  STT 251 was surprisingly difficult for both of us…

f.  BU 935  you may wish to give this one another shot on a night of very good seeing; it is difficult

Nucleophile(Austin, Texas, USA), form an online thread entitled, 8 Inch Reflector Investigations. Part IV: Bootes, Canes Venatici, Coma Berenices, Ursa Minor, and Virgo

Here is a composite image of A 1110AB taken in 2017 with the ASI 178MC camera.  The image supports a delta mag of >0.24

My measured value differs quite a bit from that of Gaia DR2 (0.692″) for this object.

 

A1110AB_JDSO.jpg

Nucleophile(Austin, Texas, USA), form an online thread entitled, 8 Inch Reflector Investigations. Part IV: Bootes, Canes Venatici, Coma Berenices, Ursa Minor, and Virgo

    So much for Newtonians not being suitable for observing high-resolution double stars eh?

    Mr. Hardglass

     

    Sol, that the primary is 8.38″ in diameter is a revelation. I assumed it was the standard 7.9″. When I stow it away for the monsoon, I need to measure it. That’s kind of cool, but definitely non standard for a Newt, yea? I wonder if they are using 8″ SCT blanks that are (supposed to be) a little bit ‘over sized’. Just curious.

    When I do the math for a 2.6mm diagonal support, I get 2.6/8.38 = 31% obstruction. Not a ton of difference, but comforting to some. My MCT has a 30% +/- obstruction and offers no ill feelings. The images are nice. It should have the contrast of a 8.38 – 2.6 = 5.8″ refractor, and you do not hear folks complaining about those views. It still puts ~90% of the maximum light into the Airy disc compared to a perfect 5.8″ APO. It’s right at the diffraction limit with a descent (not premium) mirror.

    Abytec(Pampanga, Philippines), form an online thread entitled: ES Firstlight 8inch dob vs. Skywatcher 8inch dob

    Actually I took lots of measurements regarding the E.S. 8, and measured many times. Not because I was obsessively compelled to, but I had an opportunity to acquire another 8″ mirror with a “pedigree”. So I needed to know if I would be able to use the E.S with little if any modification for an actual 8″ diameter with a traditional 1.4″ thickness to work.

    To the original O.P. the stock E.S. primary is also 7/8″ thick so the 6 point floating cell is just another little plus for the E.S. over the GSO or Synta.

    With the stock E.S. 8 that’s well collimated and cooled Jupiter showed a bit better than TEC140 with really good, (8P) seeing. On D.S.O. no contest.

    Sol Robbins(astronomical author and distinguished sketcher), from an online thread entitled, ES Firstlight 8inch dob vs. Skywatcher 8inch dob

    Hi all,

    Please find attached a drawing of Jupiter I made last night with my 8 inch Newtonian in my home observatory.  I have to say, I was quite impressed with image quality- the details on the disk were easier to see despite the low altitude of the planet.  The main feature was the dark and turbulent SEB(s), and the start of the STropB in the South Tropical Zone.  The EZ was rather active as was the NEB, the NTB and NNTB contained darker sections.  Io is shown in the drawing and was probably the strongest colour I have ever seen, no doubt this is due to the low altitude.

    Best wishes,

    -Paul

     

    Jupiter_2019-06-29-0012UT_visual_PAbel.png

    Paul G. Abel(author, BBC Sky at Night presenter, Leicester, UK), form an online thread entitled: Jupiter and Io last night.

     

     

    From practical experience I have found optical quality, coating quality, proper baffling and eyepiece used more important to contrast than CO size once its below around 30%. Why small APO’s out perform slightly larger obstructed scopes is usually NOT due to being un obstructed but optical quality, mechanical quality and other factors. A smaller CO is nice, but can limit your fully illuminated field and eyepiece choice. Theory is great, but assumes everything is equal which it seldom is.

    The biggest enemy of contrast is scatter, stray light and optical quality if you have a reasonable size CO.

    Richard Whalen(Florida, USA), from an online thread entitled, Secondary Mirror Obstruction?

    TOMDEY, on 02 Apr 2019 – 9:46 PM, said:

    A six-inch scope with a 30% diameter obstruction resolves far better than an unobstructed five-incher. Just generate the non-normalized point-spreads and MTFs to see that in action!

     

    PS: This is why a (good) modest-sized Dobsonian will always blow the socks off a good smaller refractor (any smaller refractor!) for both light-gathering and resolution!

     

    But, gota admit… refractors make fine finder scopes on big Newtonian reflectors…    Tom

    Every time I see yet another thread about secondary mirror sizing and central obstruction (particularly when the MTF graphs start appearing), I say what Tom said above – just use a slightly larger telescope and don’t worry about it.  (And those little refractors do make very nice finder scopes.)

    However, I will also add something else – if you undersize the secondary or size it to only fully illuminate the very center of the field, then you are:

     1) using the part of the secondary that is most likely to have a defect,

     2) using the part of the secondary that might roll off due to cooling,

     3) using the part of the secondary that is often left out of the interferometric analysis, and

     4) forcing yourself into very precise placement of the secondary in order to get something close to a fully and symmetrically illuminated field (in other words, making it very hard on yourself for very little gain).

    My method to size secondaries for most telescopes is simple – add 4″ to half the mirror’s diameter to get the intercept distance.  Then divide by f/#.  Then go up one flat size if the calculation yields a size that is close to a standard flat size.

    So, if I calculate that a 3.1″ or 3.2″ flat is needed, I go to 3.5″.  At 3.4″ – 3.5″, go up to 4.0″.

    The 4″ added to half the mirror’s diameter just allows the use of a filter slide underneath a properly placed SIPS or Paracorr 2.  For a little more breathing room, use 4.5″ in the calculation.

    Try this on various commercial Newtonians and you’ll find that some have secondaries that are too small…..

    Mike Lockwood(premium large aperture mirror maker), from an online thread entitled, Secondary Mirror Obstruction?

    Whew! for my 36-inch F/3.75… that comes out to (18+4)/3.75 = 5.9″ … and mine is 6.25″, with a nice wavefront! And, frankly… even a tad bigger than that might be prudent. I just happened to already have the 6.25 and characterized the wavefront at work… figured a known good one would keep the project hustling along!  I then teased the focuser as close in as possible… reducing that four inches to about three. When I focus my farthest-innie eyepiece… only have a few mm to spare! 

    Tom Dey( retired optical scientist, Springwater, New York, USA), from an online thread entitled, Secondary Mirror Obstruction?

     

    A number of factors are working against reflectors:

    1. Reflectors have central obstructions, which reduce the resolution.There’s also a bit of loss to the spider, which creates diffraction spikes.

    2. Reflectors tend to have problems with temperature differentials within the tube, which creates air currents that distort the image.

    3. Mirrors have more scatter than lenses.

    4. Reflectors have a harder time staying in alignment than refractors.

    5. Reflectors have coma. Refractors have their own problems (chromatic aberration and spherical aberration) but expensive glasses and lens designs can basically eliminate these.

    6. Refractors are usually higher end than reflectors (so, they tend to be higher quality).

    However, you can usually resolve these:

    1, 3. Reflectors scale up far better than refractors, so they can have more aperture, which helps compensate for these problems. Obstruction sizes can be minimized, curved spiders will spread the diffraction spikes around and make them less apparent.

    2. Intelligent fan usage can do a lot for air current formation. Good telescope design can keep cool-down times reasonable and mostly eliminate this issue in use.

    4. It’s pretty easy to get good at reflector collimation. Just keep it collimated.

    5. Coma can be mostly eliminated through use of a paracorr. Or, you can use a longer focal ratio.

    6. There are premium mirror-makers who produce mirrors up to the quality of the best lenses.

    If you resolve these issues, reflectors still do not perform up to the standard of a refractor of the same aperture – but will perform as well as a refractor that is slightly smaller. However, you can get a reflector that is far larger than any refractor you can get. It’s reasonably feasible to get a 12-16″ dobsonian with premium optics and good thermal management, and that will (under good conditions) walk all over any refractor anyone with a normal income will ever be able to afford.

    Mitrovarr(Boise, Idaho, USA), from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    Refractors typically do not suffer from thermals, are typically in excellent collimation, are baffled better, and don’t have a center obstruction.

    The number of reflectors that are miscollimated is astronomical. So overall I think you have a better chance of having a excellent experience with a large APO refractor. BUT, find a 10″ or bigger 1/6th wave or better, perfectly collimated reflector and it will knock your socks off.

    Whichwayisnorth(Southern California, USA), from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    That Dalek, on 03 Mar 2017 – 01:35 AM, said:

    Just a question that came to me. Thanks for any answers!

    Refractors often have better definition, which is the ability to show fine, low-contrast detail.  A reflector solves that problem by being larger, gathering more light and having higher resolution.

    A old rule of thumb is that a 6-inch Newtonian, properly designed and built, will beat a 4-inch refractor.

    Caveman_Astronomer, from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    I will simply say that what we perceive as “sharpness” is not resolution.. A few comments, experiences, thoughts.

    – If I look at 52 Orionis, a 1 arcsecond double star in my 120 mm Orion Eon. It is very close to the Dawes limit so on a perfect night, the disks are overlapping and its difficult split at best. If I point my 10 inch F/5 Dob at 52 Orionis on that same night, and the scope is cooled and of course collimated, 52 Orionis is split wide open. Much smaller disks widely separated.

    In this case, I see 52 Orionis as much sharper in the 10 inch.. But most often, I think the comparisons of both contrast and resolution are made in relative terms, at a 0.5 mm what do I see?

    – Looking at the Globular M79 in Lepus is a 6 inch refractor versus my 22 inch Dob, few would perceive that the refractor was sharper.. M79 in the 22 inch looks about like M13 in a 10 inch. M79 in a 6 inch looks, well we know what it looks like..

    – Reflectors are fininky to the uniniated.. They require care and attention.. Collimation and thermal management are important..

    It always seems there comparisons are made between some sort of ideal refractor and the average faster Newt. An 120 mm F/5 achromats versus a 130 F/5 Newtonian.. I think most would (f)ind the Newtonian sharper…

    Jon Isaac(San Diego, California, USA), from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    mogur, on 04 Mar 2017 – 02:19 AM, said:

     

    dugpatrick, on 03 Mar 2017 – 01:53 AM, said:

    All good points.  But, yes, resolution is better with larger aperture.  An 8″ newt will have better resolution than a 4″ APO. And better CA.

     

    Doug

    Only if it’s PERFECTLY collimated! (a rare find) And I’ll take a little CA over loss of contrast because of a spider vane and secondary obstruction.

     

    Perfect collimation of reflectors is not hard to obtain, with the right tools (Glatter laser + TuBlug or Catseye cheshire + autocollimator).   But not every reflector owner is so demanding of collimation, nor willing to spend for the top-level tools that reliably produce perfect collimation.  OTOH, others of us are a bit happily OCD about collimating our reflectors.

    FirstSight(Raleigh, North Carolina, USA), from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    Apo refractors exist in a sweet spot where their unobstructed aperture and single-pass light path tends to produce better images than similar aperture reflectors in the same seeing conditions. Most amateurs view with seeing conditions that put anything larger than about ten inches at a disadvantage because the scope resolution is limited by the seeing, not the aperture. With steady seeing and constant temperatures (e.g. Florida) reflectors can do just as well as apo refractors for visual use.

    GJJim, from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    mogur, on 04 Mar 2017 – 02:19 AM, said:

     

    dugpatrick, on 03 Mar 2017 – 01:53 AM, said:

    All good points.  But, yes, resolution is better with larger aperture.  An 8″ newt will have better resolution than a 4″ APO. And better CA.

    Only if it’s PERFECTLY collimated! (a rare find) And I’ll take a little CA over loss of contrast because of a spider vane and secondary obstruction.

     

    The difference in inherent resolution between an 8-inch scope and a 4-inch scope is so vast that the Newt would have to have disastrously poor optics or be really badly collimated to flunk this particular test.

    Operating at the magnifications useable in a 4-inch APO, the loss of contrast due to the 8-inch Newt’s central obstruction is barely detectable.

    Tony Flanders(Former Sky&Telescope Editor, Cambridge, MA, USA), from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    osted 04 March 2017 – 08:23 AM

    Mitrovarr, on 04 Mar 2017 – 04:26 AM, said:

     

    grif 678, on 04 Mar 2017 – 03:43 AM, said:

    In all my old books, way back before APO’s and SCT’s. the rule of thumb seemed to be, in all instances, that a 3 inch refractor was about equal to a 6 inch reflector. I often wondered why, since a 6 inch mirror had so much more area than a 3 inch lens, but I guess the focal length and secondary obstruction had something to do with it.

    I wonder if that figure was due to worse coatings back in the day. I really wouldn’t expect a modern 3″ refractor (any kind) to beat a 6″ of equivalent quality. Even back in the day, I’m not sure. I have a really good long 3″ achromat and a good 6″ homemade (not by me) dob, both are at least 30 years old, and the dob totally destroys the refractor on planetary detail.

    I think one only has to setup and RV-6 alongside a 3 inch F/16 achromat to see that even 50 years ago,  a 6 inch Newtonian was far more capable than a 3 inch refractor… 

    Been there,  done that,  know the result,  don’t need to do it again.. 

    Jon Isaac(San Diego, California, USA), from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    We can confidently say that a well-made 4-inch refractor can do better than a well-made 4-inch reflector, but the issue gets a little murkier when we start looking for a refractor that is a serious competitor for a well-made 12-inch Newtonian, for example, or even for a well-made 8-inch Newtonian.

    Caveman_Astronomer, from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    So there I am with my 120 mm F/7.5 Orion Eon with the FLP-53 doublet that cost me $1200 used and next to it is a 10 inch F/5 Dob that cost me $240 used.

    Splitting doubles, the 10 inch does the number on the refractor, viewing Mars, the 10 inch does the number on the refractor. This should be no surprise. This does require an operator who knows how to clean a mirror, the collimate a scope, to cool a scope.. And it does require decent seeing..

    Inch for inch, there is nothing as potent as a small refractor.. Dollar for dollar, pound for pound, reflectors offer more planetary contrast, will split tighter doubles..

    Jon Isaac(San Diego, California, USA), from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    Refractors are great. Too bad they are all so small in aperture

    Caveman_Astronomer, from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    caveman_astronomer, on 04 Mar 2017 – 1:40 PM, said:

     

    Cpk133, on 04 Mar 2017 – 1:25 PM, said:

    God, or natural selection, depending on your persuasion, seems to favor refractive optics for wide fields, low maintenance, and the sharpest views per mm of aperture.

    What kind of refractor should I buy that would compete with a 12-inch Newtonian?

     

    This 10″ refractor should do the trick.  http://www.cloudynig…nch-tec-at-wsp/

     

    $50 000 + $15 000 for the mount and $8 000 for the tripod.

     

    Cotts(Madoc, Ontario, Canada), from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    russell23, on 04 Mar 2017 – 3:24 PM, said:

     

    treadmarks, on 04 Mar 2017 – 3:14 PM, said:

    People often say refractor images are more “aesthetically pleasing” (sharper?) even if they don’t show more detail. Aside from the quality issues mentioned, I’m thinking it’s also because smaller telescopes are more resistant to bad seeing. My understanding of the theory is that larger telescopes can have better contrast through brute-force, by having more clear aperture. So it’s not the contrast giving refractors more aesthetic images, it’s their smallness and the fact that refractors take the most advantage of that smallness.

    That certainly could be part of it.  Another factor for me is the simplicity of the observing.  I am able to sit at the back end of the scope and sight along the tube to locate objects or stars for star hopping.  The viewing is always comfortable like that and sighting along the tube with your eye next to the eyepiece is not as easy with a newt.

     

    Like I said – I’m not ant-Newtonian.  I might even look to pick up a large dob when I retire.  But for now I’m very happy with what I have.

    I think a Newtonian is actually easier to point.  Imagine an object 75 degrees elevation.  With a refractor,  it is very awkward to position my head to look along the tube or through a red Dot or Telrad finder.  With a Newtonian,  the focuser and finders are at the sky end of the scope,  I just lean over,  glance through the Telrad,  point the scope, comfortable and effective. 

    Jon Isaac(San Diego, California, USA) form an online thread entitled, Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    Quote

    I don’t even use a finderscope with my refractor.    The first thing I did when I bought the 120ED was sell the finderscope.     My widest TFOV eyepiece serves as my finderscope.  Sometimes that is the 40mm Pentax XL (2.8 deg TFOV).  Sometimes that is the 32mm plossl, 32mm Brandon or 28mm Pentax XL (1.6 deg TFOV).  Or if I’m feeling really interested in a challenge I might even use the 12mm XF or 9mm Morpheus (0.77 deg TFOV) and go sweeping for the target.    I sight along the tube to locate stars to starhop from or a lot of times I just point the OTA right to the location of the target.   I find it remarkably efficient.

    Like I said,  I can make it work..  You talk about spending more time observing the object,  working a list of double stars at 60 degree elevation with a 50 mm RACI finder is much more efficient than awkwardly sighting along the tube,  and then using a wide field eyepiece to locate the object.. 

    With my short focal length refractors,  I generally just shoot from the hip..  But there is no doubt,  the Dob  with the Telrad and RACI finder is much better for easily finding more challenging objects. 

    Jon Isaac(San Diego, California, USA) form an online thread entitled, Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

     

    Richard Whalen, on 04 Mar 2017 – 6:14 PM, said:

    Planets, brighter DSO objects or the moon in high contrast the refractor can be the best choice.

    After more than 50 years observing, I find the aesthetics of the view more important than the brightness. Also part of the experience for me is also sitting out under the stars on a perfect night and seeing the silhouette of that long white tube against the background of a sky full of stars. Somehow it’s how it should be, and all is right in my world.

    I know what you mean; there’s something about those grand old 6-inch achromats on their massive German equatorial mounts that sends a chill down the spine. The views are incredibly clean, and the scopes are big enough to yield some very detailed views of the planets — but just barely big enough.

    The fact remains that a 12-inch Dob is far cheaper and more portable than a long-focus 6-inch achromat. And while its aesthetics may be lacking, on a good night it can deliver far more planetary detail than said achromat.

    Tony Flanders(Cambridge, MA, USA), form an online thread entitled, Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    mlbex, on 17 Mar 2017 – 6:34 PM, said:

    When is the last time a major observatory built a refractor? As far as I know, the largest refractor still in use is the 36-incher on Mt Hamilton, built in the 1880s (according to Wikipedia)! It’s still a fine telescope, but there’s a reason observatories are building reflectors. Perhaps they scale better. That wouldn’t really be a problem with everyday astronomers.

    Yes, reflectors scale vastly better, for several different reasons. To be precise: false color scales linearly with aperture, large lenses are hard to support, and the glass for a lens has to be perfect throughout its thickness rather than just at the surface. And this is indeed an issue for everyday backyard astronomers.

    Refractors pretty much rule supreme in apertures smaller than 90 mm. There are some pretty good 76-mm Newtonians on the market, but they’re only marginally cheaper than equivalent reflectors, and they have a number of disadvantages. So they appeal mainly to people who are really hard-up for money. There are also a handful of Mak-Cas scopes in apertures of 60 or 70 mm, but since the main benefit of that design is small physical size, and 60- or 70-mm refractors are already quite small, the tiny Mak-Cas’s aren’t very popular.

    Refractors are also quite competitive in apertures from 90 to 125 mm. But toward the top of that range, the disadvantages of the design are beginning to kick in big-time. At 125 mm, either you end up with a short-focus achromat with tons of false color, or a long-focus achromat that’s really unwieldy and hard to mount, or an apochromat that costs a minor fortune.

    At 150 mm, refractors are really a stretch. Very few people can afford apochromats in this size, and with achromats you typically end up with both lots of false color and an unwieldy size. There are nonetheless some people who love 150-mm achromats because of their low light scatter, but that’s truly the end of the line. Refractors bigger than 150 mm (6 inches) are rare indeed in the amateur world.

    With reflective designs, by contrast, you’re just getting started at 150 mm. That’s considered quite small for a Newtonian, and not quite there for an SCT. Eight-inch Newts are really cheap and effective, especially on Dobsonian mounts, and eight inches is the standard size for SCTs.

    In the modern world of amateur astronomy, where deep-sky objects are the most popular targets, even 8 inches isn’t much. That’s barely enough to resolve most globular clusters or see the spiral arms of the biggest and brightest galaxies. So while refractors certainly have their place for viewing wide fields, for viewing the planets in less-than-perfect seeing, and above all for photography, the fact that they scale up poorly definitely limits their popularity among amateur astronomers.

    Tony Flanders(Cambridge, MA, USA), form an online thread entitled, Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    Newtonians, provide a natural, simple viewing position for the eyepiece at all apertures. Refractors and Cassegrains require tall tripods and star diagonals. We’re not going to make the artificial distinction and comparison between 90mm refractors and 90mm reflectors or between any other refractors and reflectors that happen to have nominally matching apertures.

    Caveman_Astronomer, from an online thread entitled; Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    Redbetter, on 20 Mar 2017 – 10:30 AM, said:

     

    caveman_astronomer, on 18 Mar 2017 – 1:17 PM, said:

     

    Newtonians, provide a natural, simple viewing position for the eyepiece at all apertures.

     

    An equatorial Newtonian appears to have some rather unnatural eyepiece positions depending on the declination of the target and the position on relative to the meridian.

    No, I’d say that if an equatorial-mounted Newt has rotating rings, it’s always easy to find some comfortable viewing position regardless of where the scope is pointing.

    However, I don’t really agree that Newts provide the best viewing position regardless of aperture. I do agree that alt-az mounted Newts (including Dobs) have the best ergonomics of all designs up to a focal length of around 1,500 mm, maybe even to 2,000 mm. But beyond that, they start to require increasingly tall ladders, which begin to get genuinely dangerous and/or scary around 3,000 mm. In those focal lengths, I think that Cassegrain designs are quite clearly superior, due to the fact that you’re observing from the bottom of the tube and the fulcrum is closer to the back than the front.

    Refractors certainly have the worst ergonomics, at least in focal lengths above 1,000 mm. They really have the worst of all possible worlds: bottom viewing, long tube, fulcrum far from the eyepiece, viewing angle exacerbates variation in head height rather than counteracting it as with a Newtonian.

    Tony Flanders(Cambridge, MA, USA), form an online thread entitled, Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    I’ve just recently got myself my first refractor (a 120mm f5 achro) after having used an 8″ f6 dob my whole life. I was actually quite surprised to find the ergonomics much worse and I have had to constantly adjust the height of the tripod to find a good position. Despite this, observing close to the horizon for long periods of time seems quite awkward for the neck.

    Olle Erikkson(Sweden), form an online thread entitled, Why are refractors considered to be sharper than reflectors if resolution is a function of the aperture?

    300x in an 8 inch is a 0.7 mm exit pupil or about 37.5x /inch. Even my 70 year old eyes can view the planets at magnification levels and more, provided the seeing supports it.

    I consider 300 x fine for an 8 inch..

    Jon Isaac(San Diego, California, USA),from an online thread entitled, 8″ F/5 Newt planetary and coma

     

     

    Richard Whalen, on 09 Jul 2019 – 04:34 AM, said:

    How much magnification you can use depends on your optical quality, seeing and your eyesight and aperture. With my 8″ scope I am often around 350x to 450x on Jupiter, and 525x on Saturn. Sometimes higher when conditions are perfect.

     

    My rule of thumb is 43x the aperture in inches on a very good night with decent optics, higher for very good or excellent optics. Also much depends on which planet you are observing.

    Richard, I am usually between 333x and 400x on Jupiter in my 8″, as well, at 0.6mm and 0.5mm exit pupil. I find 333x (~40x per inch) power to be the most productive and my rule of thumb, as well. At 400x, Jupiter is still workable, but it’s beginning to dim a little. I was looking at Oval BA the other night, it was easy at 333x. I could see it at 400x, but not as easily.  And I am fairly sure at 500x it would have been even more difficult. I accidentally pulled out the wrong eyepiece and hit 1200x once (0.16mm exit pupil!). Not much to see up that high. I guess my optics are not that good. smile.gif

    I get that the quality of our optics produce nice sharp and high contrast images at high power, after all it’s the same quality image we see at less magnification where (lack of) aberration is apparent in terms of resolution and contrast. But I am always interested in the mechanism of how high quality optics can afford higher magnifications at vanishingly small exit pupils, say a bit smaller than 0.5mm, without excessive image dimming. At some point we begin to lose visual sensitivity and, thus, lose the image itself as the eye is working at a very small relative aperture (less than about 0.5mm f/60).

    Getting closer to 600x on Jupiter, IME, is unworkable (or at least not as productive as a bit less magnification) in any 8″ aperture even in good seeing. I mean, we can still see some detail up that high, I saw some detail at 1200x, too. Just not much detail was perceived by the eye, even though we are viewing the same fine afocal image we observed at 400x and less. At some point, it becomes less about the optics and more about the exit pupil and, I suspect, throughput as well.

    For example, Jove is fine on both 6″ Mak and 8″ Newt at 0.6mm exit pupil, (240x and 333x, respectively). But, at 0.5mm exit pupil, the Mak image is unworkable while the Newt image still had some legs. I suspect this has something to do with the throughput of each scope, not so much about their respective quality or difference in aperture. Of course the 8″ image is brighter, thus affording higher magnification than the 6″. They are pretty close to the same level of quality, not premium but pretty good and roughly the same obstruction. Both were thermally stable and well collimated. Seeing varied from above average to very good in both over time.  (I agree with you in another thread when you talked about stray light control and mechanics, too.) 

    But, when I hear folks talk about quality optics affording higher magnification, I am always reminded of the small exit pupil involved and how quality might over come the inverse square law and our own personal level of acuity (as a variable). Unless you or they mean magnification higher than say 1mm exit pupil when poor optics start to become visually and visibly soft, while better optics retain their fine imaging properties until the image surface brightness is no longer supported at smaller exit pupils. Sometimes when folks talk about ludicrous magnification in any scope, and especially in premium scopes, I wish they’d elaborate on what they saw up that high. Tight double stars or a bright planetary nebula? 

    I just do not understand how quality affords higher magnification to smaller than 0.5mm exit pupils (very small relative apertures) and well above the magnification where poor image quality becomes apparent. 

    Asbytec(Pampanga, Philippines), from an online thread entitled, 8″ F/5 Newt planetary and coma

    After 500x the image starts to get too dim in a 8″. This is where a 14.5″ shows it’s stuff at 1000x on Jupiter.

    Chas, I know you have great seeing. My seeing is pretty much the same during our dry season monsoon. So, yea, we’re operating at higher magnifications, generally, and on Jupiter, specifically, as well as other objects. I guess that is the crux of my question. Assuming descent optics in both, the 14.5′ at 1000x is about the same as an 8″ near 550x. In my experience with an 8″, the image is less productive starting about 400x and above. Others may vary somewhat, of course.

    Unless the optics are truly better in the 14.5″ in appropriately good seeing. Then my question is why can the higher quality, larger 14.5″ aperture show it’s stuff at much higher magnification than roughly the equivelent of an 8″ showing it’s stuff at 400x? The equivelent magnification in the 14.5″ would be about 750x, but why does quality allow it to show it’s stuff at 1000x (equivelent of 550x in the 8″)? I’d love to know what can be seen up that high because, my thoughts are, the 14.5″ image is dimming, too, for the same reason the 8″ is already dimming at 400x and higher.

    I’ve seen the Jovian image at 500x and 600x in the 8″, but I would not call it really a great image (on the eye, anyway). There is some detail to be seen, still, and the limb appears to be as sharp. But, a lot of the lower contrast detail is becoming or is already difficult to see. Bright high contrast stuff like double stars are no problem, but Jove is a different animal. It cannot be pushed to ludicrous magnifications, but if it can and optics are the reason, then my question is why and what is seen up that high. A sharp limb, a few belts, the moons, and maybe the GRS?

    Asbytec(Pampanga, Philippines), from an online thread entitled, 8″ F/5 Newt planetary and coma

    My lifetime-best view of Jupiter in the 12.5″ was at 456x (36.5x/inch), and we could see a knotty white swirl in the salmon colored (then, now it’s more orange) GRS.

    The whole disc looked like the surface of an orb, not a flat disc, and the colors were amazing–ochers, pale ivory, bluish tints, grey-greens, reds, whites, blacks, greys, etc.

    It was a technicolor image, and super-sharp–sharp enough we could see the shadows of projections on the cloud banks below. And an 18 element stack of lenses in the focuser.

    Spectacular seeing conditions, obviously.

    On other nights of superb seeing, I’ve gone as high as 986x (79x/inch), just to see if it could be done, but I haven’t been able to see what I saw that night.

    The moral of the story is that it is not only optical quality, but seeing that determines how high a magnification we can use.

    In absolutely perfect seeing, I’ve used a superb 7″ scope at 160x/inch and the image was OK. I just couldn’t see anything in that scope at 160x/inch

    that I couldn’t also see at 100x/inch, though the image of Saturn at 1123x was incredibly large.

    But even after all the crazy high powers, give me 400-500x with spectacular seeing, and I can see details on Ganymede and Neptune. 1000x isn’t really necessary.

    It’s all about the seeing.

    Starman1(Los Angeles, California, USA), from an online thread entitled, 8″ F/5 Newt planetary and coma

     

    The short answer is that a good Premium telescope will probably perform noticeably better than an average cheap mass-marketed one. Somewhere between better and way better. But that’s actually a statistical statement. Occasionally a too-good-performing cheap one somehow slips through their QC system… and occasionally a Premium scope will be deficient. The Premium scope is almost always worth the Premium price differential. That is to say — if you don’t want to mess around — just buy the better scope and enjoy it! 

    Tom Dey(Springwater, New York, USA), from an online thread entitled: Premium 1/10PV 8″ Newtonian vs mass market 8″ Newtonian.

    I owned a Synta 8”f6 Dob along with a custom 8”f6 Dob with a Zambuto mirror for several years. The differences in the views were subtle, requiring side-by-side viewing on rare nights of excellent seeing to confirm. On the other hand, the improvements in the views offered by two inches additional inches of inexpensive aperture were obvious.

    If an 8” scope is the largest you want to handle, and you want improved views, premium 8” optics will provide a marginal improvement at about 10x the cost. An inexpensive 10” scope will cost about 2x and the improvements in its views will be obvious. However, premium scopes usually come with premium mechanics in addition to premium optics, and the mechanical improvements are usually obvious under all circumstances.

    So, my preferred approach these days is to empirically determine the largest scope that I am comfortable using at an observing site, and then upgrade or replace its optics and mechanics as much as my budget allows

    Gwlee, from an online thread entitled: Premium 1/10PV 8″ Newtonian vs mass market 8″ Newtonian.

    Make sure that “1/10 wave Peak-to-Valley” rating is on the wavefront, not the mirror surface. Also, make sure the seller has a good reputation.

    I went a different route, and had my first Synta 8″ F/6 mirror re-ground by a respected glass-pusher, as its initial figure was quite poor. To fill in the gap while this was in process, I purchased a second Synta 8″ F/6 (yeah, seems like a stupid idea, but the second one was reasonably good). The total cost was lower than buying a complete specialist-built scope, but of course I had to do a little work myself.

    I’ve decided to hold onto both scopes for now. I’ve set up the one with the great mirror using a better mirror cell, low-profile focuser, and smaller secondary, optimizing it for high magnifications, while the second scope is for lower mags, with a larger fully-illuminated field.

    Like you, an 8″ Newtonian is at my limit for weight and size.

    Hoawardcano(Olathe, Kansas, USA), from an online thread entitled: Premium 1/10PV 8″ Newtonian vs mass market 8″ Newtonian.

    Starlease, on 19 Jul 2019 – 7:44 PM, said:

    Put a Zambuto mirror in my 10″ dob and it outperformed my 14″ claimed 1/8 wave dob for planetary details seen. Little tiny details on Mars seen in 10″ were invisible in 14″.

    Your 14″ dob at 1/8 wave is about 1/4 wave at the wavefront – just diffraction limited. It’s possible in extremely good seeing that your 10″ would show more detail, but on an average night I doubt it, unless there are other issues that you haven’t thought about like cooldown, collimation, mounting of optical components, or maybe the claim of diffraction limited of the 14″ isn’t true.

    People are always looking for fairy dust they can sprinkle into their telescopes to make them defy the laws of physics. Someone let me know if it works. smile.gif

    Nirvanix(Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada), from an online thread entitled: Premium 1/10PV 8″ Newtonian vs mass market 8″ Newtonian.

    Replacing the 2ndry will probably be the best bet

    but you should learn how to star test 

    https://youtu.be/QxUQJjjsdW4

    Pinbout(Montclair, New Jersey, USA), from an online thread entitled: Premium 1/10PV 8″ Newtonian vs mass market 8″ Newtonian.

    Although I didn’t do it with 8″, but with 10″, I think the mirror exchange was a large improvement for visual observations. Views through my GSO 10″ were good, but star tests have shown some astigmatism. Following the advice on this forum, I exchanged the secondary mirror for Antares, but the astigmatism was still there. So, I decided to exchange the primary for the 1/10 pv. The difference is considerable. With GSO mirror, the views were very good, now they are great. I can see many more crispy details on Jupiter, Saturn, Mars or the Moon. Things that were ‘soft’ before are sharper now. And it happens even on the nights with poorer seeing, I just have to wait for the moment in between smile.gif

    For low-power, wide-field DS objects, probably there is no difference, but color: GSO coating produced a greenish touch, OOUK makes it more white/ flat.

    With GSO mirror, I often used the aperture mask to see planets sharper. After exchange, in my opinion the aperture mask only makes things dimmer and less sharp, so I guess the scatter light before was bigger with the standard mirror. 

    Overall, I have learnt the lesson saying that the exchange for a better mirror was worth it, the telescope is used now more often for the sheer joy of visual hunt for details.

    WOJ2007(Tychy, Poland), from an online thread entitled: Premium 1/10PV 8″ Newtonian vs mass market 8″ Newtonian.

    After owning a really fine 8” CZ mirror for several years I am always impressed by the views when the mirrors are properly collimated and when the primary mirror has reached thermal equilibrium. Is it better than a mass market 8”? I can’t say because I have no way to compare. It’s also really light for the given aperture (better construction/thinner mirror) without giving up stability.

    What I can say about my premium reflector is that the mechanicals beat the pants off my venerable, but flawed 10”. The focuser, balance, bearing smoothness, primary mirror cell, secondary mirror holder are superior in every way. The entire tube is flocked and the cradle design allows the tube to be easily turned and/or moved north south. My definition of a premium scope (which includes the mirror) is one that both offers expected mirror performance while the structure disappears as one uses it. A premium scope is more than a premium mirror and a premium mirror will fall short of full potential if one has to battle with the other parts.

    Chesterguy(Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA) from an online thread entitled: Premium 1/10PV 8″ Newtonian vs mass market 8″ Newtonian.

    I have two 8ers to compare, one Zambuto 8″ F7, the other a generic “Skywatcher” 8″ F6.

    But the comparison is necessarily through memory . . .

    I visit family a couple of times per year in Australia. Got tired of lugging my C6 and refractor through airports. So last time back I bought an 8″ F6 “Saxon”, which is the same as the Skywatcher 8″ solid tube.

    About a year ago I came across an ad where a guy had the parts for an 8″ F7–the primary being a Zambuto quartz, and the secondary a 1/30 wave Antares. Moonlight single-speed focuser. A solid tube (flocked), and splashed out for an Aurora precision cell. I run it alt-az on a Skytee 2 mount.

    How do they compare?

    I wasn’t expecting miracles with the Saxon. A solid diffraction limited scope was all I was wanting.

    First object was Sirius at high elevation in quite good seeing. Within 2 minutes of setting up the scope on first light I easily split the pup. Done. This is a good scope!

    Star test isn’t perfect (I am no expert on this). My recollection was a brighter ring on the outside on one side or the other of focus. So I’m guessing a less than perfect edge. But it performs very well indeed, and more than met my hopes. I haven’t spend much time on planets with this scope (it does perfectly fine). When down under I’m more interested in the Southern objects–Magellanic clouds put up a ton of detail in this scope.

    But what about that Zambuto? Well, as far as I can tell it is as close to perfect as you can get in an 8″ mirror. Star test looks identical to my eye on either side of focus.

    The mirror is up and ready to go with just a couple minutes of running a fan, and puts up etched views of the planets and moon (it has a very small secondary, and is optimized for planets). A particularly memorable view was of the double double from Mt Pinos (parking lot must be close to 8k ft). Perfect dots and diffraction rings. An observing friend with a lot of experience called it the best view of the double double he’d ever seen.

    But how would this thing compare to a 10″. Well, I think you’ll get a more sharp/contrasty view out of the 8″ premium, but so long as the 10″ is decent, it will resolve more detail, those details will just look a tad softer.

    Areyoukiddingme, from an online thread entitled: Premium 1/10PV 8″ Newtonian vs mass market 8″ Newtonian.

    N3p, on 19 Jul 2019 – 5:57 PM, said:

    Has anyone replaced their regular 8″ Synta Newtonian with a higher quality 8″ Newtonian and how was your experience?

    The key difference I found was as follows.    During critical observation of an object for 5-10 mins, on the couple of times when the atmospheric seeing snapped into focus- lasting 0.5 to 2 seconds- the mass market mirror would give an “ooh nice” response whereas the premium would give a “wow!” response.

    The rest of the time the mirrors were pretty similar.

    On galaxies, the higher strehl mirror gave just enough contrast to pass a threshold where the eye could suddenly detect a dust lane.   The mass market mirror couldn’t reach that threshold.

    Max T, from an online thread entitled, Premium 1/10PV 8″ Newtonian vs mass market 8″ Newtonian.

     

    An inspiring 6″ f/8 ATM build by Matthew Paul, Orange County, New York, USA

    Though I did not  build the scope for imaging, I wanted to share what it is capable of under not so ideal conditions. Very happy with the results of the optics. I need to build a better OTA for it. It’s rather flimsy, the spider is not rigid, the tube flexes, and the focuser is just a plastic rack and pinion, but it works very well for now, and the hard part (the optics) are done. Thank you again to everyone that offered information and assistance as I worked on the mirror.

    MVI_0140-3.jpg

    Matthew Paul(Orange County, New York, USA) quoted here

    Matthew Paul, on 22 Jul 2019 – 3:32 PM, said:

    Though I did not  build the scope for imaging, I wanted to share what it is capable of under not so ideal conditions. Very happy with the results of the optics. I need to build a better OTA for it. It’s rather flimsy, the spider is not rigid, the tube flexes, and the focuser is just a plastic rack and pinion, but it works very well for now, and the hard part (the optics) are done. Thank you again to everyone that offered information and assistance as I worked on the mirror.

    attachicon.gif MVI_0140-3.jpg

    That image ought to give apo owners pause.

    Ed Turco(Lincoln, Rhode Island, USA), from the same thread

    There is real poetic justice in how well a good Newtonian telescope performs.

    JamesMStephens(Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA), from the same thread.

    ***

    Hello Marty, I can’t answer all your questions, but I did a shoot out between a 150mm f/8 achor and 200mm f/6 dob on Mars a few years ago at opposition.

    The Dob was much better, I suspect it had more to do with no CA vs the increase in aperture. Mars was smeared with false color rendering very little detail in the views. I sold the Achro because it was too much for me to mount. And in my light polluted sky, I don’t do much low power deep sky.

    I suspect that It would also lose fine detail on Jupiter, but I could not do a side by side compare.

    I have a 6 inch 150 f/5 newt, and it does a good job on Juipter/Saturn. I have not had a shoot out between it and say a 100mm ED, or 120 8.3 acrho for a comparison. As far as personal tastes, my eyes are getting old and are light starved, so usually a brighter less crisp image is preferred over a dimmer crisper one.

    I suspect …. the best scope for viewing the planets at 150mm without going crazy expensive would be the 150 f/8 dob. I’m looking for one right now in the used market. A 120 ed I suspect would do a good job too, but at 4x the price, and a big mount to boot.

    I have an f/5 250 reflector on a dob mount. Best view of Jupiter I have. It does take an hour to cool.

    Vtornado( Northern Illinois, USA), from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    I’ve tried them all over the past 40 years.  Best view of planets was through Newts with good mirrors that were properly collimated. Note the underline, because that (particularly the latter) can be an issue with Newts. For something more compact and lightweight a good 6″ Mak is an excellent planetary scope and it won’t cost you an arm and leg.  I just picked up a used Orion 150 Mak and the (visual) images of Jupiter and Saturn are superb. My old 127 Mak is also good but the 150 gives more edge on brightness.

    fcathell(Tucson, Arizona, USA), from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    I think a 6” f/8 dob, with top notch optics

    (Spooner) would be a great choice and affordable.

    NHRob, from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    6″ mak

    6″ f/8 newt

    4″ fpl-53 double Vixen or triple

    will all give great planet views.

    tomjones, from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    tomjones, on 23 Aug 2019 – 01:02 AM, said:

    6″ mak

    6″ f/8 newt

    4″ fpl-53 double Vixen or triple

    will all give great planet views.

    Why add a 4″ into this discussion when it’s an inferior option?  A good 6″ f8 outdoes it.

    azure1961p, from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    MalVeauX, on 23 Aug 2019 – 6:33 PM, said:

    So… to add more to this mix…

     

    What would any experienced observers rate a 200mm F6 Quartz reflector to a 150mm F8 ED doublet for planetary views?

     

    Would the extra aperture make enough of a difference?
    Or would the 150mm F8 ED refractor still throw up the better, higher contrast image?

     

    Very best,

    The extra aperture would make enough of a difference if the mirror were superb, the tube material, thermal issues, focuser etc., were all finely tuned and working together. Then there are the ergonomics of viewing position and the question of what type of mount will be used.

    If one were to buy a used 8″ f/6 “classic” EQ mounted Newtonian from a good source, such as someone here on CN, then that would be a very efficient bang for the buck. Especially if the mirror were a known and proven winner. Probably in the Approximately $500 range vs. $2000 for the 150mm f/8 ED.

    “Would the 150mm F8 ED refractor still throw up the better, higher contrast image?” Yes it could, if the 8″ f/6 newt had degraded mirror coating and dust, not collimated perfectly, focuser not smooth, set up on warm surface so that thermals enter the tube and plague the system etc., But in my opinion the Newtonian will win if the details are all taken care of and watched. 

    I wish I could find a local old classic 8″ F/6 EQ mounted Newt to play around with, actually…

    Everlasting Sky( Vancouver, Canada), from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    I concur with fcathell, as far as planetary observing with Newtonians when all the necessary conditions are in play. My very best planetary views have been through large truss-tube Dobsonians with premium mirrors, along with large classical Cassegrains, when the seeing has been excellent.

    I also agree with Richard Whalen’s post when the aperture is limited to 6 inches.

    Dave Mitsky(PA, USA), from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    Quote

    Even with spot on collimation (Newts, DOBs, Maks, SCT’s, etc.) – you still have a central obstruction vs. none in a refractor and that reduces contrast and resolution…even if just slightly — it does

    It’s worth keeping in mind that the CO does have a small effect on contrast, not on resolution..

    This does mean that a scope without an obstruction, when compared to an other equivalent scope of equal aperture will have reduced fine scale contrast.

    But that’s only if the apertures are identical and the optical quality similar. Otherwise, the contrast is affected by the aperture far more than by a central obstruction. This is why large scopes with COs can provide much greater contrast than a scope without a CO.

    Some years ago I experimented with my 120 Eon by adding a 40% CO, I could see a loss of contrast but it was surprisingly small.

    In this comparison, unless one went with a high quality Newtonians (Spooner) then a $2500 ED Doublet would likely provide better planetary views.

    On the other hand, if weight and length were the guidelines, the a good 8 inch Newt would be hard to beat.

    Jon Isaac( San Diego, California, USA), from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    M11Mike, on 24 Aug 2019 – 01:12 AM, said:

    Jon – normally I’m with you 99.9%.  But I have seen numerous times FIRST HAND where a quality 4″ refractor beat out much larger apertures on the planets.  And I don’t think the guys with these scopes didn’t have them properly collimated, etc.  These guys with scopes (like the Meade 10″ SCT) were my observing buddies and they concurred.   They were active seasoned observers like myself.

     

    Mike

     

    Well.. maybe. But you can’t blame that on the CO.  Thermal issues, optical issues, poor seeing..

    Try adding a 35% CO to a 4 inch Refractor and see how much difference it makes.

    Jon Isaac( San Diego, California, USA), from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    I’ve had a 6″ F8 newt with 1/8 wave optics and it was excellent for L&P. I’ve got a IM715D mak and the same can be said of it. Big advantage to the mak is in 8 years I’ve never had to collimate it. Either scope would work on my Twilight 2 without a counterweight, I doubt the same could be said of a 6″ refractor. I’ve got an excellent WO ZS110 triplet and it doesn’t outperform my mak or C9.25XLT for L&P unless seeings sub par.

    dscarpa(San Diego, California, USA), from an online thread entitled: 150mm Instrument for Planets, Which Type?

    First Light Report
    Finally, the time had come for first light.  When I put the Glatter laser collimator into the focuser and turned it on to begin aligning the optics, I was stunned to see that the laser beam was hitting the primary mirror inside the circle in the middle of the hotspot.  Despite being driven over 1000 miles and loaded/unloaded twice, the tolerances are tight enough on the telescope. I’ve setup the telescope four different times since – and the initial laser position on the mirror has been inside the 1/4″ (6 mm) hole at the center of the HotSpot every time.  Collimation required less than 1/16 of revolution of any of the knobs on either the secondary or primary mirrors.  I pointed the telescope at the horizon and the zenith.  I moved quickly in altitude and azimuth, and slid the EQ platform through it’s entire range of motion twice.  Collimation didn’t shift.  At all.  
     
    Once the sun dove behind the hills just to the west of the observing site, I uncovered the optics and started the fan in earnest to get the optics cooled to ambient as quickly as possible.  I carry a 10″ rechargeable fan that I used to push air at the front side of the primary mirror, and allowed the built in fan to pull air across the back.  The mirror box is only about 8″ deep in total, so air is able to flow easily around the optics and through the structure to help with temperature changes and cooling. Once full darkness had descended up on the observing site, I removed the front fan, rechecked collimation and got to the business of deep sky observing with the new telescope.  I left the rear fan running at full speed, where it’s just audible as a background noise.  Later I turned this down some just to quiet the fan in the silent nighttime desert. Temperatures dropped 23º F (12º C) over the next 2 hours. The thin optics and open structure of the observing rig did a wonderful job of keeping up with the change.  
     
    When I first began talking with Mike Lockwood about commissioning a fast, thin mirror he told me that I’d likely never seen what a cooled telescope could really do being that my main observing machine has been a 15″ full thickness OMI mirror in a wooden Obsession structure.  I love that telescope, but I learned on this weekend what Mike was talking about.  Conditions that had been blamed for years on poor seeing were not present on this night, even though we all agreed that the seeing wasn’t any better or worse than a typical night at this location.  I spent nearly all of my time over the next few nights observing comfortably with much higher magnifications than I’d ever been able to use previously. 
     
    NGC 5139 – Even though it culminates at just 11º above our southern horizon, Omega Centauri was on the meridian at the end of astronomical twilight, so the three of us agreed that it was the obvious choice for the first target.  We’re all familiar with the views of this object from this site with instruments of all sizes from a 63mm Zeiss refractor to a 20″ f/5 Obsession.  At this low elevation there were some obvious atmospheric artifacts being induced in the image – but we all agreed that this was the finest view we’d had of this granddaddy of globulars.  With a 21mm Ethos I immediately noticed a couple of things.  1 – The telescope maintained perfect balance though it was pointed 10º above the horizon.  When I removed the eyepiece to switch to a lighter one, the telescope didn’t budge.  I’m no designer, but I attribute this to the use of the 30″ altitude bearings and perfectly balanced design.  2 – I was looking at Omega Centauri with 20″ of aperture and a 1.2º true field of view.  The cluster was lost in the middle of a field with all kinds of black space around it. With all that aperture focusing all that globular into the smaller image scale of this wide field, the cluster was astonishingly bright, even by it’s elevated standards.  I hadn’t changed eyepieces or objects yet, and I already knew…..this was going to be a fun telescope.  At 175x in a 10mm Ethos, the cluster is huge, extending nearly to the edges of the field.  What I noticed most was the stars being impossibly tight pinpoints, with black space around them.  The contrast between the globular’s stars and the background sky is the most notable thing from the observation.  
     
    NGC 5128 – This beauty in Centaurus is so close by that you can’t *not* look at it.  Again, the contrast was the most noticeable thing about the observation.  With the 10mm Ethos, the dust lane is sharp and well defined across the face of the galaxy and appears nearly bi-sected with a brighter middle – like looking at the great rift from millions of light years away.  
     
    I wiled away a few hours working through the Virgo cluster high in the west, spent some time counting galaxies in the Coma cluster and then happened upon what has been the most memorable view through this telescope yet.  
     
    M83 – Again, it was the contrast.  An absolute pinpoint of a nucleus with two sharply defined bars extending away for a few arc minutes and then turning sharply to form those beautiful, elegant spiral arms.  What struck me most though was the dark lanes between the arms.  As I continued observing, differences in darkness began to appear in the dark lanes, as well as brighter spots in the spiral arms (HII, OB assocations?).  I didn’t concern myself too much, I just enjoyed the view.  This telescope rocketed this galaxy to a high place on my favorite objects list.  
     
    M57 – I put the telescope on this old standby and basically went camping at the eyepiece.  With an 8mm Ethos, the central star was just there.  It didn’t jump out at you….but it was there and required no effort beyond basic averted vision to see it clearly.  I noted galaxy IC 1296 nearby and that it too was pretty easily seen.  This was where I pushed the magnification.  With a 3.7mm Ethos, the telescope is operating at 475x magnification.  In moments where the seeing settled and the air was steady, the optics weren’t even breaking a sweat.  I was able to observe 4 stars seemingly involved with the nebulosity and the central star was a direct vision object at this magnification.  The interior surfaces of the nebula were clearly mottled and uneven and the entire nebula appeard electric green in the eyepiece.  
     
    Veil Nebula – Always a favorite, our small group spent a solid hour cruising the wisps of this supernova remnant with the telescope.  With an 8mm Ethos and an O-III filter, the nebulosity glows as if backlit by some artificial LED source in the eyepiece.  I traced the entire outline of the nebula noting how the brighter wisps faded into thinner and fainter ones as I followed until they just seemed to disappear.  There’s a patchwork background of nebulosity that I hadn’t noticed before with my 15″ scope.  

    48370580567_bd2a867e80_c.jpg
    Great friend and fellow observer Alan Strauss told me I needed to remain still while observing M101.  Uhhhhh….okay!  That won’t be hard.  I could sit here all night.  
     
    …and then came the planets.  I have listened to Mike Lockwood bang the drum about planetary observing with big aperture mirrors for quite awhile now.  Like I told him afterward, consider me one of the converted.  Jupiter at any magnification was an absolute razor blade of sharpness.  Where I was used to seeing equatorial bands, I was now greeted with a swirling mess of sharply defined festoons and bands within bands.  Viewing Jupiter this night was the best views I’ve had that I can ever remember.  My friend Alan commented a few weeks later that the thing that stood out most to him was how sharp the planetary views were through this 20″ scope – he wasn’t expecting it to perform the way that it did.  I concur.  
     
    Just a couple of weeks ago, I set the telescope up again in my light polluted Phoenix backyard to give a quick view of the moon and Jupiter to my lady.  I’ve not been much of a lunar observer since I was a kid, but she is in love with the moon….so, it was time to show her the moon through the new telescope.  She’s not an astronomer by any means….and she’ll be the first to tell you that she doesn’t have those aspirations.  I was stupefied when I looked in the eyepiece.  Stop me if you’ve heard this before – the contrast is unbelievable  – and not just the inky blackness of the crater shadows and brightness of sunlit portions of the lunar surface.  The subtle variations in illumination in the mare and even light differences in color were obvious and a pleasure to behold.  What was supposed to be a quick 20 minute show of the moon and Jupiter turned in to a 2.5 hour session together.  We spent the longest time comparing notes and pointing out features and seeing the smallest details.  The experience has converted me into someone who’s ready to look at the moon again.  I look forward to the intersection of my travel schedule with a break in the Arizona monsoon and a favorable location of the moon so I can repeat the experience.  
     
    Conclusion
    I wanted big aperture with no ladder and absolutely no compromises on the optical and structural quality of the telescope.  It came with an uncompromising price tag too – but I couldn’t be happier with the combination of the Lockwood optics and Osypowski structure & platform.  Mike Lockwood’s reputation for ridiculously fast, sharp optics is well deserved and I’d even dare say still underappreciated.  I selected Mike as my optician for a couple of reasons.  1 – He was great to talk too and has been a great resource for all astronomy/telescope related questions since first talking with him back in December 2017.  2 – A couple of extremely experienced observers that I respect greatly both said the same thing – that the best view that they’d ever had through a telescope had Lockwood optics.  I can now say I wholeheartedly agree with their assessment. 
     
    The Spica Eyes structure built by Tom Osypowski is as nearly perfect as I think it’s possible to build at this point.  It is substantial, stiff and rigid.  It feels like it’s been built for the apocalypse when you put your hands on it.  I chose Tom because of my experience with his EQ platforms and the knowledge that he’s built several telescopes that were both larger *and* faster than this project – so I was confident i would get a telescope that matched my excitement for the EQ platform.  I haven’t been disappointed.  Twice now I’ve done business with Tom.  Both transactions rank as the smoothest, most pleasant money I’ve spent in this pursuit in my lifetime.  I’m proud to be able to say I own one of his telescopes.  
     
    Is the telescope truly perfect?  No.  I have two minor quibbles.

    • There is some stiction in the azimuth axis.  It’s not paralyzing, but it is there.  I got after it when I got back home with some car wax and a buffing cloth which has improved it.  Part of this issue is comparing it to the buttery smooth goodness that is the motion of an Obsession.  I’ve been spoiled by 18 years of use with my 15″ Classic.  
    • The light shroud fits really, really tight.  Getting it pulled down over the structure is a bit of a process.  By process, I mean it takes a couple of minutes.  Once it’s in place – it stays in place and does a wonderful job of blocking stray light but still allowing airflow through it.  So I’ll count my blessings that these are my issues with the telescope.

    I realize it’s been long winded, but there’s little information out there about Spica Eyes scopes.  In fact, there’s really not much beyond a different CN thread that was posted a few years ago about a 24″ scope Tom built.  I submit this review and future experiences and observing reports as part of that body of knowledge.  Tom Osypowski tends to fly under the radar when discussing premium telescope builders, but his handiwork is among the absolute best out there.  He and Mike Lockwood have earned every bit of credit that they get for their skills and contributions to our hobby. 
     
    Mike

    48260256751_f91f413582_c.jpg
    A great shot of the observing site in Portal, Arizona, the 20″ f/3 telescope described here, and the truck/camper that gives me shelter whilst far from civilization for long periods of time.  The light domes are greatly exaggerated in this long exposure.  The one just to the left of the truck is from Lordsburg, NM – 40 miles (64 km) away.  The light dome to the right is from El Paso, TX – 160 miles (255 km) away.

    Mike Wiles( Phoenix, Arizona, USA), from an online thread entitled, First Light Report: 20″ f/3 Spica Eyes/Lockwood Dobsonian

    To be continued…………………..

    Neil English unearths plenty more historical evidence testifying to the prowess of Newtonian reflectors in his large historical work, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy, newly published by Springer-Nature.

     

    De Fideli.

     

    Spectrum

    Take a Closer Look.

     

     

    In this blog, I’ll be exploring subjects of general interest/concern to me and wider society in this age of mass deception:

    The Dark Side of Transgender Medicine

     

    How the Media Manipulates Truth

     

    Cogito ergo sum

     

    The Secular Case Against Homosexuality

     

    Our Fragile Home

     

    The Anti-Social Network

     

    A Form of Child Abuse

     

    Cool stuff you never hear in Church

     

    The Rise of Homeschooling

     

    James Clerk Maxwell: a Great Life Lived

     

    Reasonable Faith: An Interview with Professor Alvin Plantinga

     

    Doubting Dodgy Science

     

    Evaluating World Views

     

    Depraved Minds

     

    The Beauty of the Creation

     

    The Preciousness of Free Speech

     

    Walking your Way to Good Health

     

    Did the Eye Really Evolve?

     

    Unholy Alliance: when Dodgy Science Merges with Theology

     

    RTB Classic: The Truth about UFOs

     

    The Rise of Neo-Paganism

     

    From Spiritual Shipwreck to Salvation

     

    The Rise in Euthanasia Killings

     

    The Greatest Story Ever Told

     

    Holocaust Survivor

     

    Coming Soon to a Town Near You: The Rise of Bestiality

     

    The Death of Naturalism

     

    Anything Goes

     

    From Gaypo to Paedo

     

    When Scientists Lose the Plot

     

    The Sixth Mass Extinction Event in Our Midst

     

    ‘Depth Charging’ the Values of the Ancient World

     

    The Truth about the Fossil Record

     

    AI

     

    The Language Instinct

     

    Not the Same God

     

    Greening the Deserts

     

    Moving the Herds

     

    Evolutionary Atheist gets his Facts Wrong…..Again

     

    Distinguished MIT Nuclear Physicist Refutes Scientism

     

    Pursuing Truth

     

    The Dangers of Yoga

     

    Pseudoastronomy

     

     Humanist Guddle

     

    Get thee right up thyself! : The New Transhumanist Religion

     

    The Biblical Origin of Human Rights and why it’s a Problem for Atheists

     

    A Closer Look at the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

     

    Winds of Change: Prestigious Science Journal Concedes Design

     

    A Distinguished Chemist Speaks the Truth

     

    The Scourge of Pornography

     

    Turmeric: Wonder Root.

     

    Eye

     

    Bart Ehrman Debunked

     

    No’ in ma Hoose, ken!

     

    An Evil Generation Seeks After a Sign

     

    Magnetic Pole Shift

     

    Decimation of Global Insect Populations

     

    The Spiritual Suicide of a Once Christian Nation

     

    Mass Animal Deaths Worldwide

     

    Not Going Anywhere

     

    UN Report: World’s Food Supply under ‘Severe Threat’ from Loss of Biodiversity

     

    False gods of the New Age

     

    From Abortion to Infanticide in the “Land of the Free”

     

    Sports Personalities Speak Out Over Transgender Athletes

     

    Magonus Sucatus Patricius

     

    Celebrating a Killing

     

    Human “Out of Africa” Theory Debunked

     

    The Other Side of the Rainbow

     

    Vintage James Tour: How to Cook Up a Proto-Turkey

     

    Big Brother Watching

     

    Follow the Evidence: The Problem of Orphan Genes

     

    Follow the Evidence: The Genius of Birds

     

    The Butterfly Enigma

     

    Man’s Best Friend

     

    Darwinian Evolution On Trial Among Biologists

     

    New Fossil Finds Thwart Human Evolutionary Predictions

     

    Global Persecution of Christians

     

     Ratio Christi

     

    Questions About the Qur’an

     

    Engaging with Islam

     

    Calling Evil Good

     

    Parousia

     

    Secular Humanism as a New Religion

     

    Tall Tales From Yale: Giving up Darwin.

     

    More on the Proto-Turkey:  Dr. Tour Responds to Cheap Shots from the Pond Scum Merchants

     

    Good Riddance: Despicable British TV Show Axed after Death of Participant

     

    There’s Heehaw Out There…ken.

     

    The Fastest Growing Insanity the World has Ever Seen

     

    Pharmakeia

     

    Darwinism & Racism: Natural Bed Fellows

     

    The Modern Root of Anti-Semitism

     

    Jesus & Archaeology

     

    A Victory for Common Sense: Transgender Weightlifter Stripped of his Medals

     

    The US Equality Act: A Plea for Caution

     

    Reunited: Music & the Human Spirit

     

    Gladys Wilson

     

    Awesome: Straight Pride Marches now on the Way

     

    1st Century Christian Insight: The Didache

     

    The Clothes Maketh the Man

     

    Why Some Books were Left Out of the Bible

     

    Why the Human Mind is not Material

     

    What God Thinks of Scientific Atheism

     

    For the Love of the Creator

     

    An Essential Component of a Modern Education

     

    US Supreme Court Overules Calls by Militant Atheists to Demolish a World War I Peace Cross

     

    Earth: “Presidential Suite” of the Universe

     

    How to Really Stand Out in a Crowd

     

    Straight from a NASA Scientist: Jewel Planet

     

    The Singularity

     

    No Life Without Super Intelligence

     

    Darwinism as a Cargo Cult

     

    Body Plan Development Raises New Headaches for Evolutionists

     

    Membrane Biochemistry Stymies Evolutionary Origin of Complex Cells

     

    Overwhelming Financial Response for Israel Folau’s Unlawful Dismissal by Rugby Australia

     

    Science Speaks: Common Abortafacients Harmful to Both Mother & Child

     

    Biblical Ignoramus Twists the Words of Christ

     

    The Multiverse: Just Another Religion

     

    Apologia Part I

    Part II

    Part III

    Part IV

    Part V

    Part VI

     

    Attention Parents: American Psycho Association Promoting Polyamory to Pre-Teens as ‘Ethical.’

     

    The Only Rainbow God Recognises

     

    Calling Time Out on Evolutionists’ Failure to Explain The Cambrian Explosion

     

    7 Reasons to Reject Replacement Theology

     

    Psychiatric Diagnoses are ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ Study Shows

     

    Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God

     

    Universalism Debunked

     

    The Prosperity Gospel Debunked

     

    New Science Reveals First Cellular Life to be “Amazingly Complex”

     

    New Law Firms Being Established to Counter the Rise in Christian Persecution

     

    Playing the Numbers 32:23 Game

     

    Multiple Lines of Scientific Evidence Converge on 3rd Century BC Age of the Famous Isaiah 53 Scroll.

     

    Meet the Gestapo

     

    Exposed: Theologians Deceived by Darwinian Ideology

     

     

    New Insights into the Shroud of Turin

     

    What we Know and Do Not Know About the Human Genome

    The Wonder that is Israel.

    Raising of the Ink Flag, marking the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Image credit Wiki Commons.

    Originally Posted April 24 2019.

    Updated June 24 2019.

     

    On that day I raised My hand in an oath to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ the glory of all lands.

    Ezekiel 20:6

    Any unbiased reading of the Bible will soon reveal that the Creator of the Universe has had a long and enduring relationship with the Jews. This people group were the first humans to forge a relationship with God, where He made Himself known to them and guided their founding of a nation in a relatively tiny strip of land on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The Biblical narrative accurately portrays much of the history of the ancient Jewish nation and modern archaeological research is unveiling more and more details that affirm the historicity of their story, despite militant opposition from secular academics, who have been proven wrong time and time again.

    Map of Israel and Judah in the 9th century BC. Image credit: Wiki Commons.

    Because of their unfaithfulness to their God, the former glory of the kingdom established by David and his son, Solomon, was gradually but inexorably wrenched from them because of their reluctance to follow Torah, as well as their eagerness to seek out and worship the false gods of the surrounding nations and the inter-marriage of their nobles with the nobility of foreign cultures(and against God’s wishes). As a result, ancient Israel and Judah suffered many waves of conquests by foreign imperial powers including Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium and the various waves of Islamic invasions over the centuries and millennia. Israel ceased to be a free nation about 2,600 years ago being occupied by foreign powers throughout much of this time.

    For much of its history, the Jewish people have suffered terrible persecutions under various powers, culminating with the attempt of the evil Nazi regime to exterminate them from the face of the Earth. Still, despite these perils, they have bucked all the odds to maintain their culture and religion; indeed they are the only truy ancient people that exist through modern times. After World War II, the United Nations created a homeland for the remaining Jews, which culminated in the declaration of independence of the modern state of Israel on May 14 1948. The declaration was immediately condemned by all the surrounding Arab nations and was immediately attacked, leading to the Arab-Israeli War (1948-9). No superpowers came to the aid of the young nation but miraculously, the Israeli’s won. Less than twenty years later, Israel was once again attacked by a coalition of Arab nations including Syria, Jordan and Egypt in June 1967. The conflict lasted just six days, with Israel once again emerging victorious. Thus, Israel had to work hard from the outset to establish its borders, rapidly developing an excellent military machine that staved off aggressive behaviour by its surrounding enemies, and which remains so to this day.

    In the 70 years since its founding days, the story of Israel has been one of astonishing prosperity, so much so that many Bible believing Christians accept it as a clear and unambiguous miracle in our times. Furthermore, it is clear that while the majority of contemporary Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, the Lord would not make a complete end of them, but established them again for the sake of a minority who have(or will) come to accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Furthermore, the Bible foretells that this tiny little nation will play an important role in converting many unbelievers to the true God during the Great Tribulation period, otherwise known as the time of Jacob’s Trouble.

    Most denominational Christians however, have been taught the false doctrine of replacement theology, which assumes that the modern Church has taken the place of Israel, and as a result, know very little about how Israel will play a central role in God’s ultimate plan for the salvation of many people. This was essentially my thinking for most of my life, as I continued in my walk with the Catholic Church, being largely ignorant of Biblical knowledge. We had no Bible in our home(my neighbours had none either), and no Sunday Schools when I was growing up. Indeed, I saved up some pocket money to buy a children’s Bible in my youth and only purchased my first ‘real’ Bible:- an old King James Version:- as a graduate student during my time at the University of Dundee in the mid-1990s. But this is equally true of many Protestant denominations, which teach nothing at all concerning the true role of Israel in God’s redemptive plan for humankind. Only when I began to read the Bible for myself, as a non-denominational Christian, that I rejected the notion of replacement theology.

    With the Lord, there is the Church and then there’s Israel; they are not one and the same.

    With Israel, it’s personal.

    Consider the particular interest our Lord has expressed in the land of Israel;

    For the land you are going in to possess is not like the land of Egypt from which you came. There you planted your seed and watered it by foot, like a vegetable garden.  But the land you are crossing over to possess is a land of hills and valleys, drinking from the rain of the heavens it drinks in water.  It is a land that Adonai your God cares for—the eyes of Adonai your God are always on it, from the beginning of the year up to the end of the year.

    Deuteronomy 11:10-12

    The prophet Ezekiel writes:

    Therefore say to the house of Israel: Thus says the Lord God: Not for your sake do I act, house of Israel, but for the sake of my holy name, which you desecrated among the nations to which you came.

    Esekiel 36:22

    So what’s it all about then? In a phrase, the execution of Absolute power!

    Israel is God’s land; He gave it to the Jews.

    The prophet Jeremiah writes:

    Thus says the Lord, “If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.’”

    Jeremiah 33: 25-26

    In other words, the Lord would sooner abolish the laws of nature than renege on his promises to Israel.

    So let’s take a closer look at the remarkable rise of Israel in the modern psyche. As a nation state, Israel is tiny,  with a land area of just 21,000 square kilometres, smaller than Wales and ranking about 150th out of the 200 or so nations on Earth. It’s population is currently 9 million, of which 75 per cent identify as Jew. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Israel reflects a different picture however; $360 billion, ranking it as the 54th richest nation in the world. Its per capita annual income is even more impressive though, at $42,000 per annum, making its citizens the 25th richest nation in the world; almost as rich as the average UK dweller. Israel is also home to more millionaires per capita than any other country in the world, with over 7,200 millionaires with collective assets of approximately $40 billion. What is more, Israel’s economic wealth far exceeds that of all the surrounding (Muslim) nations.The life expectancy of the average Israeli is 82 years, where it poles as the 8th longest among the other nations of the world. Israel’s age demographic though is astonishing and contrary to every other developed nation currently in existence. 25 per cent of the population are under the age of 14 and 40 per cent are aged 25 years and younger. Only 11 per cent of the Israeli population is aged 65 years and older!

    This very youthful population is also highly educated; 45 per cent of Israeli’s hold a Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent; higher per capita than any other nation on Earth. Their official language is Hebrew, for centuries considered an all but dead language, but thanks to the efforts of Jewish linguists, is now widely spoken and thriving. Curiously, though Israel is one of the most technologically advanced nations currently in existence, her citizens are taught little or nothing about Darwinian evolution in public schools, which dovetails with the ideology’s current rapid decline as a proper scientific theory of origins. And yet, Israel is a shining light in the emerging biotechnological and agricultural industries, both of which require an excellent knowledge of the life sciences.

    Because of more or less incessant terrorist threats from foreign regimes, Israel has one of the best trained professional armies in the world. The so-called Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has about 150,000 full-time members and over 400,000 reserves. All Israeli citizens over the age of 18 are obliged to undergo two years and eight months of military service for men and two years for women, although many seek exemptions on religious, pyschological and physical grounds.This rise in military power also comports with the Biblical narrative, which describes the desolate land of Israel being revived from a “valley of dry bones”(see Ezekiel 37):

    So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

    Ezekiel 37:10

    Despite more than half of the land being desert and only 20 per cent being arable, Israel is a world leader in irrigation technology. In addition, it’s de-salination technology is now being exported to other nations (the US state of California, for example, is now steeply committed to using these technologies). The north of the country receives a plentiful supply of rain but the south is much more arid, with the result that water transport and use is carefully regulated. The statistics are impressive; agriculture’s share of total water use fell from more than 70% in 1980 to 57% by 2005, and is projected to drop to just 52% by 2025, according to a recent report. Many nations around the world have benefitted greatly from Israel’s lead in this regard. Indeed this small nation has become the fruit basket of Europe and the Middle East, growing and exporting over 40 different types of fruit. Indeed, 95 per cent of all Israel’s food is homegrown, supplemented by imports of meat, grains, coffee, cocoa and sugar. Israel also produces most of the flowers sold in Europe(especially during the winter months), with an industry estimated to be worth $60 million. These flowers are almost exclusively grown on 214 hectares of land.

    A lemon grove in the Galilee. Image credit: David Shankbone.

    Just as the Bible informs us, Israel has truly become “a land of milk and honey.” Specially bred, disease-resistant cows produce the highest amounts of milk per animal in the world, with an average of 10,208 kilograms of dairy in 2009, according to data published in 2011 by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, outperforming cows in the US (9,331 kg  per cow), Japan (7,497), the European Union (6,139) and Australia (5,601). Honey production in Israel is prodigious, with more than 100,000 apiaries scattered across the country and exported to many other nations around the world. And despite the alarming decline in bee numbers in almost every other country, Israel’s bee populations have not endured such decimation, thanks to the implementation of a number of ingenious management strategies. Indeed, the Israeli department of agriculture estimate that the value of their bees as vehicles of pollination is worth more than 30 times the value of the honey they produce! In 1948, only about 400,000 acres of land in Israel could be tilled. Today it stands at over a million acres, with productivity increasing by a factor of 16 per unit of water used. And instead of growing strains of wheat that are waist high, as is the case in most other nations, Israeli farmers cultivate new varieties that only grow to knee height and so require far less water to bring them to maturity.

    In the spheres of technology, Israel ranks as the 8th most powerful nation in the world. Outside of Silicon Valley, California, Silcon Wadi on the coastal plains just outside Tel Aviv  has the highest number(over 3,000 as of 2019) of IT start-up companies in the world. The first anti-virus software was formulated here, as was the first voicemail technology, and all manner of memory sticks that we use in our everyday lives. Motorola, Microsoft, Celebrite and Intel all have major investments here. The oil industry is booming at an unprecedented rate in Israel with valuable, high-grade crude oil and natural gas reserves found in the Negev, the Golan Heights and most recently off shore in the Leviathan and Tamar fields. Analysts suggest that the energy reserves in these newly discovered sites could power the nation for another 300 years! What’s more, it is expected that Israel will become a major supplier of petrochemicals to the European nations by building under-sea pipelines across the Mediterranean.

    In recent years, geologists have assessed Israel’s mineral wealth. In particular the rapidly evaporating Dead Sea has an estimated $5 trillion of minerals salts including, calcium, sodium, magnesium and potassium chlorides, bromides and iodides, phosphates and other ressources. Even the mud dredged up from the Dead Sea floor has important medicinal properties that many people will pay for. Moreover, an extremely rare mineral, Carmeltazite, hitherto thought to form only in outer space was recently found in Israel, which, owing to its rarity, is potentially more valuable than diamond.

    Israel is now also active in the exploration of space, successfully launching the cheapest ever lunar probe named Beresheet(Hebrew for “In the beginning”) which attempted a soft landing on the dusty plains of Mare Serenitatis on April 11 2019 but which proved unsuccessful in the end. Despite the setback, much new science was still achieved and they will certainly try again in the near future.

    By most anyone’s standards, the story of the re-birth of Israel is a remarkable phenomenon. Look how much they have achieved in only one human generation! But all of this was foretold in the prophecies of Ezekiel, most likely dated to 7th century BC:

    Thus says the Lord God, “On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places will be rebuilt. The desolate land will be cultivated instead of being a desolation in the sight of everyone who passes by. They will say, ‘This desolate land has become like the garden of Eden; and the waste, desolate and ruined cities are fortified and inhabited.’ Then the nations that are left round about you will know that I, the Lord, have rebuilt the ruined places and planted that which was desolate; I, the Lord, have spoken and will do it.”

    Ezekiel 36:33-36

    And yet, the Biblical narrative also suggests that this new-found prosperity will attract the eyes of power-hungry nations surrounding it, like a proverbial moth to a brightly lit lamp:

    After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come into the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual waste; but its people were brought out from the nations, and they are living securely, all of them. You will go up, you will come like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land, you and all your troops, and many peoples with you.”

    ‘Thus says the Lord God, “It will come about on that day, that thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil plan, and you will say, ‘I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates, to capture spoil and to seize plunder, to turn your hand against the waste places which are now inhabited, and against the people who are gathered from the nations, who have acquired cattle and goods, who live at the center of the world.’ Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish with all its villages will say to you, ‘Have you come to capture spoil? Have you assembled your company to seize plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to capture great spoil?’”’

    Ezekiel 38:8-13

    The Bible also asserts that Israel is the centre of the world as God sees things:

    Thus says the Lord God, ‘This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations, with lands around her.

    Ezekiel 5:5

    And when we look at Israel’s geographic location, it indeed lies at the hub of three continents; Africa, Europe and Asia.

    The Bible also confifdently predicts that Israel will always attract trouble makers and that eventually all the nations will be gathered against her under the auspices of the Anti-Christ:

    It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

    Zechariah 12:3

    The Book of Jeremiah also makes it clear that when the Jews come back in the land after being scattered among the nations, they will do so without the ark of the covenant:

    Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days,” says the Lord, “that they will say no more, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore.

    Jeremiah 3:16

    And what do we see today? Israel back in the land without the ark! This was quite simply unthinkable at the time it was written, since it was indispensable to their worship.

    What is more, the ancient nation of Israel was divided up into two kingdoms- the northern territory of Israel, and the southern territory of Judah, in the reign of king Jeroboam I,  and remained so. But the prophet Jeremiah informs us that when the people come back in the land in the latter days, there would no longer be such an administrative division:

    In those days the people of Judah will join the people of Israel, and together they will come from a northern land to the land I gave your ancestors as an inheritance.

    Jeremiah 3:18

    What is the ‘northern land’ referred to in this verse of Scripture?

    It could well be Russia, as some 1.2 million Israeli citizens originated there.

    Isn’t the Bible remarkable for its accuracy? Surely, we are living in the times of fulfilled prophecy!

    Already, we can see this gradual build-up (a Biblical “hook in the jaw”) with the hatred expressed by the politicians of many countries toward Israel as well as pervasive anti-semitism(an irrational hatred of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which is both trans-generational and global in reach). Sadly, one of Israel’s greatest enemies is the United Nations(UN). For example, Syria bombs its civilians with chlorine gas, China tortures dissidents, Venezuela restricts access to food, and Burma is engaged in the ethnic cleansing of its Muslim minority. Yet despite these attrocities, the UN Human Rights Council trains the bulk of its diatribe on, you’ve guessed it, Israel!

    At the time of writing, 31 UN members don’t recognise the state of Israel. Additionally, the nations of Bolivia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Qatar and Venezuela have suspended ties to Israel. Most of these nations do not want the state of Israel to exist. There are also several countries, most notably Egypt, that recognise the state but almost always vote against it. That is how far-reaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become!

    The UN has chosen to oppose Israel at nearly every turn because of the influence and encouragement of all of these member states. On the UN security council, Israel has the support of the U.S’s power of veto and is therefore safe from most harmful resolutions, but in the general assembly the anti-Israel countries almost always win out. The most recent example of this was the decision to condemn the United States for recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital even though they have every right to claim it as their own. That resolution overwhelmingly passed. But if the UN were nicer to Israel, every Muslim majority country in the world (except Albania and a few others) would withdraw from the organisation and thus would lose all of its influence over the Muslim world. There would be no more peacekeepers in Syria and Iraq, no nuclear weapons inspectors in Iran, etc. To my mind, the UN has strategically chosen to alienate Israel, over dozens of others. As a result, most Israelis are suspcious of the UN to the extent that it is a miracle that they haven’t yet severed all ties with the organisation.

    Yet it is important to remember that both the UN and the state of Israel were both founded on very similar principles: the exercise of democracy, liberty, national self-determination, as well as freedom from persecution and the respect for basic human rights. But the simple truth is that the vast majority of countries that oppose Israel respect none of these principles, as their actions so clearly demonstrate. Moreover, most of them don’t even care for an independent Palestine either. They just view Israel as a convenient scapegoat. It is tragically ironic that the UN, an organisation that has done so much good for the world, is siding with tyrannical regimes rather than a nation that clearly shares its own values!

    Sunset on the Mount of Olives, Jersuelem. Image credit; Andrew Shiva.

    The Bible also tells us that the people of Israel will not be uprooted again:

    I will bring back the captives of My people Israel;
    They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them;
    They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them;
    They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them.
     I will plant them in their land,
    And no longer shall they be pulled up
    From the land I have given them,”
    Says the Lord your God.

    Amos 9: 14-15

    All of those prophecies have now been fulfilled.

    Israel, a vibrant, liberal democracy, is here to stay no matter what evil intentions the nations plot against her. This is in spite of the majority of their people’s stubborn unbelief in the true Messiah they had rejected 2,000 years ago. That said, the Messianic Jewish population (who accept Yeshua as their Lord and Saviour) has increased ten-fold to ~30,000 in just a decade! Truth be told, Israel is actually one of the most secular nations on Earth, with Tel Aviv having risen to notoriety in recent years as the gay capital of Europe/Middle East. The Bible addresses the spiritual blindness of Israel in both the Old and New Testaments;

    When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

    “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
        and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

    Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

    “He has blinded their eyes
        and hardened their heart,
    lest they see with their eyes,
        and understand with their heart, and turn,
        and I would heal them.”

    Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.

                                                                                                                    John 12:36-41

    Jesus Christ ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem and the Bible tells us that He will once again set foot on it at His second coming, where He will fight against those nations wishing to destroy Israel:

    Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.

    Zechariah 14:3-4

    So, we’re living in exciting times; times that most unbelievers are completely oblivious to; but that too was foretold. Israel is indeed the timepiece for understanding the climactic events in world history.

    So keep watching Israel, the Biblical ‘fig tree’ and pray for the peace of Jerusalem(Psalm 122:6), as we are instructed to.

     

    Neil English is the author of a large historical work; Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy.

     

    De Fideli.

    A Brief Look at The New American Standard Bible (NASB).

    Arguably the most technically precise Bible in existence today: the author’s copy of the NASB (1995  edition).

    Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.  But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

    Luke 10:32-33

    Today we are most fortunate indeed to be the beneficiaries of wonderful Biblical scholarship that dates back five hundred years or more. Such diligence has produced a number of highly accurate translations of the Old and New Testaments in the English language, with the Authorized King James Verson(KJV), the New King James Version(NKJV) and the English Standard Version(ESV) representing just three of the best word for word renditions of the Holy Bible. As a keen reader of Scripture, I am always on the look out for new ways to improve my personal knowledge of the Bible, and, in this capacity, found yet another version to be particularly enlightening; enter the New American Standard Bible(NASB).

    Like so many highly literal versions of the Bible, the NASB has an interesting history. Beginning in the 1880s, a team of American and British Bible scholars embarked on an ambitious project to update the archaic language of the KJV, producing the English Revised Version, which in turn formed the basis of the American Standard Version(ASV), first published in 1901. The ASV called upon a much larger number of manuscripts than the prestigious KJV, which were considerably older than any of the sources used to construct the KJV(mostly 10th and 11th centuries AD). And it was about this time that scholars began to notice a few small differences between the older and newer manuscripts. An example can be found in the Gospel of John chapter 5:

    The KJV reads:

    For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

    John 5:4

    Once manuscripts dating back to the 4th and fifth centuries AD began to be uncovered, it was noted that many of them did not contain this verse, suggesting that it was accidently inserted by scribes at some later time. That is why most modern Bibles have a footnote at John 5:4 which says, ” older manuscripts do not contain this verse.”

    And yet, here’s how the NASB deals with it.

     for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]

    John 5:4

    So the NASB committee decided to leave it in……with a bracket ’round it.

     

    As Biblical archaeology unearthed more and more ancient manuscripts throughout the 20th century, culminating with the astonishing finds contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were unearthed in the Qumran Caves in the Judaean Desert between 1946 and 1956, many Bible scholars felt it was high time that a new translation of the original Hebrew and Greek tongues be constructed which benefitted from these new insights. Thus, in 1959 work began on a new translation which honoured both the ASV and KJV under the aegis of the Lockman Foundation, which called upon an international team of Bible scholars and pastors from a broad cross-section of demoninations to create the New American Standard Bible (NASB), which say first light as a complete work in 1971. Another revised NASB appeared in 1977(still with the old ‘thees’ and ‘thous’)  Still, as good as the original NASB was, an updated and improved version of the NASB appeared in 1995(with the ‘thees’ and ‘thous’ were modernised). This is the version I wish to discuss in this blog, though it is understood that the Lockman Foundation is currently at work producing yet another updated version of the NASB, which will appear in print in 2020.

    Some Unique Attributes of the NASB

    One of the first things you will notice when you start to read the New Testament in the NASB is that it highlights quotations or cittations from the Old Testament in small caps. Consider 1 Peter 3:14-15

    But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And Do Not Fear Their Intimidation, And Do Not Be Troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

    1 Peter 3:14-15.

    The small caps, ” Do Not Fear Their Intimidation……”  immediately informs the reader that this is a direct citation from the Old Testament, specifically Isaiah 8:12, but if you were reading the much more popular ESV  Bible, for example, you would never know this, since the same text is not presented in small caps. In line 3 of the above Scripture,  you also see the word, “being,” is presented in italics. This indicates that the same word is not found in the original Hebrew but was an educated guess(based on the context) by Biblical scholars to render the implied meaning as accurately as possible in modern English.This comes with the territory in any endeavour to translate one language into another.

    In this way, I feel the NASB gives proper due respect to the words of Scripture, showing the reader where Biblical scholars have given their interpretation of the text in contrast to many more popular translations where such wording is not highlighted and so the student is left none the wiser.

    In studying the NASB New Testament I have also come to appreciate Jesus’ own knowledge of the Old Testament. While many liberal scholars erroneously avoid prophetic texts such as Daniel and Ezekiel, the NASB reminds the reader that Jesus knew and believed on these writings, using them to assert His own position:

    So He was saying, “What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree, And The Birds Of The Air Nested In Its Branches.”

    Luke 13:18-19

    The small caps indicate that our Lord was quoting directly from the Book of Ezekiel (see Ezekiel 17:23), the prophet and priest who was taken into captivity in 597 BC during the second deportation which was imposed on the Jewish leaders and aristocracy by their Babylonian overlords.

    Or consider Matthew Chapter 24, when Jesus clearly identifies Himself as the returning Messiah;

    And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man Coming On The Clouds Of The Sky with power and great glory.

    Matthew 24:30

    The small caps in this tract is a citation from Daniel (see Daniel 7:13).

    The many Christian denominations that avoid such books are, in a very real sense, depriving their congregations of the importance Jesus placed in these writings. The words of St. Paul seem especially prescient here;

    How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

    Romans 10:14

    Yet another feature of the NASB 1995 edition is the use of capitalised personal pronouns properly ascribed to deity;

    God said to Moses,”I AM WHO I AM”: and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

    Exodus 3:14.

    Many Bible commentators have expressed the opinion that compared to other good word for word translations of Holy Scripture, the NASB reads and sounds a bit “wooden.” I understand this position, as the NASB can indeed come across as a bit awkward and hollow in places, but this was deliberately done so as to maintain the highest degree of one-to-one correspondence with the original tongues. And while no translation of the Bible in English can be said to be wholly word-for-word, since this would make the text essentially unreadable, I have personally appreciated the strident efforts the NASB translators made to anchor their choice of words in the original texts. On my own personal journey studying God’s word, I have come to admire the academic excellence that went into creating the NASB, as it was a thoroughly enriching experience, and look forward to seeing the new edition when it finally becomes available. It will not replace my personal favourite translation, the NKJV, for general use, but for serious study, the NASB will most certainly be top of my list.

    A Few Examples of NASB Bibles

    Good quality Bibles don’t need to cost the Earth. I personally avoid overly ornate Bibles as they are largely impractical to use on a regular basis and my rule of thumb is simple; if the Bible is too beautiful to soil, don’t use it.

    That said, like many of the more popular translations, the NASB comes in a variety of convenient forms. For example, below is shown a compact large print edition of the NASB with the words of Christ in red. The cover is synthetic (leathertex) and has a lovely gold gilding as well as a smyth sewn binding:

    My eldest son’s compact, red letter edition NASB.

    My own pesonal NASB is also a 1995 edition, with a good, large font size, and wide side margins replete with copious cross-references for in-depth study;

    My large print NASB(833W) side column reference Bible.

    It is not a red letter edition, but does have an 82-page concordance and a series of full-colour laminated maps of the Biblical world. The print quality is very good, with adequate line matching, although some ghosting is apparent. The 833W volume has a durable leathertex cover with a paste-down lining. It also has a good smyth sewn binding and a beautiful gold gilding but only comes with one ribbon marker. It was not expensive.

    I am also fortunate enough to own an excellent NASB study Bible which I actually acquired second-hand. It is published by Zondervan.

    My personal Study Bible: the Zondervan NASB Study Bible.

    The Importance of Remaining Anchored in the Word

    The modern world is rapidly unlocking itself from Judeo-Christian values with disastrous consequences. Ironically, even outpsoken atheists are increasingly expressing the same concerns lol. Morals and values we held as ‘self-evident’ for centuries and millennia are no longer adhered to, and the consequences are all too easy to see; just look at the confused and depraved world we now live in. That is why remaining anchored in the inspired word of God is more important now than at any other time in history. Its wholesome words ground you in absolute truth and is an enduring source of comfort in a lost and dying world.

    The prophet Isaiah writes;

    “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
    Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
    “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
    So are My ways higher than your ways
    And My thoughts than your thoughts.

    Isaiah 55:8-9

    Ultimately it’s a choice everyone needs to make. I pray that those reading this will not end up on the wrong side of history!

    Eternity is an awfully long time!

     

    Neil English is the author of several books on amateur astronomy.

     

    De Fideli. 

    Some Comments on the New Living Translation(NLT) of the Holy Bible.

    The New Living Translation (red letter edition) by Tyndale.

    And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise.

                                                                                                Philippians 4:8 (NLT)

    Preamble

    Take a good look at the world around you.

    Lawlessness is on the increase in every nation. Our TV and cinema screens are cesspits of filth, lewdness, blasphemy and the glorification of violence. Britain is now the stab capital of Europe. Anti-semitism is escalating across the globe, tearing whole communities and political parties apart. The cold-blooded murder of the unborn is legalised in most developed countries and soon the right to life will be denied to the newborn(it’s already happened in fact). Traditional family values have all but disappeared. Our churches are nearly empty, their elders, priests and pastors, feverishly busy spreading false doctrines. Depraved acts such as homosexuality(they have the audacity to call it ‘sex’) are being promoted as ‘good’ and ‘natural.’ Our children are being taught that they are ‘highly evolved animals'(based on Darwinian pseudoscience); gender is ‘fluid’ even though our chromosomal karyotype plainly says otherwise, boys can be girls or vice versa, and morals are ‘relative.’  Wars and rumours of wars are never far from the headlines. The Middle East is a tinder box ready to explode. Civil war threatens many nations. Whole economies are collapsing. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Steeped in debt, young people can’t afford to get on the housing ladder. Homelessness is at an all-time high. Our once clean cities are slowly becoming slums. Food banks are now common across the western world and their queues are getting ever larger. The biosphere is dying before our very eyes; insects, animal and plant populations are being decimated by pollution, unsustainable and aggressive agricultural policies, and climate change.The bountiful seas are becoming water deserts. And there’s no where to go.

    Don’t you think something is terribly wrong with the world? Are you not concerned for the next generation( if the Lord tarries) who will see these trends continuing to escalate?

    You’re either a fool or completely deluded to think otherwise!

    This is just the tip of the iceberg, of course, and I could go on and on.

    What source of knowledge brings all of these evils into sharp focus?

    Only the Bible provides the answers we so desperately seek. Moreover, it makes it pretty clear that it can’t and won’t be sustained.

    The Bible warns us not to turn to idols(which includes atheism) for solutions. In the days of old, these took the form of carved images of wood and stone, animals and even persons( e.g. the Emperor Cult of the Caesars). And though the old gods are long gone, new ones have stepped in to fill the power vacuum; unaware AI, non-existent alien intelligences, sports personalities, rampant consumerism and greed (which the Bible teaches is yet another form of idolatory), ‘mind and body’ gurus, tree huggers and charlatans that promise the earth, steal your money, and leave you high and dry. The secular world believes man is benevolent by nature and can find the answers to all his problems, but let’s be honest; that humanist philosophy has failed miserably. Where exactly is that utopia you dreamt up in your vain maschinations?

    It doesn’t exist and cannot exist.

    In contrast, the Bible says precisely the opposite; left to his own devices, man is fundamentally not good. Humans become more depraved, more wicked and more desperate without guidance from their Creator. Without God in their lives, things always go from bad to worse. And the inspired Biblical writers foresaw all of it!

    We need the Bible more so now than at any other time in human history.

    How do I know this? I read the Bible every day. I see it all on the pages of Scripture, as if it’s today’s news. The secular world will accuse you of ‘bigotry’ and ‘small mindedness’ of course, for the simple reason that the same people are woefully ignorant of what the Bible actually says; not the watered down sermons you hear in a typical church on Sunday morning, delivered by a clergy that are increasingly afraid to offend anyone, but by taking heir of one’s self, and actually reading the Biblical text through and applying its principles in every day life. Seen in this light, the accusations of the secularists against true Christians are just more of the same: arguments from ignorance.

    And that’s true bigotry!

    There is a simple principle I apply in my dealings with the secular world: if it is approved of in the Bible, I’m for it; but if the Bible disapproves of it, I’m not for it!

    It’s simple, straight-forward, and unambiguous.

    In the 21st century there is an explosion of Bible versions written in the English language to suit the needs of a diverse group of people. The following diagram gives you an idea of the types of Bibles you can choose from:

    The green zone represents very literal ‘word for word’ translations from the original Hebrew and Koine Greek. The orange zone represents an entirely different translation philosophy; the so called ‘thought for thought’ translations. Finally, the red zone represents the most loosely rendered interpretations of the Biblical text; the paraphrases.

    As you can see from the diagram above, the New Living Translation(NLT) of the Bible is in the orange zone, so bordering between the ‘thought for thought’ and the ‘paraphrased’ renditions. But unlike true paraphrased versions like the Message or The Living Bible, the NLT is actually a true translation of Holy Scripture, but it places a great emphasis on rendering the essential ideas in simple, modern English. The NLT was formulated by a broad church of Christian denominations under a solid translation committee. This is evidenced by the lack of errors in the text(yes, I’ve found typos in other versions formulated by smaller committees) and the attention to detail they have displayed in bringing to life the timeless stories and moral teachings of the Bible for a modern readership. The NLT is available in the 66 books that comprise the Protestant Bible, but they have also produced a Catholic version (with its 72 books). The comments made here refer to the former.

    The first edition of the NLT was published in 1996 and its aim was to turn the paraphrased Living Bible (composed by the late Kenneth Taylor in 1971) into a proper translation. It has since undergone several revisions (2004, 2007, 2013 and 2016), which aims to make the text as accessible and inclusive as possible. Like the NIV, the language is quite gender neutral, but the committee has clearly not gone as far as their NIV counterparts, which some feel has taken the issue a wee bit too far. Weights, measures and the timing of religious festivals are expressed in modern terms, which adds to the intelligibility of the text. The introduction pages to this Bible clearly explains why these strategies were adopted.

    While it is acknowledged that any thought-for-thought translation is in danger of going too far, and that, ultimately, you are probably safer going with a good literal translation like the ESV, NKJV or NASB, I find there is much that is meritorious about this fresh, dynamic and often idiomatic edition of the Bible. I found it is excellent for speed reading( I obtained my copy in October 2018, but had sampled an earlier edition before giving it away to a friend), having completely finished it in just a few months. Although some renderings of the text were mildly alarming(see Luke 5:30 for an example), on the whole I thought the translation was very enjoyable and worth the effort to read through. At no point did I ever feel that the translators were watering down Scripture (e.g. the deity of Christ or the nature of the triune God), as some commentators have suggested. Indeed, in some cases, I felt it was easier to understand certain passages about the Atonement than in more literal word-for-word translations.

    Many of the Psalms will come across as unfamiliar to those who cherish traditional translations, like my beloved NKJV, because the wording is different, but I found the differences enriching more than they were distracting. Consider Psalm 23, for example:

    The Lord is my shepherd;
        I have all that I need.
    He lets me rest in green meadows;
        he leads me beside peaceful streams.
    He renews my strength.
    He guides me along right paths,
        bringing honor to his name.
    Even when I walk
        through the darkest valley,
    I will not be afraid,
        for you are close beside me.
    Your rod and your staff
        protect and comfort me.
    You prepare a feast for me
        in the presence of my enemies.
    You honor me by anointing my head with oil.
        My cup overflows with blessings.
    Surely your goodness and unfailing love will pursue me
        all the days of my life,
    and I will live in the house of the Lord
        forever.

    Psalm 23

    As you can see, it is worded rather differently to more celebrated versions of the Bible such as the grand old King James Version (which my family and I have committed to memory) but if I’m being honest, it conveys exactly the same comforting ideas as older renditions of this time-honoured Davidic psalm.

    I would highly recommend this translation to everyone, but especially those who are making their first steps in the faith. I completely reject the idea that it is an inferior version compared with the more technically accurate renditions of the Bible, for I equate this kind of thinking to yet another example of legalism, which is just plain wrong and anathema to the true message of the Gospel. Afterall, God never intended for His inspired word to be misunderstood or that it be made accessible to only an elite few. Have we not learned anything from the days when the Latin Vulgate was the only version in existence, delivered and understood only by priests?

    As our Lord and Saviour once declared:

    O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike.

    Matthew 11:25(NLT)

    That we have so many versions is a blessing and not a curse. Personally, I see it as part of the Divine plan to bring as many people to Christ before the Lord wraps it all up. I for one cherish the NLT as a fine addition to my Bible collection and one which I will continue to use and enjoy until the day I see Him face to face.

    Ultimately, the message of the Bible is joyful and optimistic to those who have the wisdom to accept its teachings. So believers have absolutely nothing to fear! Indeed, Scripture anticipated that these radical changes in human society would occur near the closing of the age. It’s as if prophecy is unravelling before our very eyes, and that gives me goose bumps! In the meantime, we just have to keep on trying to make the world a better place and to speak up for issues that we believe are immoral. Moreover, the Bible has always encouraged us to be vigilant in the times we are given to live in. So take heart! Nothing should surprise you!

    A few Words on the NLT Premium SlimLine Large Print Reference Edition ( ISBN- 978-1-4143-0711-4)

    Now, I would like to say a few words about the particular NLT Bible I have sourced.

    The beautiful Leatherlike Brown Gator covering of the Large Print Slimline NLT.

    As I explained in a previous blog about my NKJV Bible, I like to have a hard copy of any Bible I purchase. The NLT is, of course, available for study online, but like any other Bible I use, I prefer to have a copy I can bring anywhere with me, without the hassle of relying on using electronic devices to retrieve the text. Afterall, we cannot be certain that we will have the internet forever, can we?

    This NLT measures 6.5″ x 9″ and is about an inch thick. It has a paste-down liner and a strong, Smyth-sewn binding. The cover is Leatherex; making it very flexible and durable. It is very attractive to the touch and is easy to grip. It is not ostentatious and will not make you stand out in a crowd. It lies flat when hand-held or when opened on a table. The words are printed in 9.84 font, so very easy to read, even without my glasses. The quality of the paper is not the best but not the worst either, and is perfectly adequate for reading.  It has two colour-matched ribbons page markers to keep track of whatever text from the Old and New Testament I’m studying from.

    The NLT large print Slimline edition has nice gold gilding on its pages and comes with two colour-matched ribbons.

    The edges of the pages have a very nice gold gilding. The text is fairly well line matched with only a little bit of bleed-through visible from page to page. This is a red letter version. The colour of red is slightly paler than I would have liked but it does the job fine.I don’t really like footnotes, so I was delighted to see that they are minimal in this version of the NLT and are placed at the bottom of the page, where they provide little in the way of a distraction and are also printed in a smaller font size to the main text.

    The NLT has the words of our Saviour in red.

    At the back of the Bible, there is a fairly comprehensive 53-page concordance, followed by a single page presenting ” Great Chapters from the Bible.” This is immediately followed by a 3-page presentation of what the committee consider to be the “greatest verses from the Bible.” The last few pages present a useful 365-day reading plan to get the user through the entire Biblical text in a single year. Finally, like most Bibles, it presents a few useful full-colour maps of the Holy Land, including a detailed look at the places Jesus visited during his three and a half year earthly mission, as well as maps of the Greek, Babylonian and Assyrian Empires,and which also includes the route of the Exodus and the missionary journeys of Saint Paul.

    For a modest cost of £26.99. I consider it a good value in today’s market.

     

    I hope readers will receive the NLT with enthusiasm and that it will enrich your knowledge of the Bible in these somewhat alarming but ultimately exciting(for Christians and Messianic Jews)  times in which we now live!

    With Every Blessing,

     

    Neil.

     

    Dr. Neil English recounts the stories of many Christian astronomers from centuries past in his latest historical work, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy.

     

     

     

    De Fideli.

     

     

    Earth & Sky.

    “Moonrise” by Stanislaw Maslowski (1884); image crdit Wiki Commons.

    In a fallen world, where mankind’s rebellion against his Creator is now rapidly reaching pre-flood levels of wickedness, it is good to know that the planet Earth is still a pretty neat place to live. Protected by a just-right atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, the Lord of Heaven’s armies has packed this planet full of living things and amazing geological features that bring joy to the human heart.

    Our atmosphere is neither too dense or too rarefied, allowing us to peer deeply into the Cosmos, where we have caught a glimpse of eternity.  And all around us, our Creator has left clear evidence of His handiwork so that we are without excuse on the day of judgement.

    The human eye can only see so much though, but our Creator chose to give us a mind that enables us to improve our lot, to see things in new and different ways. That’s how I see my binoculars; simple tools that bring heaven and Earth closer, providing a perspective that transcends the limitations of my corporeal form. I am especially fortunate to live in a beautiful part of the world, away from the cities where atheism flourishes. Out in the sticks, I can enjoy the beauty of God’s creation more fully, in quietness, surrounded as I am by hills and valleys, green fields and lovely streams of cool, fresh rainwater that sustain the lives of all living things.

    The author’s wide angle 8 x 42 binocular: extraordinary performance at an ordinary price.

    My wide-angle 8 x 42 binocular, in particular, is the perfect tool for combining the beauty of the night sky with that of the comeliness of the earthly creation. And in this blog, I would like to share with you some of the kinds of activities I get up to to bring these worlds together. This binocular provides a power of just 8 diameters but has an angular field of view wide enough to fit over 16 full Moons in the same wonderful portal. And with its decent light grasp, especially in fading or low light, it is powerful enough to allow me to simultaneously appreciate sights in the heavens and on earth.

                                                      Picture Postcards

    Surrounded by mature trees, sometimes many times older than myself, I have grown terribly fond of framing famliar celestial sights, such as the Pleiades and the Hyades in the foreground of their impressive branches. Sometimes, I would wait for the stars in these clusters to fall in altitude after they culminate in the south, so that they are seen to ‘hover’ over the conifer trees beyond my back garden. And if, by chance, the presence of a gentle breeze in the binocular image is witnessed (and it can happen a lot!), then you’ve got a home run; an epiphany of sorts! At other times, I will plan a vigil where the soft light from the stars fills the background whilst the foreground is occupied with denuded winter branches of the deciduous trees near my home. A little light pollution can actually be advantageous in such circumstances as it can help illuminate the tree branches making them stand out more boldly against the stellar backdrop.

    Living inside a long valley with verdant hills that soar to about 1000 feet on either side, my binocular is good at framing the rising Moon as its silvery light clears their summit in the east, or as it sinks behind the hills in the west. There are many times where I can plan to observe the Moon and the hilltops in the same field, creating visual scenes that leave a deep impression on me. I give thanks to my God for allowing me to witness such scenes, safe and secure at the bottom of a great sea of fresh, clean air.

    Ever since childhood, I have been attracted to storms, often venturing out to feel the energy they generate in the atmosphere. Sometimes these storms occur on moonlit nights and I would think it nothing to grab my binocular and carry myself off to some favourite haunts, woody glades and the like, where moonbeams create wonderful atmospheric scenes, complemented by the sound of wind whistling through their branches.

    My binocular has renewed my interest in observing the full Moon, not in and of itself, but when it is surrounded by low lying and fast-moving rain clouds, as often happens here in the British Isles. I watch as these clouds enter the outer field, inching their way toward the bright satellite, and all the while lighting up with beautiful colours caused by refraction of moonlight through raindrops. The colours often start off deep and moody, like dried-in blood, when far from the Moon, but as they move ever closer, the colours they generate; gorgeous shades of pink, yellows and even rose tints; saturate the cones on my retina and,  upwelling feelings of great happiness.

    The structure of clouds backlit by moonlight reveals wonderful, highly complex structures, as well as colours – knots, filaments and pleated sheets. Often the scene reminds me of the play of light on the matter which is expelled into the shells of planetary nebulae as imaged by a great telescope, with a white dwarf star being replaced by our very own Moon at its epicentre lol. Such natural shows of light and form rank as some of the most lovely and most surreal binocular images one is likely to capture. Sometimes, great gaping holes in the heavens open up around the clouds, allowing the light of the distant stars to be seen near the full Moon.

    Dawn and dusk are good times to see some spectacular sights, such as the bright planet Venus sinking low into the sky, often silhouetted by interesting terrestrial structures, such as a distant hill,  an old barnhouse or silo, church or windmill. By getting to know your horizons, sublime scenes can be captured with your binocular, bringing heaven and Earth together, just like it will be in the New Creation.

    Cityscapes can also be used to enhance the binocular view. Framing bright star clusters like the Pleiades or a crescent Moon in the background to an old church spire, domed cathedral, or grand municipal building, can make for a very fetching sight. Photographers  imagine likewise,of course, but the impromptu binocular experience is an even greater liberal art!

    Another worthwhile project is to image the bright Moon over a large expanse of water, especially during calm conditions, when its  reflection  is quite mirror-like. Under the light of a town or city, smaller binoculars do just fine, like my little Pentax DCF 9 x 28 pocket instrument. You can even wander through your neighbourhood finding interesting foreground subjects to frame your celestial scenes in advance of an event.

    It’s good to plan.

    Well, I hope you get some ideas from this short article. In doing so, you can enjoy the best of the heavenly and terrestrial creations, and which can turn an otherwise mundane evening or morning into a very memorable one!

    Happy hunting!

     

     

    Neil English is the author of several books in amateur and professional astronomy.

     

     

     

    De Fideli.

    Notes on Going on Campaign.

    In it to win it.

    Today you are on the verge of battle with your enemies. Do not let your heart faint, do not be afraid, and do not tremble or be terrified because of them;  for the Lord your God is He who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.’

    Deuteronomy 20:3-4

     

    As you may well be aware of, I don’t spend a lot of time on internet forums. When looking for specific information, I generally consult known and trusted authorities from books rather than the ramblings of folk whose only apparent purpose in life is to post stuff online. You don’t have to search for long to see that some folk spend nearly their entire waking moments on these forums(clocking up tens of thousands of posts in the process), wasting their employers time (read stealing) and that makes for very one-dimensional personalities, who ostensibly crave power or attention, or both. That is their world pure and simple; take that world away and they’d probably fall to pieces. What’s more, some of these characters resent individuals who hold different opinions to their own and go to great lengths to de-rail them, especially if it threatens their world view.

    If I go online, I generally do so for a very specific purpose; to raise awareness of some issue that is important or to alert people to new concepts. I see this as part of apologetics per se, as there is usually a moral dimension to my ‘campaigns’, such as folk getting ripped off by unscrupulous telescope salesmen and their fanboys and to alert or inform the general public about ideologies that are patently false. One subject that is close to my heart pertains to the staggering complexity of living things in general, and human beings in particular, and the unprecedented accumulation of new scientific evidences that we are not on this planet as a result of some quirk of nature.

    Evolutionary ideology has robbed many people of their self-worth. Putting their faith in a ‘monkey religion’ first promulgated by a second-rate Victorian barnacle collector by the name of Charles Darwin, who turned his back on his Creator just because he couldn’t come to terms with the loss of his daughter, they believe that we are the progeny of pond scum and that we slowly evolved through innumerable transitional forms to become the ‘naked apes’ we are today. What is more, for decades they have been fed a staple diet of ‘junk science’ that anticipates that the Universe is teeming with life and that anyone who expresses scepticism is to be viewed with suspicion or even derision. Invariably, these individuals are unwilling to do their own research and continue to propagate extremely dubious ideas to an unsuspecting audience. I felt it was high time to challenge this claim head on, to show that the evidence in support of these ideas was in fact extremely tenuous.

                                                          Know thine Enemy

    Before commencing upon any campaign of this nature it pays to know your enemy; the mindset of those who are likely to challenge the claims you bring to the table and their motivations for resisting such claims. Very often it is just good old fashioned hatred. They can’t stand being told that their evolutionary bubble is about to be burst. Others resent for entirely personal reasons; consumed with murderous thoughts and green with jealousy. They are easy to spot as they always return to the scene, or lurk like cowards in the background endorsing their men with ‘likes’.  Expect ad hominem attacks from trolls; that comes with the territory and be prepared for insults being hurled at you. These are the God haters, the mob who believe and act as if humans were animals, so invariably, their responses reflect their bestial nature. Be aware also that many folk are naturally drawn to conflict; they are just there to be entertained.

                                                            Avoid Conflict

    Responding to insults and getting embroiled in heated arguments online is to be avoided. It drains you of energy and causes you to lose focus. Doubtless it can be very difficult, but it serves no good to lower yourself to the level of the heckler. One must always remember that despite their belligerent unbelief, they are also made in the image of God, though they have long fallen away. Just make your points and leave it at that. Understandably, some folk seek genuine dialogue; but this can be done behind the scenes, via email or some other private medium. If they are really interested in learning, they’ll stick with you. If not, they will soon vanish in the aether.

                                                              Be Prepared

    Before launching a campaign; prepare yourself. You need to do your research, bringing all relevant information to the fore. You need to check references, academic credentials etc. Where possible, one should aim to present the views of distinguished scientists, with solid track records. Holding a PhD in a relevant science would be an absolute minimum standard for me. Those who don’t  have such credentials are very unlikely to be nuanced enough in the field to bring anything concrete to the table. Unfortunately, there are frauds in every avenue of human enquiry (I’ve uncovered a few with googly eyes) and some continue to fall for their trappings. Be selective, presenting information that firmly establishes the points you wish to make. Avoid hyperbole. If at all possible, collate more information than is generally needed (auxilia) to re-inforce a point and ideally from a number of different sources. You never know, such data might come in handy if the thread takes a tricky turn. No one individual has an absolute monopoly on a truth claim. The truth is best displayed when several sources arrive at the same conclusion.

                                                                 Don’t be Afraid!

    Don’t be initimated by your adversaries. Sometimes the hatred sensed becomes so overbearing that it induces nausea; so I do what I do quickly.

    If you’re prepared, there is little they can do to retort.

    Seek the Lord always; ask for His advice.

    Commit your actions to the LORD, and your plans will succeed.

    Proverbs 16:3

     

     

    Case Study: How Many Earths in Our Galaxy?

    Intended Audience to be Reached: Atheists, evolutionists with a religious bent or churches which have been indoctrinated with evolutionary ideology; Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians. Also, the editorial teams of astronomy and popular science periodicals.

    Typical response: Trillions upon trillions.

    Scientific basis for believing in the Plurality of Habitable worlds: Life exists on Earth, a typical planet, so life must be common in the Universe.

    Actual Evidence for Extraterrestrial Life: None.

     

                                          The Scientific Evidence Against the Case

    The Wider Universe: Gamma Ray Burst Frequency at High Redshifts( z>0.5) and its likely consequences for living things.

    Nota bene: This was not presented on the discussed thread but in a related thread on the same forum.

    Christians have been at the forefront of the debate about whether life can arise naturalistically here on Earth and elsewhere. The organisation, Reasons to Believe, employs scientists trained to PhD level and beyond, who have thoroughly researched the issue. Many of the basic ideas were laid out in their book: Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off (2014); which summarizes many of the problems in a clear and concise way.

    The audience is asked to look at the reviews of the book and not to dismiss the book because of their Christian positioning.

    The scoffers enter the scene and state their opinions.Some posters are gracious but others persist in scoffing(especially those who are singularly unqualified to offer a technical opinion on the matter) I asked the responders a simple question:

    “Have you read the book yet?”

    Furthermore, I suggest that abiogenesis(the notion that living systems can arise naturally) is scientifically impossible.

    I re-entered the debate several years later in late 2018, as more science came to the fore:

    Leading German biochemist(Dr. Clemens Richert) admits that cheating (human intervention) occurs in much prebiotic chemical research in a premier scientific journal.

    World leading chemist, Dr. James Tour ( Rice University, USA) speaks out about the same issue as the German biochemist. Tour makes it clear that life cannot arise without an intelligent agency.

    Dr. Tour also speaks out about the failure of Darwinian mechanisms to account for the complexity of life. Indeed, behind the scenes, Tour states that Darwinian evolution has now been debunked by the biologists.

    I present a detailed talk on the fossil record (2018) by Dr. Gunter Bechly, a leading German paleontologist, who has studied the phenomenon for many years. Bechly presents clear and unambiguous evidence that the fossil record, with its serious discontinuities, does not support a Darwinian scenario. Furthermore, he concludes that life must have been designed.

    I point out that Bechly was an avowed evolutionist until he was forced to reassess his scientific positioning as more fossil evidence emerged that could not be reconciled with a Darwinian evolutionary process. His change of mind was driven by the scientific evidence and not by any religious conviction (although he is now a Roman Catholic). The trolls re-emerge in the background supporting their man with “likes”. One of the trolls is a carpenter by trade (yep I did my research) from Upstate New York, another is a prominent ‘know it all,” a retired mechanical engineer from San Diego, who spends his entire waking life on these forums, following me around like a bad smell. Such individuals have expressed a singular hatred of this author in past encounters. However, both individuals are ultimately unqualified to offer any scientific criticism of the work presented; their dissent has no teeth.

    Their man attacks the scientists at the Discovery Institute, who are sceptical of the evolutionary paradigm, calling them “frauds.”. I refrain from addressing this potentially serious accusation, as it’s an unnecessary diversion from the truth.

    I then present more scientific evidence relevant to the question of whether life exists elsewhere in the Universe;

    A team of Cornell University scientists(December 2018) identify potential fake biosignatures in simulations of exoplanetary atmospheres.

    Astrobiologists, in their unbridled belief that biosignatures can be identified spectroscopically could pontentially identify fake life signatures and thus mislead the public.

    A team of astronomers at Cardiff University, UK (April 2018) present a potentially serious problem of phosphorus synthesis in supernovae.

    If phosphorus is only produced in localised pockets of the Universe then it raises a serious question about whether life can really be ubiquitous.

    No responses are made by my adversaries on the two issues raised above.

    One gracious individual asks for dialogue between myself and my adversaries but I suggest that he contact Dr. Tour directly and provide his contact details (and illustrious credentials). At this stage I deduced that no meaningful dialogue was really possible as the responses from my principal adversary strongly suggested that he did not look at the counter evidence ( a very common problem unfortunately) as presented in the thread.

    I present a paper which discusses the concept of Specified Complexity, which offers a much better fit of the proposed relationships between organisms, and which is not predicated upon the assumption of common descent.

    My adversaries fail to see the relevance of the work and accuse me of ” not knowing what I’m talking about.”

    I ignore these ad hominem attacks on me and proceed to the conclusions of my “campaign.”

    I present evidence(October 2018) that M Dwarfs, which comprise some 80 per cent of all stellar real estate in the Universe are very unlikely to support planets capable of harbouring life owing to their frequent flaring events, not to mention tidal locking of planets within their putative habitable zones:

     

    At this stage I inform readers that the scientist who first brought the “Hand of God phenomenon” (the very phrase used by Dr. Richert in his December 12 2018 Nature Communications paper) in prebiotic chemical synthesis to the attention of the wider scientific community was Dr. Fazale Rana, staff biochemist with Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org). Dr. Rana actually anticipated the admissions of both Dr. Tour and Dr. Richert in his 2011 book; Creating Life In the Lab.

    More on this here: https://www.youtube….ZgO-sEw&t=1098s

     

    I respond to one post (# 103) of this thread, where the poster presented work by Dr. Jack Szostak(Harvard University).

    “It must be noted that some of Szostak’s claims of RNA self replication were retracted owing to the inability of his colleagues to reproduce the work.

    Source: https://www.nature.c…UVvR6XRR1ibSn0=

    In an interview Szostak said, “we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been…”

    Source:https://retractionwa…nal/#more-52894

    Another 2009 paper by Szostak et al was similarly retracted.

    My adversaries also seem singularly ignorant of my own scientific criticism of Szostak’s work in the same video sequence which I presented here and here.

    I point out that in light of the gross negligence in accountability of origin of life research protocols and the “Hand of God phenomenon(read cheating)” that occurs in prebiotic research that Dr. Tour calls for a moratorium on such research.

    One responder asks what the relevance of all my posts is.

    I did not respond, as I deemed the string of posts as being logically consistent with the matter in hand. It was just another attempt at provocation but I did say this:

    “I would suggest you speak with Dr. Tour on these matters. He is better qualified than I to elaborate on this and I’m not here to discuss details. But what I will say is the popular science/astronomy magazine articles and their editorial teams should stop flogging lies to the general public, who have swallowed this claptrap hook line and sinker, based on their pagan ideologies.”

    Finally I presented a summary of what science actually tells us about life on Earth and elsewhere in the Universe by Dr Tour himself:

    “Life should not exist. This much we know from chemistry. In contrast to the ubiquity of life on earth, the lifelessness of other planets makes far better chemical sense……….We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense.

    Beyond our planet, all the others that have been probed are lifeless, a result in accord with our chemical expectations. The laws of physics and chemistry’s Periodic Table are universal, suggesting that life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth.”

    Source: https://inference-re…o-my-colleagues

    At this point, the forum moderator, clearly incensed by these comments, blocks my further participation in the thread. The author acknowledges this as a flagrant violation of free speech but does not protest.

    I would submit to the reader that what is presented above is actually the most accurate and up-to-date scientific assessment of the phenomon of life and whether it can emerge on other planets. It is at direct odds with the prevailing notion among science journalists and the general public, who, by and large, lack any scientific training on this matter. Doubtless the pagan media will continue to peddle lies to a naive readership. So be on your guard!

    This is the position I hold to as of late January 2019

    I mentioned that this campaign was a source of “great non-personal success.” This is evidenced by the large increases (up to ten fold) of the number of “likes” received from the viewing public to the youtube clips presented in the short time since they were posted. Hitting the “like” button helps to increase the profile of these presentations, allowing more people to find and share them with their friends.

    Lies need to be exposed; as St. Paul declares:

    Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, expose them.

    Ephesians 5:11

     

    Dr. Neil English maintains a keen interest in origin of life research and is deeply sceptical of the evolutionary paradigm.

    If you like this work and wish to support the author, please consider buying a copy of his latest book, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy, which touches on such issues here and there, newly published by Springer Nature.

     

     

    De Fideli.

    The Year in Review

    Plotina: the author’s 130mm f/5 travelling Newtonian sampling the beautiful autumnal skies of Dumfries & Galloway, southwest Scotland.

    Anno Domini MMXVIII

    We’ve reached the end of yet another year; and boy do they come round fast and furious! It seems like yesterday when the freezing Beast from the East was upon us, and that gave way to a unusually warm summer. Our family ventured across the waters to visit my brethern remaining in the south of Ireland and to catch up with old friends and acquaintances. But it was also a year where I made considerable progress establishing how good the British Isles are for doing all kinds of astronomy, having completed a survey of a dozen or so different sites across the British Isles. Despite the prognostications of casual observers, Britain and Ireland possess many prime locations to conduct visual astronomy, and in particular, high-resolution double star astronomy using small and medium-sized Newtonian reflectors.

    In August, I conducted a month-long observational program to establish to what extent the Jet Stream affected my ability to resolve a variety of double stars ranging from between 1 and 2″ angular separation, finding no real evidence in support of its alleged effects and that it need not deter a determined observer to enjoy visual astronomy. It was, to my knowledge, the first such survey to be conducted on the subject.

    My scepticism concerning the virtues of small, expensive refractors grew ever stronger throughout 2018, when I finally rid myself of the last remaining apochromatic refractor in my stable. As I have exhaustively shown, a much simpler and less expensive 130mm f/5 Newtonian proved superior to a 90mm ED glass on all sky targets. The former instrument has become my grab ‘n’ go telescope of choice, based solely on optical performance.

    I will not be updating my book on refractors, as my conscience will not countenance the continued cultivation of untruths about their supposed virtues in the field.

    I’m a Newtonian convert!

    In another project, I tested a variety of optical devices that enable observers to use Newtonian reflectors during daylight hours, finding that the 130mm f/5 Newtonian coupled to a Vixen erect image adapter to be a fine, cost-effective alternative to large, expensive ED spotting ‘scopes.

    Schmokin; the Vixen terrestrial image adapter.

    My continuing blog entitled: the War on Truth: the Triumph of Newtoniasm, I have collated the opinions of a large volume of observers and authorities in the field from around the world, both historical and contemporary, which clearly show that Newtonian reflectors in the 8- to 12-inch aperture class will outperform smaller refractors at a fraction of the price, in sharp contradistinction to two decades of nefarious promotion by so-called ‘experienced’ amateurs. One of the key reasons for this blurring of the truth pertains to my suspicion that many refractor enthusiasts either don’t know, or are unwilling, to accurately collimate these instruments and/or are too lazy to allow adequate thermal acclimation of the same.

    That being said, I have been very encouraged by the response of the amateur community to this legitimate protest. It seems many more former refractor onlyists are willing to consider the Newtonian once more and that’s a good thing!

    2018 has also been a year where I have re-discovered the considerable virtues of binoculars. As a series of recent blogs showed, I have found a range of optically excellent roof prism binoculars that suit the budgets of many more amateurs, enabling the hobby to grow and not stagnate. Although I have certainly not spent a small fortune buying every other model, as others have done, I quickly gravitated towards two instruments, both made by Barr & Stroud, a 10 x 50 unit for dedicated binocular astronomy using a monopod, and a most excellent 8 x 42 Savannah wide-angle instrument for casual stargazing and nature observation. The latter has become a constant companion on my long country walks. I sincerely wish that others will test these binoculars themselves and spread the love.

    An amazing, general purpose binocular; the Barr & Stroud  Savannah 8 x 42 wide angle.

    I intend to drastically cull my current crop of astronomy equipment in 2019 as it has weighed heavy on my mind of late. I have retired mighty Octavius, my 8 inch f/6 Newtonian reflector, as it has achieved everything I intended for it and much more besides. My intention is to eventually gift it to some keen amateur who will use it productively. My 5 inch f/12 refractor is similarly retired. The little Orion SpaceProbe 3 alt-azimuth reflector and my old 7 x 50s were bequeathed to Gavin, a very enthusiastic young man of 8, who showed unusual interest in astronomy, and uses them regularly to stargaze from his home just outside our village.

    I plan to use just three instruments in the coming year:

    A 12″ f/5 Newtonian(Duodecim)

    A 130mm F/5 Newtonian(Plotina)

    Binoculars.

    These three instruments will enable me to enagage with the full gamut of amateur astronomy. They are all I could possibly want!

    Duodecim: a fine 12″ f/5 Newtonian reflector.

    I would like to produce more blogs on binocular astronomy in the coming year, Lord willing, as well as produce new reports with both the 130mm f/5 and 12″ f/5 instruments.

    2018 marked the end of a long slog to get my new book into shape; Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy. It’s been five years in the making, but it was an enjoyable and worthwhile project, bringing together the selected works of many amateur and professional astronomers across four centuries of time, who used their telescopes, both great and small, to create the wonderful hobby we enjoy today. What I learned from their diligent adventures under the stars is incalulable and I have tried hard to capture the essence of their life and researches in this large, historical work. It is my fondest hope that it will be well received by my peers. Please check out the reviews as they appear.

    A work dedicated to the heroes & heroines of our hobby.

    Finally, I am in the process of writing a new book dedicated to the ShortTube 80 achromatic telescope which ought to be available at the end of 2019. I have amassed a large body of notes from several years of using this quirky little telescope in the field, which I hope will be of interest to the many amateurs, young and old alike, who use or have used the instrument in the past.

    So, there it is!

    God bless you all!

    Neil.

     

    De Fideli.

    Living without Lasers

    Collimation tools; from left right: a SkyWatcher Next Generation laser collimator, a collimation cap, a well made Cheshire eyepiece and a Baader lasercolli Mark III.

     

    It is undoubtedly true that by far the most prevalent reason why so many amateurs have dissed Newtonian reflectors in the past boils down to poorly collimated ‘scopes which lead to less than inspiring images. The amateur who pays close attention to accurate collimation will however discover the solid virtues of these marvellous telescopes and will soon forget the bad experiences of the past.

    I’ve noticed a trend over the last few decades, where more and more amateurs have become lazy and impatient. They want instant gratification. This is one of the main reasons why many have turned to hassle-free instruments such as small refractors and Maksutov Cassegrains. It’s an entirely understandable trend, but in other ways it is lamentable. One of the downsides of this trend is that amateurs have become less concerned with learning practical optics, deferring instead to higher tech ways of obtaining optimal results in the field. One such technology is the laser collimator; a very useful device that has made accurate collimation far less of a chore than it was just a few decades ago. But while many have defaulted to using such tools as labour-saving devices, they have, at best, become less familiar, or at worst, all but forgotten the traditional tools used in the alignment of  telescope optics; tools such as the collimation cap and the Cheshire eyepiece, and in so doing have less and less understanding of how their telescopes actually work.

    The desire for super-accurate collimation has undoutedly been fuelled by the advent of faster optical systems; often supporting sub-f/5 primaries. Once, the traditional Newtonian was almost invariably made with higher f ratios:- F/7 to f/10 and beyond, and requiring very little in the way of maintenance. This is abundantly evidenced by the scant attention astronomy authors of the past gave to such pursuits. In contrast, modern Newtonians are usually f/6 or faster, necessitating much greater attention to accurate optical collimation if excellent results are to be consistently attained during field use.

    In my chosen passtime of double star observing, I have acknowledged the need for accurate collimation. Such work often requires very high magnifications; up to and in excess of 50x per inch of aperture, to prize apart close double stars, some of which are below 1 arc second in angular separation. At such high powers, sub-standard collimation results in distorted images of stellar Airy disks, and that’s something that I’m not willing to put up with. In this capacity, I have tested a number of collimaton techniques using a few different laser collimating devices but have also spent quite a lot of time comparing such methods to more traditional techniques involviing the tried and trusted collimation cap and Cheshire eyepiece.

    To begin with, it is important to stress that the methods covered in this blog can be achieved easily with a little practice, and I will gladly defer to recognised authorities in the art of Newtonian collimation, such as the late Nils Olif Carlin and Gary Seronik, who have done much to dispel the potentially stressful aspects of telescope collimation. Nothing I will reveal here goes beyond or challenges anything they have already said. My goal is to reassure amateurs that one can happily live without lasers, especially if your Netwonians are of the f/5 or f/6 variety.

    Many of the entry-level laser collimators often manifest some issues; partcularly if they are not collimated prior to use. Thankfully, the inexpensive SkyWatcher Next Generation that I have used for a few years did come reasonably well collimated, but others have not been so fortunate. One easy way to see if your laser collimator needs collimating is to place it in the focuser of the telescope and rotate it, examining the behaviour of the beam on the primary. If the beam does not stay in place, but traces out a large annulus, you will have issues and will need to properly collimate the laser. This is not particularly difficult to do and many resources are available on line to help you grapple with this problem. See here and here, for examples.

    Of course, you can pay extra for better made laser collimators that are precisely collimated at the factory. Units that have received very good feedback from customers include systems manufactured by Hotech, AstroSystems and Howie Glatter. Some of these are quite expensive in relative terms but many amateurs are willing to shell out for them because they deliver consistently good results. My own journey took me in a different direction though. Instead of investing in a top-class laser collimator, I re-discovered the virtues of traditional techniques involving the collimation cap and Cheshire eyepiece.

    My personal motivation to return to traditional, low-tech tools was stoked more from a desire to understand Newtonian telescopes more than anything else. Any ole eejit can use a laser collimator but it deprives you of attaining a deep understanding of how Newtonians operate. In addition, I have frequently found myself dismantling whole ‘scopes in order to get at the mirrors to give them a good clean and this meant I had to learn how to put them back together from scratch. The simpe collimation cap has been found to be an indispensable tool in this regard, allowing one to rapidly centre the secondary mirror in the shadow of the primary.

    Singing the virtues of simple tools, such as the tried and trsuted collimation cap.

     

    Using just this tool, I’ve been able to set up all my Newtonians rapidly to achieve good results from the get go, at both low amd medium powers more or less routinely.

    For the highest power applications  more accuracy is required and I have personally found that a quality Cheshire eyepiece to be more than sufficient to accurately align the optics in just a few minutes. Not all Cheshires are created equal though; some are less accurate than others. For my own use, I have settled on a beautifully machined product marketed by First Light Optics here in the UK ( be sure to check out the reviews while you’re at it). For the modest cost of £37, I have acquired a precision tool to take the hassle out of fine adjustment. The unit features a long sight tube with precisely fitted cross hairs that are accurately aligned with the peep hole. It needs no batteries and comes with no instructions but with a little practice, it works brilliantly!

    The beautifully machined and adonised Cheshire eyepiece by First Light Optics, UK.

    A nicely finished peep hole.

    The precisely positioned cross hairs on the under side of the Cheshire.

     

    Because all of my Newtonians are of the closed-tube variety, they are robust enough to only require very slight tweaks to the collimation. I would estimate that 80 per cent of the time, it is only the primary mirror that requires adjusting in field use. I have found this overview by AstroBaby to be very useful in regard to using the Cheshire and would recommend it to others.

    The Cheshire eyepiece is a joy to use when collimating my 130mm f/5. Because the tube is short, I can access both the primary and secondary Bob’s Knobs screws to whip the whole system into alignment faster than with my laser. With my longer instruments; partcularly my 8″ f/6 and 12″ f/5, collimation using the Cheshire is decidely more challenging as they both have longer tubes. That said, by familiarising one’s self with the directions of motion executed with the three knobs on the primary, one can very quickly achieve precise collimation. One useful tip is to number the knobs individually so that you can dispense with the guesswork of which knob to reach for to get the requisite adjustment. At dusk, with the telescopes sitting pretty in their lazy suzan cradles, and with the Chesire eyepiece in place in the focuser, I swing the instrument back and forth to alternately view the position of the primary in the eyepiece and the knob(s) I need to turn. Doing this, I get perfect results in just a few minutes; a little longer than can be achieved with a laser, admittedly, but not long enough to render the process exhausting or boring. It’s time well spent.

    Know thy Knobs: by spending some time getting to know which directions each of the collimation knobs move the primary mirror, it makes collimation with a Cheshire eyepiece hassle free.

    The proof the pudding, of course, is in the eating, and in this capacity, I have found the Cheshire to achieve very accurate results each time, every time. Indeed, it has made my laser collimator blush on more than a few occasions, where high power star tests and images of close double stars reveal that the laser was out a little, requiring a collimation tweak under the stars. Indeed, the Chesire is so accurate that it has become my reference method to assess the efficacy of all the laser collimators I’ve had the pleasure of testing.

    While I fully acknowledge the utility of good laser collimators, I get much more of a kick out of seeing, with my own eyes, how all the optical components of the Newtonian fall into place using the Cheshire. Furthermore, the fact that it requires no batteries (and so no issues with the unit failing in the field for lack of power, as has happened to me on more than a few occasions), deeply appeals to my longing for low-tech simplicity in all things astronomical. The fact that the aforementioned amateurs also recommend the Cheshire as an accurate tool for collimating a Newtonian makes it all the more appealing.

    Having said all this, the utility of a Cheshire eyepiece lessens as the f ratio of your telescope gets smaller, so much so that for f/4 ‘scopes ar faster, the laser technique will, almost certainly, yield more accurate results. But that’s OK. We are blessed in this day and age with many good tools that can make Newtonian optics shine!

     

    Note added in proof: August 14 2018

    A really good laser collimator: the Hotech SCA, which can be used with both 1.25″ and 2″ focusers and comes in a very attractive little box with straightforward instructions on how to use it. You will still need the collimation cap to centre the secondary though.

     

    If you do decide that you don’t like using a good Chesire eyepiece for precise collimation of your Newtonian reflectors, then I would highly recommend the Hotech SCA laser collimator. It’s an ingenious device (but costs significantly more than a regular laser collimator), but in this case you really do get what you pay for. I have tested the device on all three of my Newtonians and it gives accurate and reproducible results that agree perfectly with the Chesire. It yields perfect star tests at appropriately high powers (I’d recommend a magnification roughly equal to the diameter of your mirror in millimetres for such field tests) both in focus and defocused. I’d go for it if you can afford it. You will still need the collimation cap to centre the secondary before use however. See here and here for more details.

    Neil English is author of Choosing and Using a Dobsonian Telescope.

     

     

    De Fideli.

    Pulcherrima!

    Beauty and the beast: my 130mm f/5 Newtonian versus a 90mm f/5.5 ED refractor

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Date: Wednesday March 28 2018

    Time: 22:00UT

    Temperature: −2C

    Seeing: III, bright gibbous Moon, small amounts of cloud cover in an otherwise clear sky.

    It is often claimed that refractors give more aesthetically pleasing images of celestial objects than reflectors. But how true is this statement? Last night, I learned yet another instructive lesson that shatters this myth once and for all.

    Earlier in the evening, I fielded my 8″ f/6 Newtonian against a very good 90mm f/5.5 ED apochromat. The target was Theta Aurigae, then sinking into the western sky and so past its best position for observing. Seeing was only average. Both telescopes had been fielded about 90 minutes earlier with the optics capped, so both were completely acclimated. I charged the apochromat with a 2.4mm Vixen HR eyepiece yielding 208x. The 8 inch Newtonian was charged with a 6mm Baader orthoscopic ocular delivering 200x.

    Examining the system in the 8 inch reflector showed the primary star as a slightly swollen Airy disk but the faint companion was clearly visible. In contrast, the view through the 90mm refractor showed a less disturbed primary but the secondary(for the most part) couldn’t be seen!

    Question: How can an image be deemed more aesthetically pleasing when a prime target (the secondary) in that said image can plainly be seen in one instrument and not in the other?

    Date: Thursday March 29 2018

    Time: 00:05 UT

    Temperture:−3C

    Seeing; II/III, slight improvement from earlier, otherwise very similar.

    Later the same night, I fielded my 130mm F/5 Newtonian along side the 90mm refractor and  turned my attention to a spring favourite; Epsilon Bootis, now rising higher in the eastern sky.

    This time, I charged the refractor with a 2.0mm Vixen HR eyepiece yielding 250x. The Newtonian was fitted with a Parks Gold 7.5mm eyepiece coupled to a Meade 3x Barlow lens giving a power of 260x.  Examining the system, I was quite shocked by the difference between the images; the refractor did show a dull, greenish companion but it was entangled in the diffraction gunk from the orange primary. What’s more, the entire system was surrounded by chromatic fog owing to the imperfect colour correction of the refractor (an FPL 51 doublet). In contrast, the 130mm f/5 Newtonian image was far superior in every way; the Airy disks were smaller, tighter and more cleanly separated, and with zero chromatic fog to be seen. The Newtonian image remained just as stable as in the refractor image throughout the observation! The components also displayed their pure colours (as only a reflector can yield); the primary orange and the secondary, blue. In a phrase, the differences between the images was like night and day!

    Conclusions: The 130mm Newtonian provided a much more aesthetically pleasing image than the refractor, which was compromised by its smaller aperture and less than perfect colour correction. As a small portable telescope, the Newtonian is far more powerful and is capable of delivering images that are simply in a different league to the refractor.

    ED 90 Refractor: Proxime accessit.

    130mm f/5 Newtonian(Plotina): Victrix/Pulcherrima!

     

    Postscriptum: As always, I would encourage others to test these claims. Truth matters.

     

     

    Neil English is author of Grab ‘n’ Go Astronomy.

     

    De Fideli.