Astronomical Equipment

Hello Rod,

Rod Mollise wrote:


This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

Hi:

How long have you been in this?

Too many decades



Do you remember Ramsden eyepieces with uncoated army surplus lens elements?

I rememeber Ramsdens as being serious eyepieces

35 degree AFOVs?

Yep



Using these on the deep sky?

Nope, I used Kellners, which I found to be good eyepieces, particularly a 28 mm
Kellner I still have.



Pipe mounts?

I never owned one but I heard they were fine. You mean they weren't?



Heavy, shaky newtonians that cost more than your old man made in a year?

Well, heavy Newtonians, that I owned, that were too heavy for me to move easily.
Not shaky, but very hard for me to balance on all three axes.
But the Minneapolis astronomy society, or one of its nearby vendors, marketed a
nifty aluminum newtonian mount with folding legs that I much regret not buying
(circa 1960). I might buy one today if I could find one.



Skalnate Pleso as your "deep" atlas?

I have it and I think it is great, still very usable for general purposes but not
as a "deep atlas."



ONE astronomy magazine and maybe a club newsletter a month?

There were always more than one, from about 1955 one, though all are now defunct
except S & T.



A 12.5 inch as a HUGE, unbelievable telescope?

Yep. Dr. Henry Paul made a great fuss about one in one of his books. A 12 inch f.
4.3 a friend of his had.



Mimeographed club newsletters that talked about CHALLENGE OBJECTS like the Veil
Nebula?

Well, the Veil was generally considered unviewable.



Praying they were serious when they advertised "1/4 wave"?

Dreaming of the impossible purchase of a 4 inch acrhomatic refractor? The one
that cost even more than the above newts?

Yep, that was the pinnacle at the time of New Handbook of the Heavens. One could
see more than one moon of Saturn with it, if one looked carefully, Bernhard,
Bennett and Rice felt.



NO such thing as buying a scope off the shelf unless it was a Tasco (which were
almost as bad then as now)?

Well, I lusted after Starliner, Cave, and ANRA, big impressive equatorially mounted
Newtonians, but could only afford the 4.25 inch hand held ANRA RFT reflector,
which was very good and which I still have. Only much later did I get a Telescopics
6 inch f 5 Dob.



Trying to shoot Jupiter with color slide film?

Being happy if you could make out craters on your Tri-X shots of the Moon you
took with a rangefinder camera?

Nostalgia is nostalgia, and if anybody wants to observe the old-fashioned way,
fine. There's not a right way to do this. It's whatever makes you happy. Me?
Give me all the goto, computers, and TV eyepieces I can handle. One look at the
Mars images I brought back (and the visual observatons I had) last summer and
I'm SURE I don't want to go back. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Clear skies to you Rod, and thanks for an interesting post,
Bill Meyers

Hello Rod,

Rod Mollise wrote:


This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

Hi:

How long have you been in this?

Too many decades



Do you remember Ramsden eyepieces with uncoated army surplus lens elements?

I rememeber Ramsdens as being serious eyepieces

35 degree AFOVs?

Yep



Using these on the deep sky?

Nope, I used Kellners, which I found to be good eyepieces, particularly a 28 mm
Kellner I still have.



Pipe mounts?

I never owned one but I heard they were fine. You mean they weren't?



Heavy, shaky newtonians that cost more than your old man made in a year?

Well, heavy Newtonians, that I owned, that were too heavy for me to move easily.
Not shaky, but very hard for me to balance on all three axes.
But the Minneapolis astronomy society, or one of its nearby vendors, marketed a
nifty aluminum newtonian mount with folding legs that I much regret not buying
(circa 1960). I might buy one today if I could find one.



Skalnate Pleso as your "deep" atlas?

I have it and I think it is great, still very usable for general purposes but not
as a "deep atlas."



ONE astronomy magazine and maybe a club newsletter a month?

There were always more than one, from about 1955 one, though all are now defunct
except S & T.



A 12.5 inch as a HUGE, unbelievable telescope?

Yep. Dr. Henry Paul made a great fuss about one in one of his books. A 12 inch f.
4.3 a friend of his had.



Mimeographed club newsletters that talked about CHALLENGE OBJECTS like the Veil
Nebula?

Well, the Veil was generally considered unviewable.



Praying they were serious when they advertised "1/4 wave"?

Dreaming of the impossible purchase of a 4 inch acrhomatic refractor? The one
that cost even more than the above newts?

Yep, that was the pinnacle at the time of New Handbook of the Heavens. One could
see more than one moon of Saturn with it, if one looked carefully, Bernhard,
Bennett and Rice felt.



NO such thing as buying a scope off the shelf unless it was a Tasco (which were
almost as bad then as now)?

Well, I lusted after Starliner, Cave, and ANRA, big impressive equatorially mounted
Newtonians, but could only afford the 4.25 inch hand held ANRA RFT reflector,
which was very good and which I still have. Only much later did I get a Telescopics
6 inch f 5 Dob.



Trying to shoot Jupiter with color slide film?

Being happy if you could make out craters on your Tri-X shots of the Moon you
took with a rangefinder camera?

Nostalgia is nostalgia, and if anybody wants to observe the old-fashioned way,
fine. There's not a right way to do this. It's whatever makes you happy. Me?
Give me all the goto, computers, and TV eyepieces I can handle. One look at the
Mars images I brought back (and the visual observatons I had) last summer and
I'm SURE I don't want to go back. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Clear skies to you Rod, and thanks for an interesting post,
Bill Meyers

Hello Rod,

Rod Mollise wrote:


This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

Hi:

How long have you been in this?

Too many decades



Do you remember Ramsden eyepieces with uncoated army surplus lens elements?

I rememeber Ramsdens as being serious eyepieces

35 degree AFOVs?

Yep



Using these on the deep sky?

Nope, I used Kellners, which I found to be good eyepieces, particularly a 28 mm
Kellner I still have.



Pipe mounts?

I never owned one but I heard they were fine. You mean they weren't?



Heavy, shaky newtonians that cost more than your old man made in a year?

Well, heavy Newtonians, that I owned, that were too heavy for me to move easily.
Not shaky, but very hard for me to balance on all three axes.
But the Minneapolis astronomy society, or one of its nearby vendors, marketed a
nifty aluminum newtonian mount with folding legs that I much regret not buying
(circa 1960). I might buy one today if I could find one.



Skalnate Pleso as your "deep" atlas?

I have it and I think it is great, still very usable for general purposes but not
as a "deep atlas."



ONE astronomy magazine and maybe a club newsletter a month?

There were always more than one, from about 1955 one, though all are now defunct
except S & T.



A 12.5 inch as a HUGE, unbelievable telescope?

Yep. Dr. Henry Paul made a great fuss about one in one of his books. A 12 inch f.
4.3 a friend of his had.



Mimeographed club newsletters that talked about CHALLENGE OBJECTS like the Veil
Nebula?

Well, the Veil was generally considered unviewable.



Praying they were serious when they advertised "1/4 wave"?

Dreaming of the impossible purchase of a 4 inch acrhomatic refractor? The one
that cost even more than the above newts?

Yep, that was the pinnacle at the time of New Handbook of the Heavens. One could
see more than one moon of Saturn with it, if one looked carefully, Bernhard,
Bennett and Rice felt.



NO such thing as buying a scope off the shelf unless it was a Tasco (which were
almost as bad then as now)?

Well, I lusted after Starliner, Cave, and ANRA, big impressive equatorially mounted
Newtonians, but could only afford the 4.25 inch hand held ANRA RFT reflector,
which was very good and which I still have. Only much later did I get a Telescopics
6 inch f 5 Dob.



Trying to shoot Jupiter with color slide film?

Being happy if you could make out craters on your Tri-X shots of the Moon you
took with a rangefinder camera?

Nostalgia is nostalgia, and if anybody wants to observe the old-fashioned way,
fine. There's not a right way to do this. It's whatever makes you happy. Me?
Give me all the goto, computers, and TV eyepieces I can handle. One look at the
Mars images I brought back (and the visual observatons I had) last summer and
I'm SURE I don't want to go back. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Clear skies to you Rod, and thanks for an interesting post,
Bill Meyers

Let me add that I intended the original post as sarcasm.

But this brings up something which has bothered me
for a while now.

There is a member of one of the astronomy club
I belong to who made his own 12.5" mirror, and being
a skilled machinist made his own German EQ mount
(he now makes the "Feathertouch" focusers)
then used the scope for astrophotography.
He used hypered Tech-Pan 2415. His results
were outstanding, and won many awards.

Now there are other members of the club getting
comparable results, using Astro-Physics refractors
and mounts, and SBIG CCD cameras. The difference,
to me, is that skill and ingenuity have been
taken out of the picture, and replaced by
how much money you can spend. In other words, there
results are not, in my mind, skill-driven, but
rather money driven. It seems to me to be a loss
to the hobby.

Let me add that I intended the original post as sarcasm.

But this brings up something which has bothered me
for a while now.

There is a member of one of the astronomy club
I belong to who made his own 12.5" mirror, and being
a skilled machinist made his own German EQ mount
(he now makes the "Feathertouch" focusers)
then used the scope for astrophotography.
He used hypered Tech-Pan 2415. His results
were outstanding, and won many awards.

Now there are other members of the club getting
comparable results, using Astro-Physics refractors
and mounts, and SBIG CCD cameras. The difference,
to me, is that skill and ingenuity have been
taken out of the picture, and replaced by
how much money you can spend. In other words, there
results are not, in my mind, skill-driven, but
rather money driven. It seems to me to be a loss
to the hobby.

Let me add that I intended the original post as sarcasm.

But this brings up something which has bothered me
for a while now.

There is a member of one of the astronomy club
I belong to who made his own 12.5" mirror, and being
a skilled machinist made his own German EQ mount
(he now makes the "Feathertouch" focusers)
then used the scope for astrophotography.
He used hypered Tech-Pan 2415. His results
were outstanding, and won many awards.

Now there are other members of the club getting
comparable results, using Astro-Physics refractors
and mounts, and SBIG CCD cameras. The difference,
to me, is that skill and ingenuity have been
taken out of the picture, and replaced by
how much money you can spend. In other words, there
results are not, in my mind, skill-driven, but
rather money driven. It seems to me to be a loss
to the hobby.

Besides you and me, I wonder who else knows what a 6L6 is. I'm not a
musician
just an old ham buff.

I used to design and build tube amps for bass guitars while attending college
at RIT. 6L6 tubes were neat but a real tube was the 813 - enough power for a
full gallon (1kw).

Roland Christen

Besides you and me, I wonder who else knows what a 6L6 is. I'm not a
musician
just an old ham buff.

I used to design and build tube amps for bass guitars while attending college
at RIT. 6L6 tubes were neat but a real tube was the 813 - enough power for a
full gallon (1kw).

Roland Christen

Besides you and me, I wonder who else knows what a 6L6 is. I'm not a
musician
just an old ham buff.

I used to design and build tube amps for bass guitars while attending college
at RIT. 6L6 tubes were neat but a real tube was the 813 - enough power for a
full gallon (1kw).

Roland Christen

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:09:00 -0600, Rod Mollise wrote
(in message ):

This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

Hi:

How long have you been in this?

Do you remember Ramsden eyepieces with uncoated army surplus lens elements?

Yes.

35 degree AFOVs?

Using these on the deep sky?

Pipe mounts?

Yes. Actually that was the only type mount I ever owned for my 6" Newtonian.
Just about the time I was going to build a real mount I ended up in the Navy,
which put things on hold ever since.

Heavy, shaky newtonians that cost more than your old man made in a year?

In spite of the pipe German mount my 6" Newtonian was not all that shaky, or
that heavy. (Compared to installing a furnace or air-conditioner it was
pretty light, I helped my dad install one hell of a lot of both while I was
in high school.)

Fortunately I got the Newton for free. (Thank you, Mrs. Rioth.)

Skalnate Pleso as your "deep" atlas?

Norton's only, the only one I ever found in my area.

ONE astronomy magazine and maybe a club newsletter a month?

Newsletter? In the 60's in Missouri? I was happy if the local drug store got
a copy of Sky & Telescope, which it did on occasion.

A 12.5 inch as a HUGE, unbelievable telescope?

Mimeographed club newsletters that talked about CHALLENGE OBJECTS like the
Veil Nebula?

Praying they were serious when they advertised "1/4 wave"?

Dreaming of the impossible purchase of a 4 inch acrhomatic refractor? The
one that cost even more than the above newts?

NO such thing as buying a scope off the shelf unless it was a Tasco (which
were almost as bad then as now)?

Trying to shoot Jupiter with color slide film?

Being happy if you could make out craters on your Tri-X shots of the Moon
you took with a rangefinder camera?

Nostalgia is nostalgia, and if anybody wants to observe the old-fashioned
way, fine. There's not a right way to do this. It's whatever makes you
happy. Me? Give me all the goto, computers, and TV eyepieces I can handle.
One look at the Mars images I brought back (and the visual observatons I
had) last summer and I'm SURE I don't want to go back. ;-)

I agree, I don't want to go back, though I really do wish I still had the
optics for that 6". I would enjoy building it up to usable condition again.

--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness

"You think atoms like having a half-life?"
Incenjucar