Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Thanks for the detailed report. Besides the aperture difference, it shows how good the Zambuto mirror is. Was the 12.5" a Starmaster?

---

Since the Zambuto mirror was also the largest, it is not possible to differentially infer much about any potential quality advantage versus aperture-driven advantages. One would need to compare mirrors of the same aperture to draw any conclusions about relative mirror quality.

John

---

Ny sentiments exactly, you would need identical apertures. Still, good test nonetheless.

--------------------
Meade 8.25"(209.55mm) LX-90 EMC (SCT)

Albert Einstein =>
“Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death.”
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

:) The hazy bunch of stars really imitated nebulosity well... I guess same goes with M17?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I would encourage people to be happy with their telescopes.

---

Amen, brother! We live in such a Mick Jagger culture, where it seems inbred that we "cain't git no satisphackshun"... be it scopes, cars, house, job... Being content, or even "happy" with your *stuff* sometimes seems like swimmin' against the current.

But i digress...

Quote:

---

When I first purchased my scope, I did not see that much. The longer I observe the more detail I see in objects.

---

Justin is onto something really valuable here. If i may embellish on this concept, i've discovered THREE things that lend to this effect of observing longer & seeing more:
1) A *comfortable* observing chair,
2) Comfortable eyepieces,
3) A Binoviewer.

Each of these play to different aspects of my physiology, and along with obvious creature-comforts such as suitably warm clothing, snacks, coffee, etc., enable & promote longer & more relaxed sojourns at the EP... times where many interesting things occur within my eyesight:
1) Fainter stars twinkle into view,
2) Greater extents of nebulosity, the fainter-fringes, gradually swim into view,
3) Entire galaxies will momentarily de-cloak as the seeing suddenly steadys, creating a kind of "flashing" visual sensation,
4) Subtle details on Luna & planets will, likewise, sift thru the seeing & my eye-brain wiring to become visible.
5) Transient phenomena will be glimpsed & enjoyed, rather than missed- primarily aircraft & satellites, but also birds across Luna, & even shooting stars (YES!- in the EP! )

While some folks might enjoy hunting big game with heavy ballistics & infrared imagers, others have found their satisfaction by goin' after grizzlies with bows & knives.

There's so much up there to see! A bigger scope can certainly be nice, but there are DEFINITELY less costly ways of seeing more of the action from where you're at!

No animules were harmed during the preceding response... tho some bears may have been amused.
mike b

--------------------
Just for giggles- Next time when the money comes out the ATM, scream "I Won!, I Won!"

* * 15" F4.55 Starsplitter Dob * *

Pacheco State Park
Fremont Peak

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

It allows you to observe without nudging and frames objects nicely.

---

Perhaps another thing to consider with a 10-inch (+/-) Dob would be a tracking platform, as yet another way where a minimum of fuss with mechanicals can gain unencumbered time at the EP!


--------------------
Just for giggles- Next time when the money comes out the ATM, scream "I Won!, I Won!"

* * 15" F4.55 Starsplitter Dob * *

Pacheco State Park
Fremont Peak

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Well, logically there are many variables here. If all things were equal except the aperture then it would be logically valid. Besides aperture there are other variables such as mirror quality, collimation and cooling which are just as critical. Recently, my 8" Orion beat a 18" Obsession in viewing Jupiter. Why? Because of cooling and collimation issues. So, logically it's not as simple as you make it out to be. I think logically the only thing we can say about the original post is that a certain percentage of the difference between the views can be attributed to aperture. The rest can be attributed to other factors such as collimation, cooling, seeing, transparency, and mirror quality. In the real world, smaller aperture instruments can beat larger ones because of collimation. cooling issues and mirror quality. I see it all the time.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

How about M57 Ring Nebulae? You can see it in the 8; it's a tiny specs with a slightly darker center. But you can't "observe" and study it.

---

Nice report. And I know there are a lot of variables here--individual scope, site, observer--but your description of the Ring seems to have more in common with what I see in an 80mm refractor than an 8-inch scope. No, I can't see the central star in an 8, but certainly there is plenty to study in an 8. In this aperture, for example, it's clear the object is not round, but elongated. It's also obvious the center is not dark. And quite a few interesting--and some difficult--stars come into view. Of course, I pump up the magnification to 200x and above. In my experience one of the prime mistakes deep sky observers make is using too little power.


--------------------
Uncle Rod

Watch for Rod's New Book:
Choosing and Using a New CAT--coming in December!

Edited by rmollise (09/04/08 08:08 AM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Do you guys recommend Meade's telescopes? Expecially LightBridge?

---

If you want a new 16" truss scope for less than $2000, it's your only choice. Or if you need a smaller truss scope for the portability...

Otherwise, I'd buy a solid tube Zhumell or Orion dob and put the extra cash toward eyepieces. The optics of the Lightbridge, Orion and Zhumell should be equal in quality.

--------------------
Michael
Dallas, TX


Orion 127mm Mak-Cass
Orion 10" Dob




Edited by TexBiker (09/04/08 01:56 PM)

Post Extras: