Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tmboptical] Poor Seeing and a Note on TMB Super Monos

Expand Messages
  • W. Gondella
    ... From: jimhp29401us To: Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:08 PM Subject: [tmboptical] Poor Seeing
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "jimhp29401us" <thefamily90@...>
      To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:08 PM
      Subject: [tmboptical] Poor Seeing and a Note on TMB Super Monos


      > Well, I made it to the Farm. May I say this. I follow the weather
      > very closely, being interested in things like CLEAR SKIES. I just
      > want to tell you the weather service doesn't know the difference
      > between Clear Skies and Overcast/Cloudy skies where you can actually
      > see the moon through the clouds but that's it.

      Jim,

      I am constantly frustrated at what the weather people call "clear" and even more so when a
      totally clear evening does pop up unexpected, and the weather forcast didn't even
      *suggest* the possibility that a total clearing might happen.

      Sometimes I think most of these folks are just talking heads, and wouldn't know an isobar
      from an occluded front to a mamatocumulous cloud, if their life depended on it.

      WG
    • marketparticipant
      ... weather ... actually ... and even more so when a ... forcast didn t even ... wouldn t know an isobar ... depended on it. ... I find Clear Sky Clock to be
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "W. Gondella" <strehl985@c...>
        wrote:
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "jimhp29401us" <thefamily90@h...>
        > To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:08 PM
        > Subject: [tmboptical] Poor Seeing and a Note on TMB Super Monos
        >
        >
        > > Well, I made it to the Farm. May I say this. I follow the
        weather
        > > very closely, being interested in things like CLEAR SKIES. I just
        > > want to tell you the weather service doesn't know the difference
        > > between Clear Skies and Overcast/Cloudy skies where you can
        actually
        > > see the moon through the clouds but that's it.
        >
        > Jim,
        >
        > I am constantly frustrated at what the weather people call "clear"
        and even more so when a
        > totally clear evening does pop up unexpected, and the weather
        forcast didn't even
        > *suggest* the possibility that a total clearing might happen.
        >
        > Sometimes I think most of these folks are just talking heads, and
        wouldn't know an isobar
        > from an occluded front to a mamatocumulous cloud, if their life
        depended on it.
        >
        > WG

        I find "Clear Sky Clock" to be very useful. It's a weather forcast
        for astronomy - gives detailed, hour-by-hour forcasts for the next 48
        hours, including seeing, transparency, and cloud cover. Forecast for
        over 1700 locations, mostly in the U.S.

        Clear Sky Clock's home page is http://cleardarksky.com/csk/.
        Definitely worth 'seeing' if there's a forcast location near you.

        Brad
      • W. Gondella
        ... From: marketparticipant To: Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: [tmboptical] Re:
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "marketparticipant" <marketparticipant@...>
          To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 8:12 PM
          Subject: [tmboptical] Re: Poor Seeing and a Note on TMB Super Monos


          > I find "Clear Sky Clock" to be very useful. It's a weather forcast
          > for astronomy - gives detailed, hour-by-hour forcasts for the next 48
          > hours, including seeing, transparency, and cloud cover. Forecast for
          > over 1700 locations, mostly in the U.S.
          >
          > Clear Sky Clock's home page is http://cleardarksky.com/csk/.
          > Definitely worth 'seeing' if there's a forcast location near you.


          Brad,

          There is. A local club has a CSC site listing (Wagman, Pittsburgh). I find CSC
          interesting, but have seen it totally miss and give eggregiously wrong forcasts as well.
          In the final analysis, I still find the best source of weather info is to check several
          sources of raw data and make your own predictions.

          And I wish the weather people would be honest and SAY weather prediction instead of
          forcast--- subtle difference, but perhaps more honest.

          WG
        • marketparticipant
          ... Pittsburgh). I find CSC ... wrong forcasts as well. ... is to check several ... prediction instead of ... WG, Sometimes the best source of real-time, raw
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > There is. A local club has a CSC site listing (Wagman,
            Pittsburgh). I find CSC
            > interesting, but have seen it totally miss and give eggregiously
            wrong forcasts as well.
            > In the final analysis, I still find the best source of weather info
            is to check several
            > sources of raw data and make your own predictions.
            >
            > And I wish the weather people would be honest and SAY weather
            prediction instead of
            > forcast--- subtle difference, but perhaps more honest.
            >
            > WG

            WG,

            Sometimes the best source of real-time, raw data is taking your own
            small refractor on a alt-az mount outside for a quick peek...

            It's so rare that the seeing is really good. It makes sense to have
            a good understanding of the weather - something I need to read up on.

            Brad
          • W. Gondella
            ... From: marketparticipant To: Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:24 PM Subject: [tmboptical]
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "marketparticipant" <marketparticipant@...>
              To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:24 PM
              Subject: [tmboptical] Re: Poor Seeing


              > Sometimes the best source of real-time, raw data is taking your own
              > small refractor on a alt-az mount outside for a quick peek...
              >
              > It's so rare that the seeing is really good. It makes sense to have
              > a good understanding of the weather - something I need to read up on.
              >
              > Brad


              I have a 90mm f/10 doublet refractor that I rebuilt a few years ago. It now has a
              collimatable cell, better baffling, a 2" focuser, and all aligned properly--- it actually
              performs quite well, sharpness, contrast and even color-wise, it's a honey. I usually put
              it on a CI-700 mount--- a bit of a lug, but I could also put it on an el cheapo GEM I
              still have around, just for that purpose! :) Hmmm.

              If things don't look good (or just barely), then I haven't invested a lot of work, but can
              still get some pretty nice views. And if the view is shockingly good, it won't but take a
              moment to run in and get one of my "real" telescopes.

              WG
            • marketparticipant
              ... ago. It now has a ... properly--- it actually ... a honey. I usually put ... an el cheapo GEM I ... a lot of work, but can ... good, it won t but take a
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                > I have a 90mm f/10 doublet refractor that I rebuilt a few years
                ago. It now has a
                > collimatable cell, better baffling, a 2" focuser, and all aligned
                properly--- it actually
                > performs quite well, sharpness, contrast and even color-wise, it's
                a honey. I usually put
                > it on a CI-700 mount--- a bit of a lug, but I could also put it on
                an el cheapo GEM I
                > still have around, just for that purpose! :) Hmmm.
                >
                > If things don't look good (or just barely), then I haven't invested
                a lot of work, but can
                > still get some pretty nice views. And if the view is shockingly
                good, it won't but take a
                > moment to run in and get one of my "real" telescopes.
                >
                > WG

                WG,

                While I'm a firm believer in mount "overkill", I think the CI-700
                with a 90mm refractor just to check out the seeing might bring new
                meaning to the word!

                I've actually thought about attaching a cheap finder mount to a post
                outside and taking a 50mm RA finder with a high-mag EP out just to
                check out the seeing.

                I have a TV76 on a Bogen 3051 with a Lapides modified Teegul on
                order. (Yes, I know, the Bogen 3051 is overkill.) As far as I know,
                the modified Teegul is the only clutchless alt-az that also has fine
                motion controls - which is why I bought it. This scope actually gets
                used more for terrestrial viewing.

                I probably should have bought a TMB 80 f/6 instead of the TV76. The
                lateral color in the TV76 bothers me, although I'm not sure it isn't
                the eyepiece (I can see it with a 24mm Panoptic, for example). The
                TMB 80 f/6 seems to be the only APO triplet in it's size on the
                market.

                I'm still working on a "real" telescope - a 4-6" APO on a equatorial
                mount is probably next.

                Brad
              • W. Gondella
                ... From: marketparticipant To: Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: [tmboptical]
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "marketparticipant" <marketparticipant@...>
                  To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 4:15 PM
                  Subject: [tmboptical] Re: Poor Seeing


                  >
                  > While I'm a firm believer in mount "overkill", I think the CI-700
                  > with a 90mm refractor just to check out the seeing might bring new
                  > meaning to the word!


                  Brad,

                  Originally, a friend contacted me asking me what I thought about him buying a CI-700. I
                  thought it was actually a pretty good mount for the $1200 price he could get it for. Then
                  I fell into an opportunity to buy one myself for an even better price and decided that it
                  would make a suitable mount for light duty use. I have a modified HGM-200 for regular
                  use.

                  While the CI-700 is actually great under-kill for a C14 (what it was originally sold for),
                  and I actually consider the HGM "just adequate" for a C14, the CI700 really isn't overkill
                  for my 90mm. Assembled, it looks and acts like the perfect pair, what you would hope any
                  ideal 90mm telescope would come with. Using the 90mm is like a dream on that mount! :)

                  Now, what IS overkill is putting my little Apex 127 Mak-Cass on the 700! :) I barely
                  need a counterweight! I use one 7.5 pound weight half way up the shaft.

                  But the 700 is a pretty large and hefty mount, especially with those long legs. To be a
                  viable, fast "seeing-checker" with the 90mm, a cheap little trash GEM mount would be
                  better suited.

                  WG
                • Larry Geary
                  ... How about this:
                  Message 8 of 13 , Feb 6, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > While I'm a firm believer in mount "overkill", I think the
                    > CI-700 with a 90mm refractor just to check out the seeing
                    > might bring new meaning to the word!

                    How about this:
                    <http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wIEjQDRsh9LFoWMEHN3anrcTr_KHF7TVhOLWLLbBDbXhQj
                    m0JRQsEOLDmEqgPrJs-JMoLO4OqH8qMYVCzVyByhWac9o11Laz/StowAway1200A.JPG>
                  • W. Gondella
                    ... From: Larry Geary To: Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 7:25 AM Subject: RE: [tmboptical] Re: Poor Seeing
                    Message 9 of 13 , Feb 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Larry Geary" <lgeary@...>
                      To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 7:25 AM
                      Subject: RE: [tmboptical] Re: Poor Seeing


                      > > While I'm a firm believer in mount "overkill", I think the
                      > > CI-700 with a 90mm refractor just to check out the seeing
                      > > might bring new meaning to the word!
                      >
                      > How about this:
                      > <http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wIEjQDRsh9LFoWMEHN3anrcTr_KHF7TVhOLWLLbBDbXhQj
                      > m0JRQsEOLDmEqgPrJs-JMoLO4OqH8qMYVCzVyByhWac9o11Laz/StowAway1200A.JPG>


                      Sorry Larry,

                      When I try that link, it keeps coming up page not available. I pasted the whole link
                      intact.

                      WG
                    • Larry Geary
                      ... DbXhQjm0JRQsEOLDmEqgPrJs-JMoLO4OqH8qMYVCzVyByhWac9o11Laz/StowAway1200A.JPG ... Oh well. It was a picture of an AP Stowaway on an AP 1200 mount. It s in
                      Message 10 of 13 , Feb 6, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > > > While I'm a firm believer in mount "overkill", I think the CI-700
                        > > > with a 90mm refractor just to check out the seeing might
                        > bring new
                        > > > meaning to the word!
                        > >
                        > > How about this:
                        > >
                        > <http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wIEjQDRsh9LFoWMEHN3anrcTr_KHF7TVhOLWLLbB
                        > >
                        DbXhQjm0JRQsEOLDmEqgPrJs-JMoLO4OqH8qMYVCzVyByhWac9o11Laz/StowAway1200A.JPG>
                        >
                        >
                        > Sorry Larry,
                        >
                        > When I try that link, it keeps coming up page not available.
                        > I pasted the whole link intact.
                        >
                        > WG

                        Oh well. It was a picture of an AP Stowaway on an AP 1200 mount. It's in the
                        files section of the ap-ug Yahoo group.

                        --Larry
                      • W. Gondella
                        ... From: Larry Geary To: Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [tmboptical] Re: Poor Seeing
                        Message 11 of 13 , Feb 6, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Larry Geary" <lgeary@...>
                          To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 2:31 PM
                          Subject: RE: [tmboptical] Re: Poor Seeing


                          > Oh well. It was a picture of an AP Stowaway on an AP 1200 mount. It's in the
                          > files section of the ap-ug Yahoo group.
                          >
                          > --Larry


                          Overkill? How do you think they get those really good, clear pictures taken during a
                          hurricane, on the Weather Channel? :)

                          WG
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.