Jump to content


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Lurch VS the TV102 – Battlefield Luna!

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1 reply to this topic

#1 Tom T

Tom T

    A Father, A Teacher, A Pioneer

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 36397
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2002

Posted 07 August 2003 - 08:53 AM

Lurch VS the TV102 – Battlefield Luna!

Playground: The moon
Eyepeices used: Nearly all. <g> Orthos, Naglers, Panoptics, and several others
Conditions: Seeing – Pickering 6, Transparency High
Scopes: TV102 f8.6 APO, Lurch 10” F7.5 Reflector – Swayze mirror, 15% obstruction
Date: 8/8/03

This is just a short comment/report, but I thought you guys might find it interesting.

I’ve been out a few times this week to peek at the moon and am always impressed by the views the TV102 provides. I know it lacks the resolution of the 10”, but I often wonder just how much difference there is. Well, last night it cleared off, Keith came over and we set up Lurch and the TV102 for some lunar viewing and side by side comparisions.

In essence, it went about as you would expect. Lurch’s 10” were just to much for the 102, but this was only noticeable in fine details. For example: the most craterlets I’ve ever pulled out of Plato with the 102 are 4-5. Last night the 102 grabbed 2. Lurch managed 5, with the central craterlet easily showing as a distinct crater/pit. We counted sunlight hitting 5 seperate spots in Copernicus with lurch – the 102 got 3. As per resolution, everything the 102 showed, the 10” showed just a bit more.

When we got to contrast however, it was a different story. While lurch showed variations in shading, it did not convey the depth of hues that the 102 did. In particular the area south of Copernicus was a veritable playground of greys in the TeleVue. The highlights of this area did show in lurch, but not nearly as well. It was nearly like the 102 was dealing with a palate of 100’s of colors, and lurch with 10 or so. This may have been due to the larger aperture letting in more light, but I have a feeling that it was more due to the (admittedly tiny) 15% central obstruction.

Lurch is a superb lunar and planetary scope, but I can see where a large refractor would have some optical advantages.

All in all, it was a most instructive evening.

Clear Skies

Tom T.

#2 Uncle Burnout

Uncle Burnout

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2003

Posted 10 August 2003 - 02:46 AM


Interesting experiment. Did you compare with same eyepiece in each 'scope or use different eyepieces for equalizing the magnification or max out each scope? There would be justifications for all three ways, probably, but one thought I had was that with "Lurch" you should be able to get to a significantly higher magnification, which might reduce the intensity of the highlights and so give you a view more like what you liked in the TV102. Just wondering... Also, if you don't need Lurch anymore, I can send you my shipping address

Burton :question:

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Recent Topics

Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics