On May 13, 11:32*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 13, 8:05 am, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote:

In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers -

Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy
to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes
not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate
and observe; and

Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and
the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It
takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward
tastes just a bit sweeter...

I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but
I surely enjoy the hunt and identification.

Bruce

* * Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have
computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple
of button presses. *I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who
is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend
on whether the mount is set up correctly?"

* * Why, yes. Yes, it does.

* * Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up
the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece.

* * When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from
urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and
capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic
charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology
driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the
reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no
more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go-
to is not too difficult. *With a computerized go-to, the actual
mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so
critical. *Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim
it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the
PC, and the PC takes it from there. *After that, you just punch in
your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the
appropriate coordinates.

With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing
on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for
objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the
challenge. *I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted
instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set-
up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old-
fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road
- I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a
great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center
for several minutes running, a real joy. *It is nice to gaze at that 8-
billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge
the behemoth along... :-)

That's very quaint. *There are objects way too faint to see in real
time. *Do you not try to image them? *Film? *CCD?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 13, 11:32*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 13, 8:05 am, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote:

In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers -

Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy
to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes
not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate
and observe; and

Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and
the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It
takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward
tastes just a bit sweeter...

I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but
I surely enjoy the hunt and identification.

Bruce

* * Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have
computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple
of button presses. *I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who
is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend
on whether the mount is set up correctly?"

* * Why, yes. Yes, it does.

* * Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up
the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece.

* * When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from
urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and
capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic
charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology
driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the
reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no
more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go-
to is not too difficult. *With a computerized go-to, the actual
mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so
critical. *Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim
it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the
PC, and the PC takes it from there. *After that, you just punch in
your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the
appropriate coordinates.

With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing
on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for
objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the
challenge. *I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted
instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set-
up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old-
fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road
- I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a
great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center
for several minutes running, a real joy. *It is nice to gaze at that 8-
billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge
the behemoth along... :-)

That's very quaint. *There are objects way too faint to see in real
time. *Do you not try to image them? *Film? *CCD?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm a visual observer. I like the romance of real photons on my
retina. There are lots of people out there who tinker with CCDs, and
I appreciate what they do, but they don't need me joining in. I am
simply not a high-tech-gadget guy.

Bruce

bpnjensen wrote:
On May 13, 7:37 am, wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 12, 5:28 am, wrote:
0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4

Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole.

Automatically logged by fldigi.

6,318 miles

Sounds great! Too easy maybe? but great nonetheless.

In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers -

Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to
look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not,
because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and
observe; and

Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the
Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes
longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a
bit sweeter...

I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I
surely enjoy the hunt and identification.

Bruce

My PC monitors a 2 KHz window from 14070.5 KHz to 14072.5 KHz

The software decodes the messages, and looks for a repeated call sign
after the word "de". If it catches a callsign, the software reports
this reception to the pskreporter map. The sending station then gets
almost real time confirmation that they are "getting out".

Unless the stars talk back to you, it's completely different.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, no Dave, it is a near perfect analogy. It is still the reception
and confirmation of photons from a distant location, only the
technology is different (and even less so if one is doing
radioastronomy). You can nitpick this to death if you like, but most
people are going to spot the similarities almost right away.

I don't log these. I don't QSL them. I just noticed the catch on the
pskreporter page. I only log real live QSOs. The autospotting goes on
while I'm at work.

I really have nothing to prove to anybody. All the bad **** I said was
gonna happen happened. I'm having a blast.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
imepiece.

When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from
urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and
capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic
charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology
driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the
reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no
more difficulty than simply opening a chart.

http://smallwonderlabs.com/Rockmite.htm

bpnjensen wrote:
On May 13, 8:05 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote:





In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers -

Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy
to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes
not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate
and observe; and

Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and
the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It
takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward
tastes just a bit sweeter...

I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but
I surely enjoy the hunt and identification.

Bruce

Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have
computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple
of button presses. I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who
is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend
on whether the mount is set up correctly?"

Why, yes. Yes, it does.

Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up
the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece.

When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from
urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and
capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic
charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology
driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the
reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no
more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go-
to is not too difficult. With a computerized go-to, the actual
mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so
critical. Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim
it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the
PC, and the PC takes it from there. After that, you just punch in
your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the
appropriate coordinates.

With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing
on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for
objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the
challenge. I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted
instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set-
up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old-
fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road
- I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a
great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center
for several minutes running, a real joy. It is nice to gaze at that 8-
billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge
the behemoth along... :-)

That's very quaint. There are objects way too faint to see in real
time. Do you not try to image them? Film? CCD?

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote:

In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers -

Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy
to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes
not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate
and observe; and

Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and
the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It
takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward
tastes just a bit sweeter...

I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but
I surely enjoy the hunt and identification.

Bruce



Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have
computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple
of button presses. I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is
also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on
whether the mount is set up correctly?"

Why, yes. Yes, it does.

Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up
the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece.

When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from
urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and
capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic
charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology
driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the
reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no
more difficulty than simply opening a chart.

It depends what you want to do.

I think virtually all of the mounts designed for imaging include goto
these days because some of the targets we image are too faint to be seen
in real time with a transportable scope. It's not uncommon for me to
need to take a couple 10-20 second exposures just to compose my frame.

While some goto scopes are not critical on polar alignment, (in fact
many of them are alt-az instead of equatorial) the Astro-Physics ones
pretty much demand you have a reasonably good polar alignment, because
if you just do a multiple star sync and have the mount calculate things
out you'll end up with field rotation if you're imaging.

An incredible advantage to goto is for public outreach. It's not fun
hunting down an elusive target if you've got a couple dozen people
standing around waiting. With goto, after everyone has looked, I can
punch a few buttons and while the scope slews to the object I can tell
them about the next object we'll be looking at.

The Dobsonian mount was a wonderful invention because it made useful
scopes affordable and larger portable scopes possible, but even John
Dobson tells people it has it's limitations. Haven't seen him in a
couple years, but before he had a stroke, he was a regular visitor to
the North East, and I'd usually run into him a few times a year. Last
time he was out he helped a kid make a transportable 10" f8 dob with a
mirror I got from North American Rockwell. It's a beast to use as
things drift out of the field quickly, but the optics are incredible.

And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here
experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable"
vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile?

On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote:


And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here
experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable"
vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile?


That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a
dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results.

As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the
field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely
because it needs a form to keep the coil stable.

On May 13, 12:12*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote:

And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here
experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable"
vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile?

* *That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a
dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results.

* *As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the
field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely
because it needs a form to keep the coil stable.

Would sheets of plastic inserted between the coils to prevent contact
plus an overall clamp to maintain shape do the trick? Once done, it
could be 'set and forget'...

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote:


And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here
experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable"
vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile?


That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a
dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results.

As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field.
As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it needs
a form to keep the coil stable.



I was thinking I could put it over a section of pvc pipe.

Or I may just buy a screwdriver antenna. Can't count on having trees to
hang an antenna at a star party.

My AT-271 worked fine for RX, but now I'm doing the tx thing too.

On 5/13/10 14:18 , Mark S. Holden wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote:


And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here
experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable"
vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile?


That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a
dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results.

As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field.
As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it
needs a form to keep the coil stable.



I was thinking I could put it over a section of pvc pipe.

Or I may just buy a screwdriver antenna. Can't count on having trees to
hang an antenna at a star party.

My AT-271 worked fine for RX, but now I'm doing the tx thing too.

Depending on power applied, within the slinky, you may have to
deal with volume of dissipation in the coil. It's not a copper
conductor. Nor is it uniformly round, which will make the areas of
electric and magnetic field density vary around the surface of the
conductor. And being a flat conductor will produce less effective
skin conductivity surface than the equivalent cylindrical surface
area. This will make capacitance distributed across the breadth of
the coil a more significant issue, and, dependent on frequency, this
could be a considerable tuning issue and SWL issue for the
transmitter. An antenna tuner will help with the match, but losses
in the antenna will continue to be losses, antenna tuner or not.

If losses are not a significant issue in your setup, then a
slinky can be an adequate loading device. If losses will matter,
then there are better solutions.