Exploring the Skies Over Rural Pembrokeshire.

Slova Beach, Pembrokeshire, Wales.

De omnibus dubitandum

 

Preamble

Results from Northwest, Central and Southwest Scotland

Results from Central Scotland

Results from Northwest England

Results from the Republic of Ireland

5″ f/12 refractor versus 130mm F/5 Newtonian Shootout

Investigating the Jet Stream

Llanrhian-Berea

Wales is a country of outstanding natural beauty, with deep valleys, high mountains and rolling hills. Its rugged coastline boasts many pristine(blue flag) beaches and pretty little towns that are a joy to visit and explore. Like Scotland, frequent weather systems move in from the Irish Sea, purging the air of particulates that create excellent transparency for remote daytime viewing and astronomical adventures when the Sun sinks beneath the horizon.

Newgale, Pembrokeshire.

We decided on Wales because my brother and his young family had moved there last year from northeast Scotland, where he settled in a large country house dating from the mid-19th century, situated on the outskirts of the small village of Letterston, some ten miles north of Haverfordwest and 6 miles inland from Fishguard, where you can catch a ferry across the open sea to Ireland. And besides, we’d never vacationed in Wales before, so we had no good excuse but to make that 400 mile journey south from our home in rural, central Scotland.

St. David’s Cathedral, a place of worship since the 6th century AD. From the City of St. David’s, Pembrokeshire, southwest Wales.

The house is situated on five acres of choice land, secluded on all sides by woody glades, and even sports a large fish pond fed by a couple of fresh streams meandering through the estate. The homestead is surrounded by beautifully tended lawns and flower gardens that thrive because of frequent rain showers which keep them lush and well watered. It is a very peaceful place, with little in the way of light pollution, save for the glow from Haverfordwest, which illumines the southern horizon. Higher up though, the night sky is truly glorious, where the summer Milky Way winds its way from Perseus in the northeast to Sagittarius in the south.

Lower Summerhill.

We arrived late on Monday July 29, after spending much of the day travelling. I was glad that night was rainy and overcast, as I was exhausted from the journey and in no mood to pull out a telescope. Besides, we were all eager to catch up with my brother and sister-in-law, and my boys stayed up well beyond their bed times nattering to their first cousins. The next night was overcast but remained dry.

But the next three evenings were clear.

The sojourner: Plotina, the author’s nifty 130mm f/5 Newtonian reflector. The pond lies in the background.

I brought along my portable 130mm f/5 reflecting telescope, which had proven to be spectacularly successful in ‘scouting out’ good sights to view the heavens from. It had already travelled a few thousand miles all around Britan and Ireland, where I had tested the skies on a number of choice double stars to establish something of the seeing conditions across the British Isles, some of which are highlighted in the links provided above.

As I have communicated many times in the past, this little Newtonian had greatly exceeded my expectations. Sporting a high-quality 5.1″ primary mirror and an upgraded secondary, when cooled and collimated, had shown me arguably some of the best views I have ever experienced with any grab ‘n’ ‘scope. With its state-of-the-art reflective coatings and modest( 26.9 per cent) central obstruction, it has consistently delivered the readies in all weather conditions, from warm, muggy summer nights to freezing winter evenings. It has proven itself to be a first rate double star ‘scope, which, under the right conditions, renders beautiful, colour-pure images of the Creation. Three eyepieces attended the instrument in its foam-lined aluminium case; a 25mm Celestron X-Cel LX, delivering a power of 26x in a well corrected 2.3 degree true field. This is my favourite wide-field scanning ocular used with the 130mm, great for observing star clusters and large deep sky objects. For medium power work, I brought along my Parks Gold 7.5mm, a delightfully simple eyepiece with wonderful contrast. Coupled to a 3x Barlow it delivers a power of 260x, which is a good working magnification to use on a variety of closer doubles. For higher power work, I also took along my Meade 5.5mm Ultra Wide Angle(UWA), delivering a power of 118x in a true field of ~ 0.7 angular degrees, useful for close up observations of smaller deep sky objects. And when coupled to the 3x Barlow yields a power of 354x, great for ferreting out the most difficult pairs. Still, it must be mentioned that this instrument can handle 100x per inch of aperture, if push comes to shove.

Beach Gear

The only other instrument I took along with me was my Pentax 9 x 28mm DCF LV roof prism binocular. I figured I would get a lot of use out of this, as we planned to visit many places where they would come in handy. I had intended to bring by trusty 8 x 42 but these had to be sent away for repair/replacement. And although the small Pentax binocular was the perfect accompaniment by day, I regretted not bringing my 10 x 50 roofs. Indeed, I really ought to have brought along both instruments with me.

Conditions at the site:

Dusk, looking westward.

Being located so close to the coast, the evenings are often breezy from onshore winds, but by dusk, they usually abate, creating very tranquil conditions. What I also noticed was how quickly and heavy the dew is at this site; significantly more aggressive than at home. Indeed, my observing sessions were limited by dew, as the telescope has no fans or dew heaters to keep it at bay. And I had forgotten to take along my flexi dew shield, so unfortunately, it was always a race against time.

I encountered no midge flies while making observations; a God send! They’d eat you alive in Scotland!! What you can get here is horse flies though. Thankfully they left me alone throughout the vigils.

Session 1: July 31 2019

The first object to emerge from the dusk was mighty Jupiter, appearing ever more bright as the twilight gave way to proper darkness and a few degrees higher in the sky than it appears up in Scotland.. Beginning around 20:55UT, I charged the telescope with the 5.5mm Meade UWA yielding 118x, and turning it on the giant planet, I was greeted with a very nice image. All four Galilean satellites were visible, a couple to the east of the planet and a couple to its west. The planet itself was revealing some very fine details, several tan-coloured bands and bright zones. The north equatorial belt was very prominent but its southern counterpart showing visible disjointing. 118x was producing a nice image scale, plenty high enough to see fine detail but not so enlarged as to wash out the same details. It was nice to greet an old friend like this. Its lower altitude back home had often blurred these finer details so much that I had all but abandoned the planet during this current apparition, holding out for better conditions when the planet gains altitude in a few years from now.

Studying the giant planet for a few minutes also suggested to me that the seeing was going to be good for double star testing, and lo, it most certainly was!

21:03 UT: Epsilon Lyrae 1& 2; beautifully resolved into four components at 260x

21:06 UT: Epsilon Bootis; text book perfect rendition of this gorgeous colour-contrast double. Beautifully rendered at 260x

21:10UT: Delta Cygni; textbook perfect split of this system with its bright primary and faint secondary. Easy picking at 260x

21:15 UT: Finder scope had already dewed up, so I detached it from the ‘scope, capped up the main telescope and brought the finder indoors to let the condensation evaporate.

21:57 UT: Resumed observations of double stars, starting with Pi Aquilae, which was very easily split at 354x

21:29UT Lambda Cygni: a sub-arc second pair. Airy disks touching at 354x but not cleanly disjointed.

21:31UT: Mu Cygni, easy split at 260x

21:50UT I turned back to Jupiter and immediately noticed the Great Red Spot (GRS) near the eastern limb. Even finer planetary details were coming through now in the darkened sky. I decided to cap up the optics on the main ‘scope once again to ward off dew, removed the finder scope and brought it indoors. This would be a good opportunity to make a measurement of the current Central Meridian (CM) II longitude of the GRS.

I re-emerged from indoors at 22:20 UT, uncovered the 130mm’s optics and re-mounted the finderscope. Aiming once again at Jove, the GRS had moved considerably further west but was not yet at the central meridian. Over the next twenty minutes I watched carefully using the Meade 5.5mm UWA(118x) throughout and was finally satisfied that the GRS was on the CM II meridian at 22:41UT.

I had to wait until I returned home to turn this timing into a CM II longitude for the GRS. Downloading the latest edition of WinJupos freeware, I entered the longitude, latitude and time I estimated the spot was crossing the meridian( 22:41 UT). The software computed a value of 312.4 degrees:

WinJupos computation of the GRS transit across central meridian.

I then searched to find a reliable source that quoted the most up-to-date CM II longitude determination of the GRS and found this recent(as of June 5 2019) posting on the Sky & Telescope website. See here for interest. The source quoted a value of 308 degrees!

That’s very close to the measurement I made!

Cool or what?

No’ bad,………ken.

Yessiree, the 130mm is a fine planetary telescope, allowing me to make some pretty challenging measurements more or less routinely.

 

Vigil ended at 22:50UT owing to build up of dew on the telescope’s secondary mirror.

 

A Curious Aside: Oculus Historiae

 

 

To be continued……………………….

 

De Fideli.

Spectrum

Take a Closer Look.

 

 

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

The Dark Side of Transgender Medicine

 

How the Media Manipulates Truth

 

Cogito ergo sum

 

The Secular Case Against Homosexuality

 

Our Fragile Home

 

The Anti-Social Network

 

A Form of Child Abuse

 

Cool stuff you never hear in Church

 

The Rise of Homeschooling

 

James Clerk Maxwell: a Great Life Lived

 

Reasonable Faith: An Interview with Professor Alvin Plantinga

 

Doubting Dodgy Science

 

Evaluating World Views

 

Depraved Minds

 

The Beauty of the Creation

 

The Preciousness of Free Speech

 

Walking your Way to Good Health

 

Did the Eye Really Evolve?

 

Unholy Alliance: when Dodgy Science Merges with Theology

 

RTB Classic: The Truth about UFOs

 

The Rise of Neo-Paganism

 

From Spiritual Shipwreck to Salvation

 

The Rise in Euthanasia Killings

 

The Greatest Story Ever Told

 

Holocaust Survivor

 

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

 

The Death of Naturalism

 

Anything Goes

 

From Gaypo to Paedo

 

When Scientists Lose the Plot

 

The Sixth Mass Extinction Event in Our Midst

 

‘Depth Charging’ the Values of the Ancient World

 

The Truth about the Fossil Record

 

AI

 

The Language Instinct

 

Not the Same God

 

Greening the Deserts

 

Moving the Herds

 

Evolutionary Atheist gets his Facts Wrong…..Again

 

Distinguished MIT Nuclear Physicist Refutes Scientism

 

Pursuing Truth

 

The Dangers of Yoga

 

Pseudoastronomy

 

 Humanist Guddle

 

Get thee right up thyself! : The New Transhumanist Religion

 

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

 

A Closer Look at the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

 

Winds of Change: Prestigious Science Journal Concedes Design

 

A Distinguished Chemist Speaks the Truth

 

The Scourge of Pornography

 

Turmeric: Wonder Root.

 

Eye

 

Bart Ehrman Debunked

 

No’ in ma Hoose, ken!

 

An Evil Generation Seeks After a Sign

 

Magnetic Pole Shift

 

Decimation of Global Insect Populations

 

The Spiritual Suicide of a Once Christian Nation

 

Mass Animal Deaths Worldwide

 

Not Going Anywhere

 

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

 

False gods of the New Age

 

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

 

Sports Personalities Speak Out Over Transgender Athletes

 

Magonus Sucatus Patricius

 

Celebrating a Killing

 

Human “Out of Africa” Theory Debunked

 

The Other Side of the Rainbow

 

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

 

Big Brother Watching

 

Follow the Evidence: The Problem of Orphan Genes

 

Follow the Evidence: The Genius of Birds

 

The Butterfly Enigma

 

Man’s Best Friend

 

Darwinian Evolution On Trial Among Biologists

 

New Fossil Finds Thwart Human Evolutionary Predictions

 

Global Persecution of Christians

 

 Ratio Christi

 

Questions About the Qur’an

 

Engaging with Islam

 

Calling Evil Good

 

Parousia

 

Secular Humanism as a New Religion

 

Tall Tales From Yale: Giving up Darwin.

 

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

 

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

 

There’s Heehaw Out There…ken.

 

The Fastest Growing Insanity the World has Ever Seen

 

Pharmakeia

 

Darwinism & Racism: Natural Bed Fellows

 

The Modern Root of Anti-Semitism

 

Jesus & Archaeology

 

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

 

The US Equality Act: A Plea for Caution

 

Reunited: Music & the Human Spirit

 

Gladys Wilson

 

Awesome: Straight Pride Marches now on the Way

 

1st Century Christian Insight: The Didache

 

The Clothes Maketh the Man

 

Why Some Books were Left Out of the Bible

 

Why the Human Mind is not Material

 

What God Thinks of Scientific Atheism

 

For the Love of the Creator

 

An Essential Component of a Modern Education

 

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

 

Earth: “Presidential Suite” of the Universe

 

How to Really Stand Out in a Crowd

 

Straight from a NASA Scientist: Jewel Planet

 

The Singularity

 

No Life Without Super Intelligence

 

Darwinism as a Cargo Cult

 

Body Plan Development Raises New Headaches for Evolutionists

 

Membrane Biochemistry Stymies Evolutionary Origin of Complex Cells

 

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

 

Science Speaks: Common Abortafacients Harmful to Both Mother & Child

 

Biblical Ignoramus Twists the Words of Christ

 

The Multiverse: Just Another Religion

 

Apologia Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Part VI

 

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

 

The Only Rainbow God Recognises

 

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

 

7 Reasons to Reject Replacement Theology

 

Psychiatric Diagnoses are ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ Study Shows

 

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

 

Universalism Debunked

 

The Prosperity Gospel Debunked

 

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

 

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

 

Playing the Numbers 32:23 Game

 

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

 

Meet the Gestapo

 

Exposed: Theologians Deceived by Darwinian Ideology

 

 

New Insights into the Shroud of Turin

 

What we Know and Do Not Know About the Human Genome

Test Driving the Swarovski EL Range 10 x 42 Binocular.

The Swarovski EL Range 8x 42 binocular.

For more than a generation Swarovski Optic has been supplying premium quality sports and nature optics to an international customer base. Beginning back in 1935 when Wilhelm Swarovski started manufacturing small 6 x 30 binoculars, his business expanded greatly during World War II and by 1949, Swarovski launched itself as a separate company, manufacturing very high quality binoculars, spotting ‘scopes and rifle sights at their large facility at Absam, Austria. Employing more than 800 employees, Swarovski has a turnover of in excess of 100 million Euro with 90 per cent of its revenue generated from exports.

Swarovski produce a very extensive range of premium quality binoculars for birders, hunters and nature enthusiasts, ranging from small pocket-sized instruments(8 x 25) right up to large 56mm aperture instruments for specialised, low light work.  Having recently re-kindled my interest in using binoculars, I have had the privilege of enjoying two Swarovskis, an older EL 8.5 x 42mm (owned by my coalman, Graham) and a first generation EL Range 10 x 42mm, owned by a neighbour of mine (Ian), both of whom are keen hunters. In this blog, I wish to discuss the latter instrument in some detail.

Introduced in 2011, the EL Range 10 x 42mm features top-notch optics and state-of-the art laser-based range-finding technology that enables the user to accurately estimate distance to any given distance between about 33 and 1500 yards with an error of just +/- 1 yard. In addition, its built-in inclinometer allows angular measurements up to 90 degrees, thereby covering every angle compensation you are likely to use (especially when hunting in mountainous regions). Powered by a CR2 lithium ion battery, up to 1000 measurements can be made before replacing it. The second generation of the EL Range series was introduced in 2015, which offers some improvements over the original, including faster estimation of distance.

Ian very kindly allowed me to borrow his first-generation EL Range 10 x 42 for a short spell. For my tests, I concentrated solely on the optical and mechanical performance of the instrument, which were conducted over the space of 24 hours between July 22 and 23 2019, which included indoor, bright daylight, dusk and night-time observations. For those of you who wish to learn more about its ranging capabilities, check out this link.

The Swarovski EL Range 10 x 42: optical and mechanical excellence.

Mechanical design: The EL Range 10 x 42 weighs in at about 32 ounces. This was surprising given the presence of two prominent arches placed on the underside of the instrument. These apparently increase the stability of the instrument when making hand-held distance estimates.

The underside of the EL Range 10 x 42 has raised arches to help stabilise the instrument while conducting distance measurements

The 10 x 42 Range has individually tunable eyepieces with the dioptre compensation is accessed by pushing up the ring at the base of each ocular. The twist up eyecups are a work of art, plain and simple. Beautifully made, they click up and down effortlessly and hold their positions even when considerable downward force is applied. They can also be unscrewed if they need to be replaced or to access the ocular lenses for cleaning.

The exceptionally well designed all-metal twist up eyecups are a joy to adjust with soft rubber  eye contacts to make viewing as comfortable as possible.

The focus wheel is also a joy to use. With very finely machined threads, focusing from nearby to far away objects is effortlessly achieved via its buttery smooth motions.

The beautifully designed large central focus wheel is buttery smooth with no stiction.

Like all other mid-sized binoculars by Swarovski, the instrument has an open bridge design which is very stable and easy to balance and the well-designed hinge allows for quick and easy adjustment for my optimum inter-pupillary distance. The optics are housed in magnesium barrels to reduce overall weight and are overlaid by a tough, protective rubber overcoat that is very easy to grip. The optics are hermetically sealed and nitrogen purged to prevent any internal fogging. The instrument is water resistant to depths of up to 13 feet.

Overall, I would rate the mechanics on this binocular to be of exceptionally high quality.

Optics: Just like its mechanical excellence, Swarovski spare no expense incorporating the very finest optics inside their binoculars, and by that I mean the highest quality optical glass(which includes extra-low dispersion components) and state-of-the-art anti-reflection coating technology. The prisms are of Bak-4 Schmidt-Pechan design, which require phase coating to optimise light transmission. Swarovski like to think of the entire optical system acting as one collective unit which they call “Swarovision.” The light transmission is 91%( a figure derived from their technical data).

The objective and ocular lenses immediately exposed to the air are also treated with a proprietary coating that repels water, oil and grease. They also will not fog up on cold days if one accidentally breathes on them.

The state-of-the-art anti-reflection coatings of Swarovski objectives. Note also the deeply recessed objectives which cuts down peripheral glare during field use.

After I had made adjustments to the dioptre settings for my own eyes, I excitedly began tests on the 10 x 42 during bright evening sunshine. Examining a range of targets including the top-most boughs of some nearby conifers, rooftops and the broad tree trunk of an old Horse Chestnut tree, I was most impressed at the crystal clear clarity of the images. Comparing these to my own Barr & Stroud Savannah 8 x 42 binocular, which gives a ‘warm’ tone, the Swarovski was more neutral toned in comparison and ever so slightly sharper to my eyes. But what most impressed me was that the image was also a little brighter than my 8 x 42! This became more apparent as the sun began to set and dusky twilight ensued.  If the Swarovski was transmitting 91 per cent of the light collected to the eye, the Savannah was probably transmitting something more like 85 per cent.

Comparing binocular views can be very enlightening. Top: the Barr & Stroud 8 x 42, bottom: the Swarovski EL Range 10 x 42 .

The field of view of the Swarovski is 6.4 degrees, the images being perfectly flat across the entire field thanks to specially designed field flatteners in the ocular lens assembly. This makes the field stop stand out that little bit more than in my 8 x 42 wide-angle Savannah (sporting an 8.2 degree true field). Examining the edge of a telephone pole some 30 yards in the distance revealed a sliver of chromatic aberration in the Savannah but I could discern none at all in the Swarovski.

Edge of field correction was also superior in the Swarovski. Where the Savannah clearly revealed some pin-cushion distortion at the extreme edge of the field, the Swarovski revealed little or none in comparison.

Going indoors for a while, waiting for the sky to get maximally dark, I conducted my iphone torch test to see how both instruments would compare in regards to their ability to suppress internal reflections. This is a severe test on any optic. I darken the room and turned my iphone torch on at maximum brightness. Then, viewing from a comfortable distance, I aimed both instruments at the light to see what was what. A while back, I had tested the Barr & Stroud Savannah 8 x 42 (and the 10 x 50 Sierra made by the same firm) and noted how well they suppressed glare and internal reflections. To my delight, I found both the Swarovsji and the Savannah to reveal broadly similar results; both units very aggressively blocked annoying internal reflections! Note that this test is far more severe than pointing the instruments at a bright Moon. Indeed, some instruments(including some top of the range models) that passed the Moon test faired considerably worse in this more discriminating test.

Star testing and an encounter with a waning Gibbous Moon:

At this time during the summer, the twilight which dominates during late May, June and the first half of July begins to give way to significantly darker skies. So around local midnight, I ventured out again to test the binoculars on some starfields poking through some cloud banks that were beginning to break up as the night progressed. lying on my recliner, I aimed the binoculars on some star fields in Lyra and Cygnus. The view through both the Swarovski and the Savannah was excellent, with the former offering a flatter field from edge to edge. Contrast was excellent in the Swarovski as well, and the stars presented as tiny, sharp pinpoints. It also reached that little bit deeper than the Savannah as one would expect in comparing an 8x optic to a 10x optic of the same aperture. The Savannah, although possessing a wider field of view, also showed some distortion of the stellar images at the edge of the field.

At around 00:45 UT, a bright waning gibbous Moon was rising in the eastern sky and had gained enough altitude to see it from my back garden. Both instruments presented very pleasing views, but with the subtle differences in colour tone and image scale. The Savannah produced a warmer tone with a very slight yellowish tinge in comparison to the Swarovski, which was correspondingly cooler and a more neutral white appearance. The low altitude brought out the usual atmospheric refraction in both instruments. In the Savannah, a very slim sliver of blue was observed around the edges of the Moon, while in the Swarovski the same sliver was more yellow than blue. The greater magnification of the Swarovski was immediately apparent however, where it presented significantly more in the way of crater details than the lower power Savannah.

Before packing up, I enjoyed watching the fast moving clouds passing near and over the lunar image in both instruments, creating a wonderful dispaly of natural colour. It was good to get out and do some observing in a reasonably dark sky once again.

Now, I suppose you are wondering whether I would recommend the Swarovski to a prospective buyer, especially since I do not, in general, have a tendency to use or promote premium equipment. I’m going to say ” yes” with this one, for reasons I would like to outline here.

It boils down to how much you intend to use the instrument. For astronomical telescopes, most folk get to set up and use their gear maybe once or twice a week(if you’re especially keen)  for a few hours at the most, though I suspect that this is probably the exception rather than the rule. If you are a keen glasser however, you will likely use binoculars far more frequently and for long periods of time. The Swarovski is a beautifully made, precision instrument that will endure knocks, extremes of weather and much more besides. It comes with a very nice quality case and  carrying strap and the company stands behind many innovative accessories that will only add to your pleasurable experiences.  It will often be your only companion in the great outdoors. Without a doubt, a premium binocular like this will hardlly ever fail, so you are investing in a durable, high- quality instrument that will grow as your interests grow and diversify.

I can say all of this with absolute confidence. Why? Because within a couple of days of testing both instruments disaster struck with my Savannah.

If you recall, I bought the Savannah second hand from an ebay seller. It worked flawlessly even with continued use every day, for many months. I was intending to bring it along with me to southwest Wales for a family vacation, when the dioptre ring developed a fault. Although it still worked quite well, I found I had to turn it to the extreme end of its travel before getting a well focused binocular image! The failure upset me, but thank goodness, the story had a silver lining.

An Act of Generosity

I contacted Optical Vision Limited(OVL), the company that now owns Barr & Stroud, as well as other small players in the mid-priced binocular market. I explained the problem to them, at which point they asked if I could provide proof of purchase. I then explained to them that I actually bought it used and that I just assumed that the 10-year warranty was transferable to new owners. Unfortunately, OVL informed me that the warranty was not transferable. However, they were aware of my long-standing work for the astronomical community and kindly offered to honour the warranty. Well, the relief on my face was all too clear to everyone and I accepted their gracious offer. I dispatched the instrument by courier to their depot in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, just prior to setting out on our 400 mile journey to Pembrokeshire.

While we were in Wales, OVL contacted me to say that they would be sending me a new binocular to replace the old one and asked if I would choose a day for the courier to deliver the instrument. I arranged to have it delivered the day after our return home.

Sure enough, the new Savannah 8 x 42 arrived in perfect nick. Excitedly, I opened the box to find the brand-new instrument carefully packed inside. I had my new Savannah and it worked perfectly!

After a year of considerable grief in my professional career, something good finally happened!

 

Contentment.

Thank you so very much OVL!

What the experience taught me

I once purchased a pair of perfectly serviceable 10 x 50 binoculars for $30 at an electronics retailer. These binoculars showed that if you choose carefully, you can get good optics for relatively little money. So what do you get if you spend ten times as much? In terms of the actual view, not as much as you might expect. Yes, more expensive binoculars have better optics that will deliver more light to your eyes and sharper images, but the difference is not night and day. What the extra money does buy you is mechanical quality. Expensive binocuars can withstand the inevitable bumps  and knocks of everyday use without trouble, and having focusing mechanisms that are sure and precise.

Gary Seronik, Editor of Sky News and former Sky & Telescope columnist and author of over 200 articles under Binocular Highlights.

This quote from Seronik’s book, Binocular Highlights (2nd edition) is very true. In my case the Savannah binocular (mid-priced in the scheme of things) gives you about 90 per cent of the optical performance of the Swarovski. Yes, the latter is definitely the better instrument, but it is the mechanical design and not the optics where it especially excels. That said, I have become very fond of the Savannah, as it feels right in my hands, and punches well above its weight. I don’t know how the fault with the dioptre ring developed but what I can say is that I will be keeping a very close eye on it. And if any issues arise with it again, you’ll be the first to know!

Second time lucky: fingers crossed!

I am very grateful to Ian for allowing me to test the 10 x 42 EL Range. I now know why he spent so much money to acquire one!

 

Neil English’s new book, The ShortTube 80: A User’s Guide (267 pages), will soon be published by Springer Nature.

 

 

 

De Fideli.

A Commentary on Two Biblical Paraphrases: ‘The Living Bible’ & ‘The Message.’

Two popular Biblical Paraphrases; the ‘Living Bible’ & ‘The Message.’

Therefore, I, the Lord God of Israel, declare that although I promised that your branch of the tribe of Levi could always be my priests, it is ridiculous to think that what you are doing can continue. I will honor only those who honor me, and I will despise those who despise me.

1 Samuel 2:30 (TLB).

 

We live in exceptionally enlightening times. Advances in scientific knowledge are now toppling Darwinism as an ideology which underpins much of the world views of secular humanism and has become the dominant ‘religion’ of the west. Influential characters like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Steven Pinker and Jerry Coyne have often quipped that Darwin enabled them to be “intellectually fulfilled atheists.” Now that Darwinism is emerging as an elaborate fraud, or an intolerant secular religion, wouldn’t it be more accurate to describe their plight as ‘scientifically deluded bufoonery?’

But it cuts deeper still, much deeper. Darwinism has informed large swathes of human knowledge beyond the basic biological sciences, including the ‘soft’ sciences of psychology and sociology, which in turn have inspired a whole raft of ‘mind-body-spirit’ books written by gurus who have taken advantage of a scientifically naieve readership. And, let us not forget that the same “monkey religion” has formed the basis of a panoply of New Age ideas under the broad umbrella of “Cosmic or Psychic Evolution.” What is more, pantheism, which is the foundation of many eastern religions, has also found Darwinism to be a natural bed fellow, not to mention a raft of UFO religions and all the rest of it. Even the scientific quest for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence – itself a religion in many ways – has failed miserably because of the acceptance of Darwinism among its brethern. Worse still, many Christian denominations have been bullied into accepting Darwinian evolution as a ‘scientific fact,’ and in so doing has forced some Christian and Jewish theologians to formulate the theological mumbo jumbo that is ‘theistic evolution’, where the Creator is reduced to being a bumbling idiot, blissfully unaware and even unable to know what sort of lifeforms would eventually emerge to seek Him out!

But that is not what a plain reading of Scripture teaches.

I walked away from Catholicism because of these(and other) sonorous developments, and I’m also aware that many so-called ‘reformed’ Protestant denominations are similarly deceived. Faced with these embarrassing developments, it’s no small wonder that traditional Christianity, that is, Biblically based Christianity,  remains a vibrant, intellectually robust and growing world movement that is now attracting more and more people back into its fold, because of its solid historicity, common-sense wisdom, as well as its strong correlation with objective truth.

For these reasons, there are compelling motivations to introduce the Biblical allegory to a new generation of people who have ultimately found their ‘pick ‘n’ mix’ spirituality to be, well, ‘ a few sandwiches short of a picnic,’ as the old adage goes, empty or meaningless, who have never heard the true Biblical message, nor properly considered its truth claims. This includes a huge body of so-called ‘nominal Christians’, who apparently believe that morals evolve too.

Yep, yes siree.

They’ll happily attend Church on Sunday, vote for abortion on Monday, gay marriage on Tuesday and proudly wave an LGBTQ rainbow flag in your face on Wednesday. Claiming to act in the name of ‘tolerance, peace and love,’ they’ve turned Jesus into ‘Swampy,’ a tree-hugging hippy, which is idolatory, blissfully unaware that what they are actually doing is inviting His wrath.

That’s what the Bible plainly teaches. Have you not read that God’s morals are unchanging? And just like living things, do you not understand that the statutes of the Living God (one of His Biblical titles) have not evolved either?

For I am the Lord—I do not change.

Malachi 3:6 (TLB)

In a reaction to these worrying global trends, there has been a proliferation of new Bible versions that have popped into existence over the last few decades, which have actively moved away from the terse and often archaic language of yesteryear, and which have gone to great lengths to keep its themes relevant to a 21st century audience, but without twisting its doctrines.

In this blog, I would like to briefly discuss two such versions; The Living Bible and The Message, both of which were written by Godly men, driven by an over-arching belief that the Judeo-Christian world view is not only true but can transform and enrich human life more than any other holy book or life philosophy.

The Living Bible(TLB) was first published in 1971 by Kenneth N. Taylor(1917-2005) by Tyndale House Publishers. It is a paraphrase of the Bible, based predominantly on the text of the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV). In his own words, Taylor explained his motivations for making this paraphrase:

The children were one of the chief inspirations for producing the Living Bible. Our family devotions were tough going because of the difficulty we had understanding the King James Version, which we were then using, or the Revised Standard Version, which we used later. All too often I would ask questions to be sure the children understood, and they would shrug their shoulders—they didn’t know what the passage was talking about. So I would explain it. I would paraphrase it for them and give them the thought. It suddenly occurred to me one afternoon that I should write out the reading for that evening thought by thought, rather than doing it on the spot during our devotional time. So I did, and read the chapter to the family that evening with exciting results—they knew the answers to all the questions I asked!

Taylor was not a Biblical scholar though, and so did not understand Hebrew or Greek. That being said, he did apparently submit earlier drafts of this work to a team of Biblical scholars prior to its publication. The TLB enjoyed enormous success, especially among the evangelical community, endorsed as it was by Dr. Billy Graha(who distributed copies  to folk during his famous Crusades) and other great Bible teachers of the late 20th century. Indeed, in 1972-3, the TLB was the best-selling title in America! Soon a Catholic version was produced, with an imprimatur by the Pontiff, John Paul II. By the mid-1990s, it is estimated that some 40 million copies had been sold, translated into 100 languages throughout the world. Clearly, there was an appetite for God’s word written simply and effectively for an adoring readership. It also formed the basis of a proper thought-for-thought translation of the Bible, called the New Living Translation(NLT), which I reviewed here. I am reliably informed that the NLT is one of the most popular Bible translations available in the English language today.

I suspect my own copy of the TLB is much like many other people; a lovely green soft-padded, hardback cover adorned with a Celtic Cross:

The iconic cover of the hard-backed TLB with its emblematic Celtic Cross.

The large print edition first appeared in 1979 and my own version was one from the 16th printing of 2014:

The easy-to-read large print double column layout of the TLB.

The language is simple and easy to understand, so even a child can assimilate it. Consider the well-loved Psalm 19:

Psalm 19

19 The heavens are telling the glory of God; they are a marvelous display of his craftsmanship. Day and night they keep on telling about God. 3-4 Without a sound or word, silent in the skies, their message reaches out to all the world. The sun lives in the heavens where God placed it and moves out across the skies as radiant as a bridegroom[a] going to his wedding,* or as joyous as an athlete looking forward to a race! The sun crosses the heavens from end to end, and nothing can hide from its heat.

7-8 God’s laws are perfect. They protect us, make us wise, and give us joy and light. God’s laws are pure, eternal, just.[b] 10 They are more desirable than gold. They are sweeter than honey dripping from a honeycomb. 11 For they warn us away from harm and give success to those who obey them.

12 But how can I ever know what sins are lurking in my heart? Cleanse me from these hidden faults. 13 And keep me from deliberate wrongs; help me to stop doing them. Only then can I be free of guilt and innocent of some great crime.

14 May my spoken words and unspoken thoughts be pleasing even to you, O Lord my Rock and my Redeemer.

 

As you can see, the TLB comes with some footnotes and cross-references, just like a regular reference Bible.

The problem with paraphrases is that they can import the author’s ideas concerning what a tract of Scripture means, which may add or detract from the intended meaning of the original Biblical authors. And that includes gravitating towards particular theological positions. For example, Taylor appears to entertain a pre-millenial point of view, that is, the prophesised millenium of blessedness as outlined in the Book of Revelation will occur immediately after Christ returns to Earth. This is quite clear from certain passages in the TLB. Consider this tract from Isaiah:

In the last days Jerusalem and the Temple of the Lord will become the world’s greatest attraction,[a] and people from many lands will flow there to worship the Lord.

Isaiah 2:2 (TLB)

Comparing this to the NASB, a highly literal version of the Bible, we read:

Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the Lord
Will be established [a]as the chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the hills;
And all the nations will stream to it.

Isaiah 2:2 (NASB).

Notice how Taylor included “Jerusalem” and “Temple” although these do not appear in the original Hebrew.

This is all well and good if the reader is entertaining a pre-millenial position but it might prove problematic to those who do not hold, or develop, other views.

Another issue is that errors creep in which can be a source of confusion to the reader. Consider this passage from the TLB from Romans;

These things that were written in the Scriptures so long ago are to teach us patience and to encourage us so that we will look forward expectantly to the time when God will conquer sin and death.

Romans 15:4 (TLB)

The problem here is that Christ’s death and resurrection had already done away with the deadly effects of sin, pedicated upon faith.

In other places, Taylor uses wordings that would alarm quite a few readers. For example,

You illegitimate bastard,[a] you!” they shouted. “Are you trying to teach us?” And they threw him out.

John 9:34

Highly literal Bibles render the same text in a less extreme way:

They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they [a]cast him out.

John 9:34(NKJV)

Some will find these renderings offensive. They don’t bother me however, as in a real life situation, in the heat of the moment, as it were, an angry mob would certainly not phrase it in the way the NKJV does! I see this as a case of the author adding realism to the narrative rather than deliberately setting out to annoy the reader.

So, how does The Message fair? The brainchild of the American pastor, Eugene H. Peterson, his motivations for writing a version of the Bible in contemporary English language are best explained in the preface to the work:

While I was teaching a class on Galatians, I began to realize that the adults in my class weren’t feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language. I knew that the early readers of the New Testament were captured and engaged by these writings and I wanted my congregation to be impacted in the same way. I hoped to bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn’t read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become ‘old hat

As a qualified pastor, Peterson would have been reasonably familiar with the original Hebrew and Greek languages underpinning the Old and New testaments, respectively. Taking about a decade to compile, Peterson also subjected the work to the trained eyes of a small committee of Old and New Testament scholars, the names of whom are found in the introduction to the work.The Message first appeared in 2002 in its complete form.

Title page of ‘The Message.’

If the TLB is a loose paraphrase, then The Message is very loose in comparison. Consider this passage from Genesis 1:

1-2 First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don’t see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God’s Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss.

3-5 God spoke: “Light!”
        And light appeared.
    God saw that light was good
        and separated light from dark.
    God named the light Day,
        he named the dark Night.
    It was evening, it was morning—
    Day One.

6-8 God spoke: “Sky! In the middle of the waters;
        separate water from water!”
    God made sky.
    He separated the water under sky
        from the water above sky.
    And there it was:
        he named sky the Heavens;
    It was evening, it was morning—
    Day Two.

9-10 God spoke: “Separate!
        Water-beneath-Heaven, gather into one place;
    Land, appear!”
        And there it was.
    God named the land Earth.
        He named the pooled water Ocean.
    God saw that it was good.

11-13 God spoke: “Earth, green up! Grow all varieties
        of seed-bearing plants,
    Every sort of fruit-bearing tree.”
        And there it was.
    Earth produced green seed-bearing plants,
        all varieties,
    And fruit-bearing trees of all sorts.
        God saw that it was good.
    It was evening, it was morning—
    Day Three.

14-15 God spoke: “Lights! Come out!
Shine in Heaven’s sky!
Separate Day from Night.
Mark seasons and days and years,
Lights in Heaven’s sky to give light to Earth.”
And there it was.

                                                                                                       Genesis 1:1-15

Or consider Psalm 23:4 in The Message;

Even when the way goes through
Death Valley,
I’m not afraid
when you walk at my side.
Your trusty shepherd’s crook
makes me feel secure.

Psalm 23:4(MSG)

Death Valley? Where? In California(just west o’ Vegas ken)? Whacky!

 

In other places, Peterson’s Message appears to water down the convicting words of Scripture. Consider 1 Corinthians chapter 6 in a good literal translation of the Bible;

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)

 

Now take a look at what the Message has to say:

Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you’ve been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11(MSG)

It’s not quite as explicit is it? Indeed, it appears quite vague in comparison to the NASB wouldn’t you think? This is not meant to villify Peterson’s Message but only to highlight that with paraphrases you lose accuracy, specifics and the like.

So both the TLB and The Message, despite being quite brilliant in places, also create confusion here and there. That is why it is very important that you do not use such literature as your primary Bible. To establish doctrine, you need to stick close to the letter of the law, as it were. Both these paraphrases are good commentaries, nothing more, nothing less.

I do have a tendency to prefer the TLB overThe Message though. This is an entirely personal choice. My reasons for preferring the former over the latter stem from its slightly more conservative presentation of the Biblical narrative. There is a case for mantaining the historical setting of the Bible. It was written in a different age to our own. This doesn’t mean it no longer has value to us today; far from it, its moral values never change, but it is simply a fact that these stories were forged in antiquity and that is where they should stay- for the most part anyway. The Message, for me, is over done, reads too much like a novel, has no cross references or footnotes that one normally expects to see in a ‘real’ Bible. I don’t like Peterson’s use of the word ‘Master‘ to represent Jesus either. It makes Him out to be like some kind of Jedi Knight.  The Living Bible(TLB) is more conservative in many ways. For example, it uses the name Jehovah quite often to denote the Godhead. I like that name. And it’s entirely legitimate.

In the end though, the world is a better place because of these paraphrased overviews of the greatest story ever told. No doubt they will help bring people to Christ and that’s the most important thing of all.

Use them but don’t abuse them!

 

Neil English has written a 660 page historical work, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy, showing how extraordinary individuals often used ordinary equipment to glean new insights into the nature of the heavens.

 

De Fideli.

A Great Pocket Binocular: the Pentax DCF LV 9 x 28.

Excellent optical and mechanical quality in a compact size; the Pentax DCF LV 9 x 28. The instrument measures 117 x 115 x 44mm.

The compact binocular market presents a daunting challenge to the would-be buyer. There are just so many models to choose from. By compact, I mean a binocular that can fit in the palm of your hand and possess objective lenses less than 30mm in diameter. I purchased this instrument about eight months ago and have used it extensively on hill-walking trips and nature treks all around the beautiful, verdant landscape of rural and coastal Scotland. And they’ve even come in handy for watching sports events.

During the long and bright summer days, this pocket-sized binocular has excelled as a lightweight optical device to study the Creation at close range or from a distance. As any experienced binocular viewer will tell you, small aperture binoculars like these are all you need when light is abundant. That’s because the exit pupil of most folk’s eyes shrinks during daylight to 2 or 3mm and so using larger aperture instruments offer little in the way of advantage.

The Pentax DCF LV 9 x 28 offers very high-quality optics in a rugged field-friendly design. The objective; a triplet system arranged in two groups is fully multi-coated. The ocular lenses are a five element design(and fully multi-coated) and produce razor sharp images across the vast majority of the field.  The eyecups are of high-quality, rubber-over aluminium design that twist up, allowing the user to use them in any of four different configurations. The instrument sports very comfortable eye relief – 18mm – making them ideal for eye glass wearers.

The high quality twist-up eyecups are sturdy and offer excellent eye relief for all observers.

The eyecups hold their positions very well, even when unreasonable pressure is applied to them and only move when twisted.

The Pentax compact offers a true field of view of 5.6 degrees and a magnification of 9x. I’ve really come to appreciate this magnification, as it offers a real edge over 8x models, which bring finer details into sharp focus. 10x models start introducing too much shake which limits their use during extensive, hand-help outdoor applcations.

The ocular end of the Pentax DCF LV 9 x 28.

The unit is phase coated for bright, crisp imaging and is fully weather proof, being dry nitrogen filled to prevent internal fogging and corrosion. It is also water resistant, and tested at 1m depth for several minutes (JIS Class 6).

Glare and internal reflections are supressed to very satisfactory levels. One design feature to reduce flaring involves mounting the objectives a few millimetres (~5mm) in from the end of the objective barrels.

Recessed objective lenses are a clever way to reduce flaring during bright daylight viewing.

The superior optical design of the Pentax DCF LV 9 x 28 became more evident to me during poor lighting conditions, such as at dawn or dusk, or while viewing targets in a heavily forested location. Cheaper models, such as the Celestron Nature DX 8 x 25, quickly revealed its limitations during these demanding conditions, where the images became overly dim and harder to discern. No such problem with the Pentax unit, where its better coatings and supression of internal reflections made all the difference. And while larger binoculars in the 32 to 42mm aperture range are better for these low-light conditions, I’ve been quite impressed at just how well the Pentax stood up. The images are razor-sharp and colour free with a nice, neutral or ‘cool’ colour tone.

The dioptre setting( the texturised grey ring in the photos) on the Pentax is located immediately under the right-hand ocular lens and has proven to be very precise and largely immune to movement. Indeed, I have rarely felt the need to adjust it since the day the unit arrived here.

What I have especially come to appreciate about this model is the large focusing wheel, which offers very smooth and precise adjustments to focus. Many pocket binoculars have much smaller focusing wheels, making them that little bit more challenging to operate, especially when attempting to image targets moving from fairly close up to far away, or vice versa, like birds in flight, or while using gloves during cold weather conditions.

The large, smooth focusing wheel on the Pentax DCF LV 9 x 28.

Though not the lightest unit in its aperture class (365g), I have found them to be better suited than many lighter models, as the latter tend to be made more flimsily or are too small to fit securely in the hand during prolonged observations. You need a bit of inertia when using pocket binoculars at 9x, and for me, the Pentax provides the ‘Goldilocks’ size and weight to allow me to optimise my viewing experiences. The underside of the binocular has nice thumb indents for secure handling; a useful feature, in the hand.

Thumb indentations on the underside of the binocular make gripping the instrument that little bit easier.

While I  would never consider such a small binocular to be the ideal companion under the stars, I have enjoyed occasional quick looks of the celestial realm with this instrument. Gazing at the Moon is always a memorable experience, the main craters and mountain ranges being crisply defined and without the annoying internal reflections found in other models( the Nature DX was horrendous in this regard). Star fields are faithfully rendered, and provide pleasing images across its 5.6 degree angular field. Chromatic aberration is pretty much non existent as you’d expect from an instrument in this aperture class( indeed many of the so-called ultra premium models in this aperture class do not use ED glass).

The Pentax DCF LV 9 x 28 is fairly expensive, as pocket binoculars go (I actually bought mine in an ex-display sale with a one-year warranty), but I feel it was worth every penny. The peace of mind one gets when using a mechanically sound and optically excellent instrument such as this is definitely real and when one factors in the countless hours it has accompanied me on my long country walks, hikes, during vacations, and attending sports events(my boys are keen footballers, golfers and rugby players), it has already paid for itself many times over.

Since the introduction of the DCF LV range about a decade ago, Pentax has recently re-branded these models as the AD series (details here). I would heartily recommned this pocket binocular to anyone who is serious about making a life-time purchase. Its excellent optics and sturdy mechanical construction will give you years of hassle-free operation even in less than ideal observational conditions.

 

Dr. Neil English has recently re-kindled his interest in binoculars. His latest article, Paradigm Shifts(presenting the latest science against the existence of extraterrestrial life), will be published in Salvo Magazine Volume 50(Fall 2019).

 

 

De Fideli.

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

Upon reflection.

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.

     

    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.

     

    Chronicling the Golden Age Continued: A Biographical Sketch of Arthur Mee(1860-1926).

    Arthur Mee with his 8.5 inch Calver Reflector at his Cardiff Observatory.

    In this blog, I wish to present a biographical sketch of the noted Welsh amateur astronomer, Arthur Mee(1860-1926), who conducted first-rate observations of the Moon, Sun and planets with an 8.5 inch silver-on-glass Calver Newtonian reflector, and helped evangelise the Welsh public in astronomical knowledge during the late Victorian period.

     

    Tune in soon to read the full details………………

     

    De Fideli.

    Barr & Stroud Savannah 8 x 42 Wide Angle Binocular: Specs & Independent Reviews.

    The Barr & Stroud 8 x 42 wide angle: arguably the best bang for buck general purpose binocular in today’s market.

                                                                     Basic Specifications

    Type: 8 x 42 mm roof prism

    Field of View: 143m@1000m

    Eye Relief: 18mm

    Eyecups: solid, adjustable, twist up, two positions

    Lens Coatings: Fully multi-coated(verified)

    BAK4 Prism Phase Coating: Yes

    Warranty: 10 years

    Close Focus: 1.95m(verified)

    Dioptre Compensation: +4 to -4

    Focusing system: Central

    Dimensions: 152x130x57mm

    Weight: 819g

    Carry Case: Clam shell type, solid construction

    Carry Strap: High-quality padded starp, with B&S logo

    Interpupillary Distance Range: 58-75mm

    Waterproof: yes, immersion tested at 1.5m for 3 minutes.

    Fog proof: yes, dry nitrogen gas filled and o-ring sealed.

    Rubberised Ocular and Objective covers: yes

    Price:~ £120(UK)

    Last year, I wrote a review of the Barr & Stroud Savannah 8 x 42 wide-angle binocular. There I stated that I was very impressed with the excellent optics and ergonomics of the instrument, which surpassed all my expectations, given its very modest price. Since then, I have conducted more testing of this instrument compared with a Swarovski EL 8.5 x 42 (borrowed from my coalman, an avid birder and hunter), where I found the views to be astonishingly similar (as he also verified!!), despite the enormous price differential between the models. These tests convinced me that, like telescopes, you can pay a great deal for brand bragging rights which made me openly question why some folk would fork out between £1000 and £2000 for an instrument that, for all intents and purposes, delivers identical views.

    Here I wish to bring you a list of reviews of the Barr & Stroud 8 x42 Savannah from verified purchasers of the instrument, which I can wholeheartedly vouch for, based on my own, extensive field experience with the said instrument:

     

    Very sturdy binoculars and rubber covered. Good image quality. Not too powerful where there is movement/shake with unsteady hands but powerful enough to bring images a lot closer and allow close focussing on a tree in the garden watching the wildlife. .At the weekend I saw a white vapour trail from an aircraft really high in the sky but when I looked at it through the binoculars I could make out the colour of the rear of the aircraft. Someone was piloting a single engine plane much lower than the passenger aircraft and could make out it was a middle aged gent pilotting it !! 8×42 are a good all rounder in my opinion and I would recommend these.

    Graham Lynch ( January 2016)

     

    I have always bought at the cheaper end of the market and have enjoyed bird watching but wanted to buy something that looked good and was the next step up and they didn’t disappoint
    They come complete with sturdy case which has a hard shell to protect them, the bins are easy to use and crystal clear and very sharpe for viewing, the 10 year warranty is a nice touch
    You can really tell these are proper made they feel sturdy and are going to last a long time
    So in reflection I think these are great all round bins that will give you long service.

    readanotherone(June 2014)

    Read loads of reviews as I wanted an all round pair of binoculars to use when walking the dog and fishing etc when I’m away in the caravan. Ended up ordering these and I was not disappointed. They arrived the next day. They are so easy to use, smooth focus wheel, soft eye covers so I can leave my glasses on. Very sharp view. I can’t imagine why people would pay £1000’s for a pair apart from to say ” I own a pair of ………” for around £100 these are fantastic.

    Cookie(January 2015)

     

    Bought for viewing wildlife in Namibia. Wide angle, bright, well made, robust and N2 filled. You will not find a better buy. Whilst away I had plenty of opportunity to compare these with some other brands. These are very high quality – right up there with the best. The extra wide angle is nice.

    Seashark(February 2014)

     

    Bought these bins because I cannot justify the money for Swarovski. I am a photographer and carry bins and leave them lying around and generally abuse them. However, the quality of these bins is exceptional and I am really pleased with them – focus is great and very good in low light. Worth every penny.

    Frank G (February 2014)

     

    If you’re thinking of buying these Binoculars then don’t think about it just do it. For the money there is nothing to touch them. I am a wildlife skipper and tour guide specialising in White Tailed Eagles and have used these bins for about a year and they are perfect for spotting these well camouflaged birds with a lovely wide angle and very clear stable image. I did have a problem with the pair I ordered but the seller was very quick and efficient with sorting out the issue.

    Andy Kulesza(May 2015)

     

    Bought a pair of ‘used’ (as good as new) binoculars. Savannah 8 x 42 from Barr and Stroud. The image is extremely clear and accurate, this exceeded my expectation. The wide angle view is one of the finest for bird- and wildlife-watching. Construction is solid and more than adequate for sturdy outdoor use. The focusing is brilliant and very convenient with the adjustment-knobs in their ‘one-hand alignment’. Compliments for Barr and Stroud. I would recommend these binoculars to any-one, without hesitation.

    Gerard Schiphorst(April 2013)

    Optically superb, nicely balanced and a joy to handle, these are well made and feel like a quality product. Slightly let down by its mean-sized case which is too small to hold the binoculars without closing down the eyepieces each time and struggles to close with the strap attached – a bit of pain.

    RPG(October 2014)

    Bought these for an upcoming whale-watching cruise, really pleased with them. They feel nice and solid, but crucially the optics are great – bright image, wide angle and very little chromatic aberration. My friend has a pair of Minox HG 8×43 and we both agreed that the Barr & Stroud Savannah 8×42 have better optics, after doing a side-by-side comparison of the two.

    Andrew Hart( March 2019)

    Love them, bought for my Mum for Christmas but i will be purchasing another set for my self. Not too heavy, nice to handle, picture quality brilliant so clear, colours sharp, easy to adjust.

    Gillian(January 2015)

    These are just the nuts anyone wanting good clear images go for it.
    Sometimes a wall support or similar is useful but can be hand held with not much problem.

    Twe man(July 2015)

    The finest binoculars I have ever used. The images are crystal clear with no blurring at any distance even when watching wildlife in flight.

    stephen(July 2018)

    excellent value and quality – good step up from previous 8×25 binos and much more substantial build quality

    JRAC(July 2014)

     

    Great binoculars for some one wearing glasses. Good and solid for the price.

    smart(December 2014)

     

    Great value for money, really pleased with the quality. No instructions in my box, after an email to the seller I received a link to a web page for instructions.
    JW(March 2015)
    Was advised these were good. I wasn’t disappointed, excellent binoculars came with smart case and well protected am very pleased with them
    Annie(April 2013)
    We bought a pair of Barr and Stroud 8×32 Sierra binoculars earlier in the year and were very impressed. On the basis of this we ordered a pair of the 8×42 Savannahs. These are another step up. Bright even in poor light and quite breathtaking at times. The only very minor negative is that they initially seem a little heavy. At the price they seem to be remarkable value.
    Wauno(December 2011)
    The upsides greatly outweigh the downsides of these binoculars, they produce a clear, bright image and are a joy to use. Downsides, well if I’m being fussy there’s nowhere for the neck strap of the binoculars to go when in the hard case, so it ends up being scrunched up which is a shame as it’s a nice strap. They’re also pretty heavy and the manual is a bit generic so it doesn’t specifically apply to this binocular, as such it can take a bit of working out (a bit disappointing for a premium brand and price). Other than that they’re very impressive indeed, as I said in the title I’m looking forward to plane/bird spotting with them in spring and taking them abroad with me.
    Shuester( February 2014)
    Purchased these glasses after researching various lines. My only gripe was the carrying strap coming away from the case on their first trip out. this was obviously a fault on the rivet that holds the strap to the case. I contacted Barr &stroud and they sent me a new case within a couple of days. The glasses themselves are excellent, just what I needed, very good quality, and have a good grip to them.
    David Redshaw(July 2013)

    Great quality for the price, beats optic that cost way more, thumbs up from me.

    Buy if you want a very good binocular at a even greater price

    Brian Steffen (February 2103)
    The only reason I am not awarding this purchase 5 stars is because I never award anything 5 stars. That said, delivery was prompt, the binoculars arrived in pristine condition, and they suit my purpose well. I use them mainly to observe the birds and other wildlife in my garden and I also take them on country walks with me, again, to observe wildlife. I am no expert, but I am very happy with what I have. Well done, Barr and Stroud!
    Ava(July 2013)

    As others have said these are amazing Binoculars and quite possibly the best in their class.

    On top of that however is the aftermarket customer service.

    I bought these in 2013. Last month the diopter focus ring broke on it’s own. I emailed B&S’ parent company who deal with support and after sending them the purchase email for proof of purchase they told me to post the bino’s to them.

    Today I got a package – not my repaired bino’s like I asked, but a brand new pair instead.

    I am well chuffed right now. Turns out they have a 10 year guarantee and B&S honour it superbly.

    Syrio(August 2016)
    After a few evenings of on-line research, I purchased a pair of these and have not been disappointed. Great value and wonderful clarity of vision. Delighted with them and would recommend them. I didn’t realise how little – or how much you could pay for binos. I have used a pair of Swarovskis of similar magnification and these, for me, are as good. If there are differences, they may be slight and indiscernible – apart from the price difference.
    If you are inclined to buy these, I would join with others who have commented favourably on them and would recommend them without hesitation.
    They also come with a decent case, strap and a long term guarantee.
    Amazon Customer(April 2017)
    I have used these binoculars on safaris for the past year and are very impressed with them. The image quality and field of view is excellent even in low light conditions. In fact I had the chance to buy a reduced pair of Carl Zeiss ones, but after comparing both, there was no noticeable difference with the Barr & Stroud ones so kept them instead. They are easy to hold in one hand and the lens caps can be secured to the strap so you don’t lose them. For the money these are great binoculars and would not hesitate in recommending anyone buying.
    Leeson(November 2015)
    Average Amazon Rating: 4.8 out of 5.0 from 30 reviews.

    Oh I do like to be beside the sea side……ken.

    Well, I hope these testimonials have increased your buying confidence about this remarkable product. I can personally vouch for its extraordinary performance by day and by night. In a time when con artsts abound, you can get what you paid for and much more besides.

     

    Thanks for reading!

     

    Dr. Neil English is the author of several hundred optics and astronomy related articles and is the author of several books in amateur telescope optics, history  and space science.

     

    De Fideli.

    The King James Bible in the 21st Century.

    Some Bibles in the KJV tradition, from left to right: The Modern English Version(MEV), the Jubilee 2000 Bible, the New King James Version(NKJV) and the original King James Version(KJV).

    O sing unto the Lord a new song: sing unto the Lord, all the earth.

     Sing unto the Lord, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day.

    Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people.

    For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.

    For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens.



                                                                                                                    Psalm 96:1-5 (KJV)

    For over four hundred years, the Authorised King James Version(KJV) of the Bible, arguably the finest work of English prose ever created, has filled the spiritual stomachs of milions of Christians across the English speaking world, through war and peace times, booms, recessions and depressions. When one thinks of a ‘Bible’ it is the KJV that most people bring to mind first. Its influence on western civilization, in particular, has been incalculable, inspiring literary genuises like William Shakespeare, Robert Burns, Seamus Heaney, T.S. Elliot, VS Naipaul, C.S. Lewis, Raymond Chandler and P.D. James to name but a few. The austere beauty of its composition found its way onto the lips of such eloquent speakers as Abraham Lincoln, John Wesely, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Dr. Martin Luther King. And high above the Earth, the Apollo 8 astronauts recited the Book of Genesis during Christmas 1968, as they courageously plyed the seas of outer space on their way to the Moon.  Its lofty, passionate language was considered essential reading for any English-speaking man or woman wishing to acquire a well-rounded education. Over a billion(perhaps as many as 2 billion) copies of the distinguished Bible have made their way into homes, libraries, churches and hotels scattered throughout the face of the Earth.

    In commissioning the new translation of the Bible in “ploughman’s English,” King James VI of Scotland (and the 1st of England), used it to help cement the crowns of both nations, uniting both Puritans and Anglicans under a common ecclesiastical heritage. Although much of the language of the KJV is now out-dated, with some word meanings having completely changed with the march of time, it is still cherished by an adoring legion of Bible readers from both the Protestant and Catholic traditions.

    Because the English language is constantly evolving, scholars have endeavoured to up-date the KJV  so that it would appeal to a modern readership. In this blog, I wish to discuss a modest sampling of such efforts, including the New King James(NKJV), the Jubilee 2000 and the Modern English Version( MEV), all of which show great deferentiality to the Authorised Version, and formulated using much of the same underlying manuscript tradition.

    But before embarking on an analysis of these newer Bibles, I would like to provide a few reasons why all Christians should read the KJV through at least once in their lives. Firstly, its language is unchanged since it was last updated in 1769 (the original 1611 version is almost unreadable in comparison) and so what you are reading now is what your forebears also read. There is no danger of it being altered or updated to conform with modern culture(which unfortunately has become a dangerous trend with some modern translations). It thus provides a timeline uniting previous generations to our own. Secondly, its poetic qualities are second to none. Created to be read out loud, its words resonate whenever a passage from it is recited. The Book of Psalms, in particular, is sublime when read from the KJV.

    The KJV is also very precise (or literal), the original committee of translators being very careful to produce a translation which is faithful to the original tongues(Greek and Hebrew)  in which the Scriptures were formulated. That’s why so many older Biblical commentators used it so extensively.

    The KJV appeals to the intellect. If you consider yourself educated and have never read the Authorised King James, you need to remedy this by spending some time with it. Countless proverbs and idioms we still use in contemporary conversation originated with the KJV. Consider some of these phrases, all of which originate in the Old Book:

    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

    Choose life

    Through a glass, darkly

    A law unto himself

    A drop in the bucket

    God forbid

    Holier than thou

    Put the words in her mouth

    The skin of my teeth

    All things to all men

    Bottomless pit

    Pearls before swine

    Scapegoat

    Land of milk and honey

    Suffer fools gladly

    Sodomite

    Eye for an eye

    Fallen from grace

    Blind leading the blind

    Den of thieves

    Phillistine

    Eat, drink and be merry

    Bottomless pit

    At their wit’s end

    In the twinkling of an eye

    Better to give than to receive

    Signs of the times

    Woe is me

    Born again

    The powers that be

    Out of the mouths of babes

    The blind lead the blind

    Let my people go

    My brother’s keeper

    Seek and ye shall find

     

    The KJV is also a historic version of the Bible. If you want to better understand the works of such classic theologians as Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards and many from the Puritan tradition, such as Isaac Watts, William Williams, Augustus Toplady, Richard Baxter, John Bunyan and other great revivalists, you will understand their mindset better by familiarising yourself with the old King James.

    Many of the hymns we sing at Christmas and Easter, and in our weekly worship on Sunday mornings at Church were written in the King James vernacular. It is also universal in scope, celebrating a very wide international usage across many denominational lines.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    An Aside: Read the Bible, any Bible: Jesus said “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). This freedom not only entails salvation but also the truth concerning what is going on all around us. The prophet Isaiah warned us 700 years before Christ;

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil (Isaiah 5: 20).

    In this dark generation, where cultural Marxism is rapidly gaining a foothold in our societies, there is a moral role reversal taking place before our very eyes whereby we are now accepting of lifestyles and behaviours that were always deemed intrinscally depraved.

    Then came Osmosis. Thence mass deception.

    It’s so important in this wicked age to remain grounded in the truth!

    Reading the Bible is arguably the best way to know and guard truth.

    Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
    And lean not on your own understanding;
    In all your ways acknowledge Him,
    And He shall direct your paths.

                                                           Proverbs 3:5-6

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    The Jubilee 2000 Bible(from the Scriptures of the Spanish Reformation)

    The Jubilee 2000 Bible.

    The Jubilee 2000 Bible was the brain child of the Hebrew scholar, Russell M. Stendal, who came across an old Spanish Bible, first translated from the original tongues by Casiodoro de Reina in 1569. The manuscripts available to de Reina were the same as those used by reformers who compiled the Authorised King James Version and so belong to the so-called Majority Texts(i.e. Textus Receptus). de Reina made use of earlier Spanish translations of both the New Testament(by Francisco de Enzinas) and Psalms (Juan Perez de Pineda). Stendal also had the presence of mind to compare his Spanish-to- English translation with the earliest translation work carried out by William Tyndale, who produced an English translation of large parts of the Bible as far back as the 1530s(for which he was burmed at the Stake).

    Stendal’s translation is very respectful of the Authorised King James Version and in fact, conforms more closely to the KJV than any of the other versions mentioned above. For example, Stendal elected to keep the ‘thees’ and ‘thous’ in this translation because, as he claims in the introduction, “serious doctrinal error can result from the consequences of changing Thee, Thou, or Thy to You or Your. This can cause scriptural promises or directives addressed to the individual to be mistakenly applied to a corporate group. Modern English is ambiguous in this regard and lacks the precision necessary to accurately render the true meaning of the original.”

    I think Stendal has a point to make here. Consider, for example, the passage from the Gospel of John, Chapter 3, in which Jesus talks to Nicodemus(a Pharisee) about being born again. Here’s how the KJV renders it:

    Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

    John 3:5-7(KJV)

    Now, compare that to how the NKJV renders the same passage, without the archaic phraseology:

    Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

    John 3:5-7(NKJV)

    Notice that the archaic English distinguishes between ‘you’ singular (thee) and ‘you’ plural( Ye). Thus the reader of modern translations cannot as easily distinguish singular from plural. Here’s how the Jubilee 2000 presents the same passage:

    Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

     Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again from above.

    John 3:5-7(Jubilee 2000).

    Personally, I have no problem with the modern renderings, as usually one can discern whether  a “you” is singular or plural from the context of the passage. I do however, like seeing “thee,” “thou” and “Ye,” as they are not in the least bit hard to get used to. After reading a chapter or two of Scripture, you will very quickly assimilate and appreciate them. Besides they have a certain quaintness that appeals to me.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    An Amusing Aside: In modern Scots, one will often hear “yous” referring to more than one person.

    ” Are yous away out tonight?”

    Sticklers of course, would balk at the notion of using “yous” in any formal correspondence, but at least it does distinguish between singular and plural!

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    The Jubilee 2000 translation also maintains many other archaic words found in the KJV such as “published” which means “announced,” “raiment” which is “clothing,” and “charity” which is love. But in many places, Stendal updates some words used in the KJV which are easily misunderstood in the modern vernacular. For example in Genesis 3:1 the Jubilee 2000 replaces “subtil” with “astute,” when referring to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. This generally works, but in one case where he maintains the word “study,” it can be a bit confusing. For example, consider 2 Timothy 2:15:

    Study to show** thyself approved unto God, a workman that has nothing to be ashamed of, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    2 Timothy 2:15(Jubilee 2000)

    ** The KJV has the old English word, “shew” instead of “show.”

    The trouble is “study” as it is written in this verse of Scripture does not mean “study” as we understand it today. It actually means something like “strive hard.” This passage is better rendered in good, literal versions of the modern Bible, like the NKJV:

    Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    2 Timothy 2:15 (NKJV)

     

    Stendal also outlines in the introduction that all important Hebrew or Greek words maintain the same meaning throughout the entire translation, which makes doctrinal matters very consistent and easy to understand.

    Although the introductory pages of the Jubilee Bible are written in American English, I was pleasantly surprised by Stendal’s use of the original British English the KJV adopts. So, for example, instead of “Savior,” which you will see in many other translations, the Jubilee 2000 uses “Saviour.” This is a nice touch that other members of the KJV Bible family have not addressed to my knowledge.

    The Jubilee corrects many of the obvious mistakes inherent to the KJV, such as changing the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” to “Thou shalt not murder” and the erroneous use of “Easter” in the Book of Acts to the correct term “Passover.” Intriguingly, Stendal chose to retain the mythical “Unicorn” in Palm 92 and 29 rather than “wild ox” used in other word-for-word translations.

    Eventhough the Jubilee 2000 is very close to the Authorised King James Version, it is distinct enough to qualify as a sister text to the latter. For example, consider this passage from 2 Thessalonians first in the KJV:

    For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

     And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

    Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

    And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

     And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

    2 Thessalonians 2:7-11 (KJV)

    Now consider the same passage in the Jubilee 2000:

    For the mystery of iniquity is already working, except that he who dominates now will dominate until he is taken out of the way.

    And then shall that Wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth and remove with the clarity of his coming:

     that wicked one, who shall come by the working of Satan with great power and signs and lying miracles,

    and with all deception of iniquity working in those that perish because they did not receive the charity of the truth, to be saved.

    Therefore, for this cause, God shall send the operation of error in them, that they should believe the lie;

    2 Thessalonians 2:7-11(Jubilee 2000)

    Note how the phrase “strong delusion” used in the KJV and many other highly literal translations is replaced by “the operation of error” in the Jubilee 2000.

    Throughout the Jubilee 2000 translation, Stendal elected to use the term “saving health” instead of “salvation.” When this alternative rendering was first presented to me, I admit to being  more than a little surprised, but having thought about the term “saving health,” I have now come to appreciate this alternate rendering, as what else does ‘salvation’ from the Living God mean except preservation of health in a body otherwise destined to return to dust?

    The Jubilee 2000 Bible I received has a nice synthetic leather (trutone) cover with a beautiful tree as an icon. It is a very plain, somewhat understated, presentation, which appeals to me, with unusual, light yellow-coloured pages. Another unusual feature of this Bible is the way in which it presents the individual chapters, which are denoted by the Book name and chapter number throughout:

    The unusual rendering of the book and chapter numbers in the Jubilee 2000 Bible.

    The Jubilee 2000 also has an extensive dictionary of Biblical terms at the back of the work, together with a solid concordance for furher study.

    A page from the Bible dictionary of the Jubilee 2000.

    A sample page from the Jubilee 2000 concordance.

    Although I have read through about 50 per cent of the Jubilee 2000, I have been hard-pressed to find any errors, with the possible exception of Psalm 29:6, which has a rather odd phrasing in my copy:

    Note the wording of Verse 6 of Psalm 29.

    However, when I consulted the online Biblegateway Jubilee 2000 text, the wording appears to have been corrected:

    “And He made them skip like calves; Lebanon and Sirion like the sons of the unicorns.”

    Psalm 29:6 (Jubilee 2000)

    Source here.

    In summary, the Jubilee 2000 is a beautifully rendered sister text to the Authorised King James Version. It will only serve to enrich one’s knowledge of this universally lauded Bible and deserves to be part of the library of all those who love the rich tradition preserved in the KJV. Its only weakness, so far as I can see, is that it is a highly personalised interpretation of the Byzantine texts and does not appear to have been formed by a  committee, which increases the likelihood of doctrinal errors creeping in. As King Solomon of old perceived:

    ...in multitude of counsellors there is safety.

    Proverbs 24:6

    That said, I have not uncovered any such deviations, and I happen to think it is an excellent translation that is certainly easier to read than the original KJV, mostly because the archaic use of punctuation in the latter is updated in the Jubilee 2000, which is altogether sensible, making it that little bit easier to navigate.

    The Modern English Version(MEV)

    Title page of the MEV Bible.

    The Modern English Version (MEV) is a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the MasoreticText, using the King James Version as the base manuscript. It is published by Passio, a division of Charisma Media Book Group and first appeared in 2014. Unlike the Jubilee 2000, the MEV language has been fully updated into clear, modern(American) English, but still maintains much of the cadence of the old KJV. Just like the KJV, the MEV was created using 47 Biblical scholars derived from a broad, inter-denominational Protestant background, just like the Authorized Version, the identities of whom are listed in the introductory pages of the Bible. As stated in the introduction, the MEV was inspired by US and British army chaplains who wanted their troops to “understand the KJV better,”  but it soon became apparent to them that this fresh translation would actually benefit “the entire English-speaking world.”

    Just like the KJV, the introduction also has a dedication to the reigning monarch of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Queen Elizabeth II;

    Just like the dedication to King James I of England, the MEV also has a dedication to Queen Elizabeth II.

    Each book of the Bible (66 in all) comes with an introduction which is useful for study and for placing a passage in the correct historical context:

    Each of the books of the MEV Bible have an introduction for setiing historical context.

     

    True to the Authorised Version, the MEV faithfully includes verses which are often omitted by many modern translations based on the older(minority or Alexandrian) manuscripts.

    Consider, for example, 1 John 5:7

    There are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one.

    1 John 5:7(MEV)

    Or the case of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:

     As they went on their way, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” He answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

    Acts 8:36-37(MEV)

    However, there are some passages that KJV diehards might be concerned over. Consider this passage from 1 Corinthians Chapter 1:

    For to those who are perishing, the preaching of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

    1 Corinthians 1:18(MEV)

    Notice the reference to ” being saved” rather than just “saved” as recorded in the KJV:

     For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

    1 Corinthians 1:18(KJV)

    I’ve heard some dreadful KJV onlyists (those who believe the Authorised King James Version is the only inspired Word of God) claim that changing “saved” to “being saved” represents some sort of demonic conspiracy to water down the truth of the Bible lol. However, on consulting my NASB reference Bible, I note that the original Greek can be translated either way.

    Much ado about nothing?

    I’d say so!

    Christianity is not a religion, it’s a relationship. And just like any good relationship, it ought to be continual, ongoing, new every morning. I relate more to “being saved” than just “saved,” as this entails an active participation, in harmony with the will of our Lord and Creator, Jesus Christ.

    The MEV large print Bible edition comes with an excellent 132 page concordance for further study.

    Only one error was noted. If you look at Isaiah 58:8 in the MEV it reads:

    Then your light shall break forth as the morning,
        and your healing shall spring forth quickly,
    and your righteousness shall go before you;
        the glory of the Lord shall be your reward.

                                                                               Isaiah 58:8(MEV)

    The problem lies with the word “reward” in line 4. This should read  “rear guard.” There are about a half dozen other incidences in which the same term is correctly translated in the MEV as “rear guard” suggesting that it was a genuine translation error.

    The MEV large print edition is available in a variety of different coloured faux leather covers, all smyth sewn and all possessing a single ribbon marker. This edition is also a redletter (words of Christ are printed in red). The quality is quite good but it appears the MEV is not yet available in premium formats. That said, I believe Passio will shortly provide an updated version of this Bible, which will weed out any remaining bugs with the work. These updates cost money though; to pay for the scholarship as well as the presentation of the Bible as a whole. By purchasing a copy, you can help this fledgling Bible in the KJV tradition go from strength to strength.

    The clear, double-column format of the MEV large print Bible.

    The large print MEV is a nicely made Bible, available in a number of different coloured covers.

    Though this is not a reference Bible, I would highly recommend the MEV to all those who enjoy the old KJV but in a more contemporary, readable, modern English format.

    The New King James Version(NKJV)

    The New KIng James (Holman version); arguably the finest blend of the old and the new.

    The New King James Version(NKJV) is the oldest of the modern attempts to update the Authorised Version. First commissioned by Thomas Nelson in 1975, the NKJV project involved a committee of 130 Biblical scholars chosen from a ‘broad church’ of Christian denominations to create an entirely new translation of the Scriptures from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. True to the original intentions of the KJV translators, who themselves consulted older English translations than the venerable 1611, the committee strove “not to create a new translation but to make a good translation better.” The first edition appeared in 1982 and after some revisions were made, a finalised version appeared in 1984. This is the version which we now have and enjoy.

    Unlike the other Bibles discussed in this blog, the NKJV consulted both the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts to bring its readers the finest Biblical scholarship from both genres, but strove hard to maintain the majesty of the Authorised Version. So, for example, verses 9 through 20 in the last chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel are reproduced but do contain a footnote stating that “Verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU-text as not original. They are lacking in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.” The ” Nu” here refers the older, Alexandrian texts(or the so-called Critical Texts).Likewise, the account of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John Chapter 8 are also quoted in the main texts with footnotes indicating that many of the oldest manuscripts do not contain such verses.

    Many verses omitted in other translations are faithfuly rendered in the NKJV. Consider 1 John 5:7 for example;

    For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

    1 John 5:7(NKJV)

    Some have expressed concern that too many changes were made to the NKJV that interfered with doctrine, but having embraced this translation as my go-to Bible for several years now, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with this assessment. Indeed, I think it to be the perfect amalgam of old and new. Specifically, it does not go as far as the MEV in updating the English, but does remove more archaic words than the Jubilee 2000 translation, for example. Personally, I think it’s an awesome translation, one that I favour above all others. What is more, I find it easy to go from the NKJV back to the KJV, but equally so, I find it just as easy to move over to fully modernised versions like the ESV and NIV.

    One of the things that really appeals to me regarding the NKJV(American English) is that the text has not been updated since 1984. Indeed, some commentators have claimed that the language of the NKJV has already been outdated. That said, I have heard through the grapevine that Thomas Nelson have not said categorically that they will not update the text at some time in the future. To be honest, there is hardly any reason to undergo such changes for at least another century lol. If you feel the same way and don’t wish the NKJV to be updated in the foreseeable future, it might help to email them in order to let them know your thoughts and feelings concerning any such updates.

    Another reason why many Christians stick with Byzantine-based texts is that they are, in many ways, less scientifically constructed than those that rely more heavily on the older Alexandrian counterparts. By this I mean, if you were to look at all the sermons used by pastors down the centuries, all the way back to the writings of the early Church Fathers, you will discover that much of their material came directly from the Byzantine manuscript tradition. In otherwords, the Majority texts actually formed the basis of their teachings, unlike the best scientifically constructed texts we see in modern Bibles(like the ESV, NASB and NIV).   What is more, some other Bible commentators have noted that many of the heresies that arose within the early Church, such as Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Psilanthropism etc, originated on the Alexandrian side. For these reasons, they claim that it is safer to stick with the western, Byzantine tradition.

    Today, you can obtain beautiful NKJVs(and KJVs for that matter) published by Thomas Nelson, Holman and Cambridge University Press. Unlike the cheap, bonded leather of the older (read 1990s and noughties) copies, the newer NKJVs are adorned with ornate and durable leather-tex, with clear, large-print text(such as Comfort Print), smyth-sewn bindings in either black letter or red letter editions, which can be acquired at relatively little cost. As I affirmed elsewhere, I’m not one for collecting premium Bibles.

    I now have two NKJVs in my possesion. The first is my Holman large print personal size Bible, which I have mentioned in more detail here. I use it while I’m away from home or while attending Church. It is small, compact and lightweight:

    My travelling Bible; a plain NKJV by Holman with minmal footnotes.

    I have another NKJV; the Thomas Nelson Deluxe Reader’s Bible, which only has the text. It was a Christmas gift from my wife in 2018. Though still not a premium Bible, it is very beautiful, with an all-black text with red headings and chapter numbers:

    The protective casing of the Thomas Nelson NKJV Deluxe Reader’s Bible.

    The NKJV Delux Reader’s Bible is guaranteed for life, has a strong smyth sewn binding, gold gilting and two red satin ribbon markers. It contains no notes, concordance or maps of any description(that’s why it’s referred to as a reader’s Bible). Because it is rather large and heavy, I use it entirely for devotional reading at home.

    The plain but beautiful faux leather cover of the Thomas Nelson Deluxe Reader’s Bible.

     

    The title pgae of the Deluxe Reader’s Bible.

    The single column text is in black and has red headings. The layout is very easy on the eye.

    There are many other NKJV Bibles that are even more ornate(but more expensive) but if you really want one with the finest leather bindings, they can be purchased in the region of $70 to $200.

    In discussing these modernised versions of the King James Bible, I have certainly not exhausted all the choices available to the contemporary reader. For example, there is the 21st century King James Bible(KJV 21), which also retains much of the linguistic richness of the Authorised KJV but has updated the spelling and punctuation of the latter, yet like the Jubilee 2000, still retains the ‘thees’ and ‘thous’, etc and which is reportedly( I do not have a copy) easier to read than the KJV itself. More on the KJV 21 here.

    Having said all of this, I feel the Authorised Version of the King James Bible ought to hold a very special place in the library of all Bible believing Christians. There really is nothing like the original in its sheer, towering majesty.

    Of all the Bibles I have in my collection, I have more KJVs than any other translation, not just as a result of purchasing them, but also because they have been gifted to me by friends and family members over the years. And in this day and age, one can acquire truly amazing bargains. Here I would like to showcase just one example; the KJV Large Print Standard Bible, published by Christian Art Publishers(Republic of South Africa):

    The Authorised King James Bible by Christian Art Publishers.

    The cover is a very attractive dark brown LuxLeather in a most convenient lay-flat binding.

    Title page of the Christian Art Publishers KJV Bible.

    This Bible has good quality paper and the words of Scripture are in a very easy-to-read, line-matched, 14 point font size. And though an inch and a half thick, it is surprisingly light weight and easy to carry from place to place;

    The beautiful, large and clear text of the Christian Art Publisher’s KJV.

    This is a red letter edition (words of Christ in red) with convenient thumb indices to quickly locate each of the books of the Bible:

    The Christian Art Publisher’s Large Print KJV has the words of Christ in red and has thumb indices for each book of the Bible.

    And to round it all off, the page edges of this lovely, large-print Bible have a beautiful gold gilding with a single colour-matched satin ribbon page marker:

    The beautifully applied gold gilding on the sides of the pages.

    It has a full concordance and an eminently useful verse finder section, as well a number of full colour maps of the ancient Middle East.

    Best of all, this remarkable edition of the Authorised KJV cost just £20 including shipping!

    Well, this is where I would like to finish this blog on the King James Bible and a few of the other versions based on the same or similar manuscript tradition. I for one will always cherish this masterpiece of religious literature, which has inspired both princes and paupers alike, over many generations, to worship and adore the Ever Living God. I will continue to read it in contemplative silence to myself, or aloud, as it was originally intended, to my wife and children, where its words reverberate around the room.

    Let us end with a solemn prayer inspired form its pages;

    O God All-Sufficient

    Thou hast made and upholdest all things

    by the word of thy power;

    darkness is thy pavilion,

    thou walkest on the wings of the the wind;

    all nations are nothing before thee;

    one generation succeeds another,

    and we hasten back to the dust;

    the heavens we behold will vanish away

    like the clouds that cover them,

    the earth we tread on will dissolve as a morning dream;

    But thou, unchangeable and incorruptible,

    art for ever and ever,

    God over all, blessed eternally.

    Infinitely great and glorious art thou.

    We are thy offspring and thy care.

    Thy hands have made and fashioned us.

    Thou hast watched over us with more than parental love,

    more than maternal tenderness.

    Thou hast holden our soul in life,

    and not suffered our feet to be moved.

    They divine power has given us all things necessary for life and godliness.

    Let us bless thee at all times and forget not

    how thou hast forgiven our iniquities, healed our diseases,

    redeemed our lives from destruction,

    crowned us with lovingkindness and tender mercies,

    satisfied our mouths with good things,

    renewed our youth like the eagle’s.

    May thy Holy Scriptures govern every part of our lives,

    and regulate the discharge of all our duties,

    so that we may adorn thy doctrine in all things

    Amen

    From the Valley of Vision pp 382-3

     

     

    Neil English is the author of Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy, which recounts how many amateur and professional astronomers throughout the ages maintained a strong and pervasive Christian faith throughout their careers.

    Post Scriptum:

    More background on the King James Bible can be be found on these links;

    Librarian P.J. Carefoote on the religious and historical importance of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible.

     

    The Making of the King James Bible by Adam Nicholson

     

    The King James and other early Bibles at Wadham College Oxford

     

    Thomas Nelson Publisher’s Miscellania on the King James Bible

     

    President Abraham Lincoln’s Bible:

    Exhibit A

    Exhibit B

    President Ronald Reagan’s opinion on the King James Bible

     

    Problems with the King James Bible

     

    The King James Only Controversy

     

    Which English Translation of the Bible Should We Use?

     

     

    De Fideli.

    Investigating the Jet Stream

    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

                                                                               1 Thessalonians 5:21

     

    My Local Weather

     

    Jet Stream Data

    Introduction:  One of the statements that is oft quoted by observers, particularly in the UK, is that the meteorological phenomenon known as the Jet Stream seriously affects the quality of high resolution telescopic targets. I have decided to investigate these claims to determine to what extent they are true or not, as the case may be. These data will also provide the reader with an idea of the frequency of nights that are available for this kind of testing over the time period the study is to be conducted.

    Method: For simplicity, I shall confine my studies to just four double stars that have long been considered reasonably tricky targets for telescopists. To begin with, my targets will include systems of varying difficulty, ranging from 2.5″ to 1.5″ separation, and the aim is to establish whether or not I can resolve the components at high magnification. These systems include *:

    Epsilon 1 & 2 Lyrae

    Epsilon Bootis

    Delta Cygni

    Pi Aquilae

    * These systems were chosen for their easy location in my current skies, but may be subject to change as the season(s) progress.

    Viewers are warmy welcomed to conduct their own set of observations to compare and contrast results in due course.

    Instrument Choice & Magnifications Employed:

    The 130mm f/5 Newtonian telescope used in the present investigation.

     

    A high-performance 130mm (5.1″) f/5 Newtonian reflector was employed to investigate the effects of this phenomenon, as this is an aperture regularly quoted as being sensitive to the vagaries of the atmosphere. Magnifications employed were 260x or 354x (they can however be resolved with less power). The instrument at all times was adequately acclimated to ambient temperatures and care was taken to ensure good collimation of the optical train. No cooling fans used on any of my instruments.

    Results;

    Date: August 17 2018

    Time: 21:20 to 21:35 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

    Conditions: Mild, 14C, very breezy, mostly cloudy with occasional clear spells, frequent light drizzle.

    Observations: Power employed at the telescope 354x

    Epsilon 1 & 2 Lyrae: all four components cleanly resolved.

    Delta Cygni: Faint companion clearly observed during calmer moments

    Epsilon Bootis: Both components clearly resolved during calmer moments.

    Pi Aquilae: Slightly mushier view, but both components resolved momentarily during calmer spells.

    Truth seeking.

     

    Date: August 19 2018

    Time: 20:30 – 21:50 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland.

    Conditions: Mild, 13C, mostly cloudy and damp all day but a clear spell occurred during the times stated above, no wind, heavy dew at end of vigil.

    Observations: Seeing excellent this evening (Antoniadi I-II); textbook perfect images of all four test systems at 354x and 260x.

    Nota bene: A 12″ f/5 Newtonian was also fielded to test collimation techniques and I was greeted with a magnificent split of Lambda Cygni (0.94″) at 663X. Little in the way of turbulence experienced even at these ultra-high powers. Did not test this system on the 130mm f/5.

    Clouded up again shortly before 11pm local time, when the vigil was ended.

    Date: August 22 2018

    Time: 23:30-40 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

    Conditions: Very mild (15C), breezy, predominantly cloudy with some heavy rain showers interspersed by some brief, patchy clearings.

    Observations: Just two test systems examined tonight owing to extremely limited accessibility; Epsilon 1 & 2 Lyrae and Delta Cygni. Both resolved well at 260x.

     

    Date: August 22 2018

    Time: 21:00-21:25UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

    Conditions; partially cloudy, brisk southwesterly wind, bright Gibbous Moon culminating in the south, +10C, rather cool, transparency poor away from zenith.

    Observations: The telescope was uncapped and aimed straight into the prevailing SW wind, as is my custom.

    All four systems well resolved at 354x, although visibility of Pi Aql was poor owing to thin cloud covering.

     

    Date: August 23 2018

    Time: 20:30-45 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Moved well south of Scotland

    Conditions: Mostly clear this evening, after enduring heavy showers all day; cool, 10C, fresh westerly breeze, good transparency.

    Observations:  All four test systems beautifully resolved this evening (seeing Ant II) at 354x. Just slightly more turbulent than the excellent night of August 19 last.

     

    Date: August 24 2018

    Time: 20:30-45 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Just west of my observing site.

    Conditions: Almost a carbon copy of last night, light westerly winds, cool (9C), good transparency and almost no cloud cover. Very low full Moon in south-southeast.

    Observations: All four system resolved at 260x, but less well at 354x owing to slightly deteriorated seeing ( II-III). Delta Cygni seems especially sensitive to seeing.

    Nota bene: Epsilon Bootis now sinking fast into the western sky. This test system will soon be replaced by a tougher target, located higher up in my skies; Mu Cygni.

    A capital telescope.

     

    Date: August 25 2018

    Time: 20:20-21:00 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Right over Scotland.

    Conditions: Very hazy, calm, poor transparency, cool (9C), seeing excellent (I-II)

    Observations: Just three of the four systems examined tonight owing to very poor transparency. Only Pi Aquilae could not be examined. All three were beautifully resolved at 354x.

     

    Date: August 26 2018

    Time: 22:30-23:05 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Well south of Scotland.

    Conditions: After a day of heavy rain, the skies cleared partially around 11pm local time. Fresh westerly breeze, fairly mild (12C), bright full Moon low in the south.

    Observations: Mu Cygni observed instead of Epsilon Bootis owing to the latter’s sinking low into the western sky at the rather late time the observations were made.

    Three systems well resolved ( Mu Cygni, Pi Aquliae and Epsilon 1 & 2 Lyrae) in only fair seeing, with Delta Cygni B only spotted sporadically in moments of better seeing. This system is very sensitive to atmospheric turbulence due to a large magnitude difference between components, as opposed to their angular separation. 260x used throughout.

    Nota bene: Readers will take note of the frequency of observations thus far made.

    Date: August 27 2018

    Time: 20:30-21:05 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: West of the Scottish mainland.

    Conditions: Mostly cloudy, mild, 13C, light westerly breeze.

    Observations: I took advantage of a few brief clear spells this evening to target my systems(including Epsilon Bootis). Seeing very good despite the cloud cover (II). All four systems easily resolved tonight at both 354x and 260x.

    Date: August 29 2018

    Time: 20:25-40UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

    Conditions: Mostly clear, occasional light shower, cool (11C), light westerly breeze, seeing and transparencyvery good (II).

    Observations: Mu Cygni now replaces Epsilon Bootis.

    All systems very cleanly resolved at 354x and 260x.

    Nb. All systems also beautifully resolved in a 12″ f/5 Newtonian at 277x, set up alongside the 130mm f/5.

     

    Date: August 30 2018

    Time: 20:45- 21:00 UT

    Location of the Jet Stream:  Not over Scotland.

    Conditions: Partially cloudy with some good clear spells, cool (9C), very little breeze.

    Observations: Seeing good tonight (II). All  four systems nicely resolved at 260x and 354x.

    Note added in proof: Local seeing deteriorated (III-IV) somewhat between 21:00 and 22:00 UT, so much so that Delta Cygni B could no longer be seen.

     

    Date: 31 August 2018

    Time: 20:30-22:00UT

    Location of Jet Stream: North of the British Isles

    Conditions: Partly cloudy and becoming progressively more hazy as the vigil progressed. Mild, 12C, very light westerly breeze.

    Observations: Seeing only fair this evning (II-III), all four systems resolved at 260x and 354x, though Delta Cygni B visibility was variable.

     

    Date: September 1 2018

    Time: 20:30-50UT

    Location of Jet Stream: to the northwest of the Scottish Mainland.

    Conditions: Partially clear, very mild (16C), light southerly breeze, good transparency.

    Observations: Seeing quite good (II).  All four systems resolved at 260x and even better delineated at 354x under these clement conditions.

     

    Date: September 4 2018

    Time: 19:55-20:20UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

    Conditions: Cool (10C), mostly clear, light westerly breeze, good transparency.

    Observations: Seeing very good (II).  All four test systems well resolved at 260x and 354x this evening.

     

    Date: September 5 2018

    Time: 20:35-20:55UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

    Conditions: Very unsettled with frequent squally rain showers driven in by fresh westerly winds. Good clear spells appearing between showers. Transparency very good. 12C

    Observations: All four test systems resolved under good seeing conditions (II) at 260x and 354x.

     

    Date: September 6 2018

    Time: 20:00-25 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

    Conditions: Cool (8C), little in the way of a breeze, mostly clear, excellent transparency.

    Observations: Seeing good (II). All four test systems well resolved at 260x and 354x.

     

    Date: September 7 2018

    Time: 20:25-40UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland.

    Conditions: A capital evening in the glen; 11C, good clear sky, brisk westerly breeze, excellent transparency.

    Observations: Seeing very good (I-II).  All four test systems beautifully resolved in the 130mm f/5 using powers of 260x and 354x

    Nota bene:

    Know thine history!

    Any serious student of the history of astronomy will likely be acquainted with the early work of Sir William Herschel (Bath, southwest England), who employed extremely high powers (up to 2000x usually but actually he went as high as 6,000x on occasion) productively in his fine 6.3-inch Newtonian reflector with its speculum metal mirrors. The high powers employed by this author are thus fairly modest in comparison to those used by his great predecessor. Check out the author’s new book; Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy, due out in October/November 2018, for more details.

    Note added in proof:

    With the excellent conditions maintained well after midnight, I ventured out at about 00:00 UT,  September 8, and noted Andromeda had attained a decent altitude in the eastern sky. At 00:10UT I trained the 130mm f/5 Newtonian on 36 Andromedae for the first time this season and charged the instrument with a power of 406x. Carefully focusing, I was treated to a textbook-perfect split of the 6th magnitude Dawes classic pair that are ~1.0″ apart. It was very easy on this clement  night. The pair look decidely yellow in the little Newtonian reflector. I made a sketch of their orientation relative to the drift of the field; shown below.

    36 Andromedae as seen in the wee small hours of September 8 2018 through the author’s 130mm f/5 Newtonian reflector, power 406x.

     

    If you have a well collimated 130P kicking about why not give this system a try over the coming weeks?

     

    Date: September 9 2018

    Time: 21:10-25UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

    Conditions: Frequent heavy showers driven in from the Atlantic with strong gusts, 11C, some intermittent clear spells.

    Observations: Seeing III. 3 systems fairly well resolved this evening. Delta Cygni B only seen intermittently. Magnification held at 260x owing to blustery conditions.

    Date: September 12 2018

    Time: 00:10-20UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

    Conditions: Very wet, windy with some sporadic clear spells, good transparency once the clouds move out of the way. 10C.

    Observations: Seeing (II-III). Just three systems examined tonight; the exception being Pi Aquliae, which was not in a suitable position to observe. All three were well resolved at 260x. Did not attempt 354x owing to prevailing blustery conditions.

     

    Date: September 12 2018

    Time: 21:40-55 UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Not over Scotland

    Conditions: Still unsettled, blustery light drizzle and mostly cloudy with some clear spells. 10C.

    Observations: Seeing (III), three systems resolved well, Delta Cygni B not seen cleanly at 260x under these conditions.

     

    Date: September 14 2018

    Time: 19:30-50UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland.

    Conditions: Rather cool, (9C), very little breeze, rain cleared to give a calm, clear sky.

    Observations: Seeing II. All four systems cleanly resolved at 260x and 354x

     

    Date: September 16 2018

    Time: 19:20-40UT

    Location of Jet Stream: Currently over Scotland

    Conditions: Mild (12C), fresh south-westerly breeze, some occasional clear spells.

    Observations: Seeing very good (II), all four systems cleanly resolved at 260x and 354x.

     

    Overall Results & Conclusions:

    This study was conducted over the course of one month, from mid-August to mid-September 2018, a period covering 31 days.

    The number of days where observations could be conducted was 21, or ~68% of the available nights.

    No link was found between the presence of the Jet Stream and the inability to resolve four double star systems with angular separations ranging from ~2.5-1.5″. Indeed, many good nights of seeing were reported whilst the Jet Stream was over my observing location. In contrast, some of the worst conditions of seeing occurred on evenings when the Jet Stream was not situated over my observing site.

    There is, however, a very strong correlation between the number of nights available for these observations and the efforts of the observer.

    Many of the nights the Jet Stream was located over my observing site were windy, but this was not found to affect seeing. While the wind certainly makes observations more challenging, it is not an indicator of astronomical seeing per se. That said, no east or northeast airflows were experienced during the spell these observations were conducted. At my observing site, such airflows often bring poor seeing.

    The archived data (from January 16 2014) on the Jet Sream site linked to above provide many more data points which affirm the above conclusions.

    I have no reason to believe that my site is especially favoured to conduct such observations. What occurred here must be generally true at many other locations.

    These results are wholly consistent with the available archives from keen observers observing from the UK in the historical past. This author knows of at least two (or possibly three) historically significant visual observers who enjoyed and documented a very high frequency of suitable observing evenings in the UK.

    Contemporary observers are best advised to take Jet Stream data with a pinch of salt. It ought not deter a determined individual to carry out astronomical obervations. Perpetuating such myths does the hobby no good.

    Post Scriptum:

    June 18 2019: Irish imager, Kevin Breen, used his C11 to obtain decent images of Jupiter under a very active Jet Stream. Details here.

    July 2 2019: Another testimony of “good seeing” under Jet Stream here

     

    Neil English debunks many more observing myths using historical data in his new book, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy.

     

    De Fideli.