On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:28:02 -0500, Alan W. Craft
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:44:03 -0400, Anthony PDC ...reflected:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:50:08 -0500, Alan W. Craft
wrote:

SNIP

I still have the owner's manual, and most every accesory,
including a solar projection screen, rather than an eyepiece
filter.

Saturn
never appeared green to me, nor did any other object. Chromatic
abberation was tolerable in my scope, but the offending colours were
the typical red and blue, the edge.

My "mail order" scope was indeed Japanese - f16 job; came with a
crappy alt-az mount in black crackle paint (grin) and a lovely wooden
case with three kellner eyepieces and thick glass, dark green "Sun
Filter" which screwed into the filter threads of the ep's (eek!) -

That smacks of Vixen's solar observation "technique," which also
employs a hole in a prism diagonal housing in order to exhaust most
of the heat and light away from the observer's eye...

I don't believe that your setup would've included that extra diagonal?

Do you recall the brand of that telescope?

Alas, no But from what you have said here, it sounds like mine in
most respects Alan.

I shudder to think what damage I did to my eye(s)!

So do I! Have you noticed any damage?

Nope, thank goodness! At around the same time, I thought my Mum's
Tanning Lamp was cool; I sneaked into my parents' bedroom and messed
around with it, without eye protecton. I dug the effects!. A few hours
later, I was in agony . Spent the next two weeks blind - the UV lamp
burned away the epithelium from my corneas.

My father's side of the family is most prone to cataracts. So far,
and at 39, I've been spared.

I think that some of my paternal ancestors must've been Druids...

HA! Did I ever see you at Stonehenge?

SNIPPED

OK - but that yields a mirror-image too.

I know, but the link also advertises Orion's 2" mirror diagonal.

What I really covet is a high
quality correct-image star diagonal for astronomy.

Did you click on the link and take a look at Orion's offering? It may
be the only way to go, unless you might locate someone who could make
you one, but for a price, of course.

Yes Alan, I did. What worries me is that the correct-image diagonal is
nearly half the cost of my reversed image Orion Mirror diagonal.

about more glass/surfaces affecting quality blah...just was curious if
some breakthrough had occurred in the reasonably recent past. And
talking about surfaces and extra chunks of glass, when one looks at
the pounds of glass in thse awesome Naglers and other ultrawide ep's
one is apt to question this rule of thumb (I own a Meade 14mm
Ultrawide, and astonishingly wonderful it is too - in spite of its
complement of EIGHT lenses!)

I've yet to sample the world of 2" oculars, but its time is coming.

No need to wait: the Meade 2" 14mm Ultrawide ($300) comes with an
integral 1.25" barrel. I assure you, if you haven't observed with this
naked clone of the Nagler, you owe it to yourself as they say....
Simply breathtaking. I know I'm not alone in this opinion.

So, I'm wondering - is there some optical rule which gives the OK to
use multiple glass elements in eyepieces for example, but any optical
device which gives a correct image for astronomy is anathema?

Not that I'm aware of, other than having read that said diagonals
are primarily recommended for terrestrial use.

Yeah I know - still wondering why this is so.

Regards,

Anthony

Regards,

Anthony