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

Portable power. The author’s 130mm f/5 travel Newtonian telescope.

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

     

    ***

    Recently picked up a used (mint condition) Skywatcher 130mm f/5 PDS reflector OTA (Thanks Tyson). This scope is presently discontinued.

    Cosmetics: beautiful black with silver speckles. 9/10

    Inclusions: 8/10 (based on the nice focuser)

    excellent dual rate 2” Crayford focuser with 1.25” adapter

    Vixen style finder mounting shoe

    thin 4 vein spider/ adjustable 2° mirror holder

    oversized 2° mirror (this scope is designed for photography)

    Enhanced 95% coatings on 1° and 2° mirrors

    6×30 straight through finder (mine was upgraded to an Orion 8×40 straight through version)

    2” 28mm LET eyepiece (not included in my used purchase)

    Nice dual hinged mounting rings and Vixen style mounting 7” bar

    Peeves:

    Crayford focuser is non-compression ring

    Crayford focuser has a thread 2” adapter ring using a single metal set screw

    (I removed the ring and drilled/tapped 3 holes a 120° and replaced the metal set screw with 3 nylon ones). I actually prefer this type with nylon screws to a compression ring version.

    the 2”-1.25” eyepiece adapter is also thread-on. You need to unthread the 2” eyepiece adapter ring and the thread the 2”-1.25” one on. Stupid design, just include a regular 2”-1.25” – compression ring or set screw.

    You need a 2” extension tube to reach focus with either 2” or 1.25”, It is not included.

    The included 28mm 2” LET eyepiece is junk (I have tried one). Just include a 1.25” cheapo 25mm Plossl eyepiece.

    I hate straight through finder scopes, replaced mine with an Orion 6×30 RACI version (very light weight but a larger 50mm RACI maybe a better option.

    Optics: 10/10

    easily collimation (it arrived in perfect collimation), 1° mirror is center spotted

    3 spring loaded adjustment knobs with setscrew locks

    95% enhanced 1°/2° mirrors – brighter view than my larger 140mm f/3.64 Comet Catcher

    optical testing – easily 1/8 wave or better

    Observing: I am mainly a Deepsky observer – this a definite RFT

    Fantastic scope, easily punches above a 5” reflector.

    easily takes 160X + (TV 4mm DeLite) , 40x/in- you run out of light grasp

    From low power wide field (3° +) to high power, does it all.

    with high quality eyepieces, I did not need an OCS (Paracorr)

    Some Deep Sky highlights: NELM 5.7 Transparency/Seeing Both 3/5 :

    the Double Cluster – superb, one of my best views ever (mono view)

    NGC 7789 in Cassiopeia (Caroline’s Haystack) – very easy (large smudge with a sprinkling of brighter stars)

    M31 group – all 3 members are easy with direct vision – M31 over 2.25°, M110 diffuse oval

    M33 – large 3/4° smudge

    M81/82 – beautiful contrast in galaxy types

    M51 – Both parts easily visible

    M13 – easily resolved – perfect image (pin **** stars) at 160x

    M27 – amazing with and without filters

    NGC 7000 – fantastic North American shape with NPB filter

    Veil Complex – see my posting in Observing section (Veil in small scopes)

    Future Upgrades:

    I have added a 8” dew-shield

    I will flock the OTA (either the entire tube or opposite the focuser)

    Summary:

    An excellent low priced RFT. Amazing Optics.

    The few minor “peeves” are easily corrected.

    Highly Recommended !!

    vkhastro1(Ontario, Canada), from an online thread entitled, Skywatcher 130f/5PDS-mini review

    Congrats on your new scope! 

    My experience mirrors yours. It is kind of an “unknown” scope, but for my own application it is working better than the Comet Catcher in spite of being smaller and “slower.”

    This scope is kind on the stealth list because when I say I have a 130mm f/5, everyone thinks it is a typical 130mm with small illuminated field and 1.25″ focuser and most do not seem to be aware of the 130 PDS.

    vkhastro1, on 30 Aug 2019 – 5:19 PM, said:

     

    95% enhanced 1°/2° mirrors – brighter view than my larger 140mm f/3.64 Comet Catcher

    optical testing – easily 1/8 wave or better

     

    These are factors that I used in my decision to move from the Comet Catcher to the 130 PDS.  Now my situation was that I am using image intensified eyepieces and I came to feel that the Comet Catcher was punching well below the f/3.6 spec.

    Some of this I thought was maybe due to the need to re-coat the mirrors, but after a painful testing sequence, I determined that the mirrors were OK, but that they were just not transmitting a lot at longer wavelengths (which is important for NV use) and this combined with the losses of the secondary shading and the corrector (which is where perhaps 10% of the loss in near infra red is coming from) meant that the scope simply was not as bright as I thought is should be. I actually think that the entire system transmission (including secondary shading) of the Comet Catcher really does cause it to loose a lot of brightness. I came to feel that the CC was simply much dimmer than it should be for a 140mm f/3.6 scope.

    The other issue I had with the Comet Catcher was the sled focuser and the awkward nature of trying to get it to work with a filter wheel.  The 130 PDS though, with its 2″ focuser with plenty of travel made it easy to use a filter wheel.

    One important point though is that while it is an “Imaging” scope, I don’t think it will fully illuminate an APS-C size sensor.  My NV monocular has an 18mm image circle, and I can see that there is a little illumination falloff at the edge.  Not bad, but it does not appear to have a fully illuminated circle bigger than maybe 12mm. Probably good for an APS-C with some cropping maybe or a 4/3.

    Anyway, as much as I loved the light weight and simplicity of the Comet Catcher, I came to feel that it was much dimmer than the numbers suggested and moved to the 130 PDS and like you, I really feel that it is brighter than the Comet Catcher was. 

    Nice scope.   Not many around as far as I can tell though.  

    130PDS R.jpg

    (Also, the image scale was a plus.  An added bonus was that I had enough focuser travel to use the Barlow lens mounted in one of my filter wheel positions.  This Barlow gives me the ability to bump up the power by about 1.5x just by turning the filter wheel and refocusing.  That is a nice benefit.)

    Good review of what appears to be a relatively unknowns scope.  Hope you are enjoying it!

    Eddgie, from an online thread entitled, Skywatcher 130f/5PDS-mini review

    Very informative comments. I picked up one of these a few weeks ago and use it on a Skywatcher Star Discovery Go To mount that I already had. Quick to set up and cool down, great optics and works really well with my Vixen LVW eyepieces. Nothing to dislike at all.

    brisdob(Brisbane, Australia), from an online thread entitled, Skywatcher 130f/5PDS-mini review

    We are looking into this model and it’s larger models currently.

    Skyward Eyes( Skywatcher USA Vendor), from an online thread entitled, Skywatcher 130f/5PDS-mini review

    For a number of years I had a SpaceProbe 130 ST fitted with a 2 inch Focuser. I normally used it with a Paracorr.. A Paracorr would address the need for an extension tube.

    I have said this before.. a good 130 mm F/5 Newtonian is the closest thing an affordable 4 inch apo Refractor that exists… The 130ST was quite good on planets and doubles as long as it had an hour or so to cool.

    I remember one dark night.. I swapped out my TeleVue NP-101 for the 130 mm F/5  with the Paracorr and 31 mm Nagler..it was scary how good it was.. 

    4920795-SpaceProbe 130ST Starpad.jpg

    Jon Isaac(San Diego, California, USA), from an online thread entitled, Skywatcher 130f/5PDS-mini review

    Ya don’t say; I got me one of them there ‘scopes….ken. I’ve no’ got the 2″ focuser mind, but I dinnae really need it. My bestest grab ‘n’ go ‘scope ever. Eye.

    Mr. Hardglass

    I’m a massive fan of 130 f5’s, even on the ota’s that are limited to 1.25″ ep’s. Very easy to mount scopes, and, when they have decent optics, great all around performers.

    Kerry R.( Mid-west Coast, Michigan, USA), from an online thread entitled, Skywatcher 130f/5PDS-mini review

    I have been using this telescope for around 6 months now on my evolution mount as an eaa platform. For the cost, it makes an excellent alternative to my 925 for wider field views and it can reach zenith with no problems.

    Barkingsteve, from an online thread entitled, Skywatcher 130f/5PDS-mini review

     

    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.

     

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.