Re: Matching Amateur Astronomers by Category of Experience to Telescopes?
- From: oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 12:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 2, 7:47 pm, Marty <martyahr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 2, 5:45 am, Scatter <u...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2009-09-30, W. eWatson <wolftra...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is there some reasonably established rating of amateurs for various
telescopes? For example, off the top of my head,
I'm category 6 - someone who's absolutely wrapped in his upgrade
(today) from a low end celestron 80mm refractor with a wobbly ALT/AZ
GOTO mount to a 2nd hand Meide ETX105ec MAK (I was the only bidder on
ebay). It has both GOTO/manual adjustment, ALT/AZ, and polar alignment
(equatorial) foor photography. I was a little worried about the
advanced field tripod, as I'd read complaints about it but it's got
the high end tubular steel tripod that comes with the LX series. It's
such a joy to have a rock steady mount (my biggest advice to anyone
buying their first telescope - push the telescope about and make sure
that it doesn't wobble excessively). I'm just bummed that it's pouring
with rain and it's supposed to be overcast for the next few days so I
won't be able to test the optics properly.
Seriously, I'm probably more interested in the technology and learning
new things than in knowing the sky that well (it's in my blood - I'm
an engineer). I understand why we use equatorial mounts and how the
earth's motion affects star field motion - planetary motion gives me a
bit of a headache though. Depending on what's in the patch of sky that
I can see (obtained from software), I set myself new observing tasks
and challenges. With all the data on the web for the ETX series I'll be
kept busy for years exploring various aspects of using it. I can even
see astrophotography somewhere in my future - not for a while though.
Steve Paul was saying
I am now content to sit in
my chair with a small rich field scope and some bug spray, look at the
sky,
outline the constellations and remind myself what objects I've seen
(or
never did find) there, and pointing the scope in that direction.
I can identify with this. I've been interested in astronomy for as
long as I can remember, but what drove me to actually learn the
constellations many years ago was mostly a desire to know the sky like
the ancient navigators.
What you do is a great dishonor to the astrologers from antiquity and
I have seen completely unjust in calling you astrologers as opposed to
astronomers due to the fact that those men in antiquity put together
what we use (and in your case abuse) day in and day out.One genius in
particular,created the equable day/calendar system as a single unit
for it cannot be constructed any other way yet it all works off
referencing the annual cycle to the return of a star in 365 days 5
hours 49 minutes whereby the 365/366 day calendar system is
constructed and, daily rotation to the natural noon cycles whereby the
average 24 hour day is generated,the two motions known to the ancients
as the daily and seasonal cycles,work together to give us our day and
year.
Have you not enough common sense to recognise the timekeeping averages
which emerged with the appearance of clocks and telescopes around the
same time and which give you your goto features but cannot be mixed up
with the original system of references which created the timekeeping
standards in the first place ?.Why,for goodness sake,would a person
associate themselves with the astronomers who put their knowledge of
the constellations to good and pragmatic use and then go and kick them
in the teeth by ignoring how they went about things.
It is only when I say that I promote the rotating Earth once in 24
hours does it reflect badly on you for somehow people already know it
comes about using a specific process that involves rotation to the Sun
and an neat trick where the average 24 hour day is transfered to
rotation as a constant.I would really like to know what our ancestors
have done to deserve having their works mangled for no apparent reason
except a few lazy guys who couldn't be bothered to extract themselves
away from their magnification equipment and the ability to spot a few
constellations.
As I learned my way around the sky, and
picked up a few fuzzy glows with binoculars, I developed a need for a
scope. After a few smaller, cheaper, scopes, I settled on a C8 back
in 1977. I still have it, and I have an almost emotional attachment
to it... it was, and still is, the perfect scope for me. However,
although I spend some time under the night sky almost every clear
night, I've only had my scope out maybe 5 or 6 times this year. I
could NEVER sell it... sometimes I NEED it. But sometimes telescopes
get in the way. I could no more live in a place where I couldn't step
outside and enjoy a naked eye view of the constellations, the Milky
Way, the occasional comet, and the drifting planets, than I could live
without air.
As far as new astronomical equipment, my newest toy is a Kullmer
Equatorial Star Finder. I've wanted one for eight or nine years, and
I just managed to get one a week or two ago. It amounts to a sort of
planisphere on an equatorial mount with an arrow on top hooked to a
declination scale. They were made from around 1910 on up through the
twenties... I don't know how long, but "The Boy Astronomer," by A.
Frederick Collins, 1923 has maybe 10 pages devoted to the things.
Having a ball with my new toy...
Marty
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Matching Amateur Astronomers by Category of Experience to Telescopes?
- Next by Date: Re: Matching Amateur Astronomers by Category of Experience to Telescopes?
- Previous by thread: Re: Matching Amateur Astronomers by Category of Experience to Telescopes?
- Next by thread: Re: Matching Amateur Astronomers by Category of Experience to Telescopes?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
