Date   

Re: Help

charles jagow
 

I am mainly trying to TROUBLESHOOT the one I bought off of Astromart, it is most likely either the cable or the Autostar, or pehaps both. Either way I need to test my new (to me) Autostar & cable. I have no problems with Bob needing one and buying it now, I certainly am not interested in making anyone upset.

If someone brings an ETX to the Boardwalk Astronomy event tomorrow evening I can kill all my "birds" with one stone. If mine is broke, then either I will fix it or acquire a replcaement at that time.

I am using this on my ETX-70 which is a great little refractor for double stars and my solar funnel rig.

v/r
Chuck Jagow
Rott?n Paws Observatory
36:46:23N / 76:13:31W

-----Original Message-----
From: wd4sel [mailto:wd4sel@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 02:05 PM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help


Well Bob, I suppose you did...sorta...however I miss read your e-mail as trying to explain the differences in the hand boxs.

I did however respond by saying that any reasonable offer would be fine...and I got none. This morning at "O dark thirty" Chuck outright asked me what I wanted for it and I responded off line with a price.

My apology is extended for miss reading your statement. I suppose i being too technical about this process and seem to get screwed up the last couple times out.

So here's the deal...I've already sold one for $25 (as memory serves)here in the group and this one is $25...First "I'll take it" gets it. I don't know if it works or not and would recommend plugging it in first. If it don't work...then no deal!

That's the best I can do.

Regards,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "bob414" <bob414@...> wrote:

I am confused, I expressed interest when I tried to defined the difference
between a 494 and 497. I did not see Chuck expressed interest till the next
day. But, it is your handset, and your choice.



Bob



From: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:backbayastro@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of wd4sel
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:51 PM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help





Bob, Chuck inquired about buying it first and I've give him a price off line
(direct) already...I'm just waiting for his response.

Thks,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
, "bob414" <bob414@> wrote:

I have seen them on EBay for everywhere between $12 and (new) $150, give
me
a price and we can work out the details.



Bob



Re: Help

charles jagow
 

Thanks for the info, I have had "extensive" experience with Autostar 49x controllers and their associated ETX scopes and I have been through all of those actions. Motor still has a fault/stall. And it is not the scope. It seems Stu is going to help me out this evening.


v/r
Chuck Jagow
Rott?n Paws Observatory
36:46:23N / 76:13:31W

-----Original Message-----
From: ctcv0811 [mailto:chris15t@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:55 PM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help


When you first hook up the 497 to a scope you have to go through the set up and tell it you are using a etx 70 and then do a motor alignment that should take care of the problem you are having. If you have done that then you may need to update the firm ware in the 497 controller it easy to do if you have the right cable to do it. I dont member the part number for the cable but I know they are sold on eBay fairly cheap.
--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuck@...> wrote:

I bought a used Autostar 497 hand controller off of the Internet. It seems to have a problem. It could be the attached cable, it looks a little rough. I would like to know if anyone has a Meade Autostar 497 hand control and cable I could use to see if it actually works on my ETX 70. The Autostar 494 hand controller works just fine. With this Autostar 497 I encounter a motor fault after it starts to slew to the first alignment star. Like I stated, it slews just fine with the Autostar 494, so I know there is nothing wrong with the ETX 70.

V/R

Chuck Jagow


Re: Help

wd4sel <wd4sel@...>
 

Well Bob, I suppose you did...sorta...however I miss read your e-mail as trying to explain the differences in the hand boxs.

I did however respond by saying that any reasonable offer would be fine...and I got none. This morning at "O dark thirty" Chuck outright asked me what I wanted for it and I responded off line with a price.

My apology is extended for miss reading your statement. I suppose i being too technical about this process and seem to get screwed up the last couple times out.

So here's the deal...I've already sold one for $25 (as memory serves)here in the group and this one is $25...First "I'll take it" gets it. I don't know if it works or not and would recommend plugging it in first. If it don't work...then no deal!

That's the best I can do.

Regards,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "bob414" <bob414@...> wrote:

I am confused, I expressed interest when I tried to defined the difference
between a 494 and 497. I did not see Chuck expressed interest till the next
day. But, it is your handset, and your choice.



Bob



From: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:backbayastro@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of wd4sel
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:51 PM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help





Bob, Chuck inquired about buying it first and I've give him a price off line
(direct) already...I'm just waiting for his response.

Thks,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
, "bob414" <bob414@> wrote:

I have seen them on EBay for everywhere between $12 and (new) $150, give
me
a price and we can work out the details.



Bob


Re: Help

bob414
 

I am confused, I expressed interest when I tried to defined the difference between a 494 and 497.  I did not see Chuck expressed interest till the next day.  But, it is your handset, and your choice.

 

Bob

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of wd4sel
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:51 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help

 

 

Bob, Chuck inquired about buying it first and I've give him a price off line (direct) already...I'm just waiting for his response.

Thks,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@..., "bob414" <bob414@...> wrote:
>
> I have seen them on EBay for everywhere between $12 and (new) $150, give me
> a price and we can work out the details.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>


Re: Help

ctcv0811
 

When you first hook up the 497 to a scope you have to go through the set up and tell it you are using a etx 70 and then do a motor alignment that should take care of the problem you are having. If you have done that then you may need to update the firm ware in the 497 controller it easy to do if you have the right cable to do it. I dont member the part number for the cable but I know they are sold on eBay fairly cheap.

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuck@...> wrote:

I bought a used Autostar 497 hand controller off of the Internet. It seems to have a problem. It could be the attached cable, it looks a little rough. I would like to know if anyone has a Meade Autostar 497 hand control and cable I could use to see if it actually works on my ETX 70. The Autostar 494 hand controller works just fine. With this Autostar 497 I encounter a motor fault after it starts to slew to the first alignment star. Like I stated, it slews just fine with the Autostar 494, so I know there is nothing wrong with the ETX 70.

V/R

Chuck Jagow


Re: Help

wd4sel <wd4sel@...>
 

Bob, Chuck inquired about buying it first and I've give him a price off line (direct) already...I'm just waiting for his response.

Thks,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "bob414" <bob414@...> wrote:

I have seen them on EBay for everywhere between $12 and (new) $150, give me
a price and we can work out the details.



Bob


Re: Help

bob414
 

I have seen them on EBay for everywhere between $12 and (new) $150, give me a price and we can work out the details.

 

Bob

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of wd4sel
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 6:33 PM

 


To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help

 

 

I can't really remember where it came from...I've had several LX200s and several LXD75...so it could be from anyone of those. I don't know if it even works...I sold one to Jim Tallman awhile back. You would have to plug it in to find out I guess.

One thing for sure...it don't fit anything I got now. If it works...any reasonable offer would be acceptable. I've also had 494s...it's not one of those.

Regards,
Stu


--- In backbayastro@..., "bob414" <bob414@...> wrote:
>
> I could be wrong, but I think a 497 has a full keypad, 1-9 key + 0. A 494
> has only a set of up/down/left right arrows. Is this handset is a 497, I
> would be interested in purchasing it for my ETX60, if the price is right.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On
> Behalf Of wd4sel
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:58 PM
> To: backbayastro@...
> Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help
>
>
>
>
>
> Chuck...I just put a photo of a handbox in the photo section that I had
> laying on the shelf. I don't know what it fits...a LX200 or if it is a 497.
> It looks like it has never been used...I don't even know if it works or
> not...I have no Meade outfits to test with. Maybe you can ID it...
>
> Regards,
> Stu
>
> --- In backbayastro@... <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "Chuck" wrote:
> >
> > I bought a used Autostar 497 hand controller off of the Internet. It seems
> to have a problem. It could be the attached cable, it looks a little rough.
> I would like to know if anyone has a Meade Autostar 497 hand control and
> cable I could use to see if it actually works on my ETX 70. The Autostar 494
> hand controller works just fine. With this Autostar 497 I encounter a motor
> fault after it starts to slew to the first alignment star. Like I stated, it
> slews just fine with the Autostar 494, so I know there is nothing wrong with
> the ETX 70.
> >
> > V/R
> >
> > Chuck Jagow
> >
>


Re: Help

charles jagow
 

Stu,

It is a 497 if you don't need it anymore, how much you want for it?

Chuck Jagow
Rott'n Paws Observatory
N36:46:23.281 W076:13:31.512

From: wd4sel <wd4sel@...>
Reply-To: <backbayastro@...>
Date: Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:57 PM
To: <backbayastro@...>
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help

 

Chuck...I just put a photo of a handbox in the photo section that I had laying on the shelf. I don't know what it fits...a LX200 or if it is a 497. It looks like it has never been used...I don't even know if it works or not...I have no Meade outfits to test with. Maybe you can ID it...

Regards,
Stu


--- In backbayastro@..., "Chuck" wrote:
>
> I bought a used Autostar 497 hand controller off of the Internet. It seems to have a problem. It could be the attached cable, it looks a little rough. I would like to know if anyone has a Meade Autostar 497 hand control and cable I could use to see if it actually works on my ETX 70. The Autostar 494 hand controller works just fine. With this Autostar 497 I encounter a motor fault after it starts to slew to the first alignment star. Like I stated, it slews just fine with the Autostar 494, so I know there is nothing wrong with the ETX 70.
>
> V/R
>
> Chuck Jagow
>


Re: Help

charles jagow
 

Jeff are you going to Boardwalk astronomy on Tuesday night?

If so I can bring the little beast and check it out there?

Chuck Jagow
Rott'n Paws Observatory
N36:46:23.281 W076:13:31.512

From: Jeff Goldstein <jeffgold1@...>
Reply-To: <backbayastro@...>
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:22 PM
To: <backbayastro@...>
Subject: RE: [backbayastro] Help

 

I have one for my ETX-125.

If I look around I may find another for an old ETX-70 also, Chuck.

I’ll give you a call, tomorrow.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jeff Goldstein

www.jeffgold.net

NAR #81619 L3

TRA#04764 L3

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of Chuck
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:55 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Help

 

 

I bought a used Autostar 497 hand controller off of the Internet. It seems to have a problem. It could be the attached cable, it looks a little rough. I would like to know if anyone has a Meade Autostar 497 hand control and cable I could use to see if it actually works on my ETX 70. The Autostar 494 hand controller works just fine. With this Autostar 497 I encounter a motor fault after it starts to slew to the first alignment star. Like I stated, it slews just fine with the Autostar 494, so I know there is nothing wrong with the ETX 70.

V/R

Chuck Jagow


(No subject)

garry_mitchell74
 

The price I am asking for the scope is 2900 I dropped from 3500 but i was looking at the other prices and dropped it.  If anyone can give me any pointers or knows anyone that wants it please let me know thanks. 

Garry

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Boardwalk Astronomy, 7/31/2012, 7:00 pm

backbayastro@...
 

Reminder from:   backbayastro Yahoo! Group
 
Title:   Boardwalk Astronomy
 
Date:   Tuesday July 31, 2012
Time:   7:00 pm - 11:00 pm
Location:   Virginia Beach Boardwalk near 24th street stage
Notes:   Outreach event with the Virginia Beach Planetarium. Some limited parking is available for participants. Others will have to drop off their equipment behind the 24th street stage and then park at a designated lot. The event is weather dependent. Announcements will be posted the day of the event.RAIN DATE: following Thursday.
 
Copyright © 2012  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy


Re: Help

wd4sel <wd4sel@...>
 

I can't really remember where it came from...I've had several LX200s and several LXD75...so it could be from anyone of those. I don't know if it even works...I sold one to Jim Tallman awhile back. You would have to plug it in to find out I guess.

One thing for sure...it don't fit anything I got now. If it works...any reasonable offer would be acceptable. I've also had 494s...it's not one of those.

Regards,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "bob414" <bob414@...> wrote:

I could be wrong, but I think a 497 has a full keypad, 1-9 key + 0. A 494
has only a set of up/down/left right arrows. Is this handset is a 497, I
would be interested in purchasing it for my ETX60, if the price is right.



Bob



From: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:backbayastro@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of wd4sel
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:58 PM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help





Chuck...I just put a photo of a handbox in the photo section that I had
laying on the shelf. I don't know what it fits...a LX200 or if it is a 497.
It looks like it has never been used...I don't even know if it works or
not...I have no Meade outfits to test with. Maybe you can ID it...

Regards,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
, "Chuck" <chuck@> wrote:

I bought a used Autostar 497 hand controller off of the Internet. It seems
to have a problem. It could be the attached cable, it looks a little rough.
I would like to know if anyone has a Meade Autostar 497 hand control and
cable I could use to see if it actually works on my ETX 70. The Autostar 494
hand controller works just fine. With this Autostar 497 I encounter a motor
fault after it starts to slew to the first alignment star. Like I stated, it
slews just fine with the Autostar 494, so I know there is nothing wrong with
the ETX 70.

V/R

Chuck Jagow


Re: Help

bob414
 

I could be wrong, but I think a 497 has a full keypad, 1-9 key + 0.  A 494 has only a set of up/down/left right arrows.  Is this handset is a 497, I would be interested in purchasing it for my ETX60, if the price is right.

 

Bob

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of wd4sel
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:58 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Help

 

 

Chuck...I just put a photo of a handbox in the photo section that I had laying on the shelf. I don't know what it fits...a LX200 or if it is a 497. It looks like it has never been used...I don't even know if it works or not...I have no Meade outfits to test with. Maybe you can ID it...

Regards,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@..., "Chuck" <chuck@...> wrote:
>
> I bought a used Autostar 497 hand controller off of the Internet. It seems to have a problem. It could be the attached cable, it looks a little rough. I would like to know if anyone has a Meade Autostar 497 hand control and cable I could use to see if it actually works on my ETX 70. The Autostar 494 hand controller works just fine. With this Autostar 497 I encounter a motor fault after it starts to slew to the first alignment star. Like I stated, it slews just fine with the Autostar 494, so I know there is nothing wrong with the ETX 70.
>
> V/R
>
> Chuck Jagow
>


Here is my link to the LX200 12" ACF Ad.

garry_mitchell74
 

 
The scope is up for sale now I am no longer able to transport it due to transport issues.  Local Pick up only any Back Bay members want it I am willing to give a great price.  But will willing to trade for a 11" CGEM or CGEM DX or 14" CGEM DX Celestron.  Or a Orion Truss 12" or 14" GOTO.  Thank you
 
Garry 


Re: Help

wd4sel <wd4sel@...>
 

Chuck...I just put a photo of a handbox in the photo section that I had laying on the shelf. I don't know what it fits...a LX200 or if it is a 497. It looks like it has never been used...I don't even know if it works or not...I have no Meade outfits to test with. Maybe you can ID it...

Regards,
Stu

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuck@...> wrote:

I bought a used Autostar 497 hand controller off of the Internet. It seems to have a problem. It could be the attached cable, it looks a little rough. I would like to know if anyone has a Meade Autostar 497 hand control and cable I could use to see if it actually works on my ETX 70. The Autostar 494 hand controller works just fine. With this Autostar 497 I encounter a motor fault after it starts to slew to the first alignment star. Like I stated, it slews just fine with the Autostar 494, so I know there is nothing wrong with the ETX 70.

V/R

Chuck Jagow


Re: Help

Jeff Goldstein
 

I have one for my ETX-125.

If I look around I may find another for an old ETX-70 also, Chuck.

I’ll give you a call, tomorrow.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jeff Goldstein

www.jeffgold.net

NAR #81619 L3

TRA#04764 L3

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of Chuck
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:55 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Help

 

 

I bought a used Autostar 497 hand controller off of the Internet. It seems to have a problem. It could be the attached cable, it looks a little rough. I would like to know if anyone has a Meade Autostar 497 hand control and cable I could use to see if it actually works on my ETX 70. The Autostar 494 hand controller works just fine. With this Autostar 497 I encounter a motor fault after it starts to slew to the first alignment star. Like I stated, it slews just fine with the Autostar 494, so I know there is nothing wrong with the ETX 70.

V/R

Chuck Jagow


Re: APOD for July 23: lightning strike

Jason Tackett
 

Yeah, that video is awesome! There was some pretty wicked lightening last night around our parts too.


Re: Catalog numbers (was PN common name discrepancy)

matthew young
 

Thanks Nick!

 

From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On Behalf Of nranderson_deepskyobserver
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:23 PM
To: backbayastro@...
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Catalog numbers (was PN common name discrepancy)

 

 

Found this the other day. This site has star charts for all 110 (+4 bonus) objects in the PN Program. They also have charts for several other AL observing programs. It's not the first time I've been to the website. Their reference section is very useful. It helped me define the averted vision scale I use for my journal.

http://www.astronomylogs.com/pages/finderchart.html

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@..., "nranderson_deepskyobserver" <nranderson.deepskyobserver@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, that puts things straight. Now that I'm organized I think I'm ready to start tackling this list. Where can I find star charts for these non-NGC/IC objects? I will be observing these manually.
>
> -Nick Anderson
>
> --- In backbayastro@..., "Ted Forte" wrote:
> >
> > No. To my way of thinking, Jonckhere 900 and J900 are equivalent
> > designations. But not Jonckhere 900 and PK 194+02.1; same object but
> > different designation. And the Minkowski objects need only the hyphen to
> > distinguish them from the Messiers. Space or no space – OK. In fact,
> > M2-9, M 2-9, Mink 2-9 and Minkowski 2-9 are equivalent and acceptable.
> >
> >
> >
> > And I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't accept alternate designations for
> > the program objects. I will, and do. My point was that I shouldn't have
> > to. It is a courtesy to the coordinator to report on the objects with the
> > designation provided by the program for ease in checking completion. The
> > League gives coordinators broad discretion on what they will require and
> > accept, so other coordinators may take a narrower view. I try to
> > accommodate the observer to the maximum extent possible.
> >
> >
> >
> > The common names and alternate designations provided in the PN guide are
> > meant to inform, and to assist the observer in identifying the object. They
> > need not be included in your log submittal. Quoting from the guide …
> >
> >
> >
> > * The record of observations shall include for each object:
> >
> > 1. Specifics of the observer's site.
> > 2. Date and time of the observation
> > 3. Conditions including seeing, transparency and the darkness of the
> > site, to include the degree to which the moon interferes with the
> > observation.
> > 4. Telescope used including aperture and focal ratio.
> > 5. Eyepiece and magnification information
> > 6. Filters used.
> > 7. A detailed description of the object that includes at a minimum:
> >
> > a) Is the central star visible?
> >
> > b) Is a filter required to observe the PN?
> >
> > c) How does the PN respond to different magnifications?
> >
> > d) Is the object visible by direct vision, or does it require averted
> > vision?
> >
> > e) A detailed description of the object's appearance in the observer's
> > own words, OR a detailed sketch of the object.
> >
> >
> >
> > The observer is encouraged to list any unique characteristics such as colors
> > seen, blinking effects, and the shape of the object. Is it stellar? A disk?
> > A ring? Bi-polar? Is it symmetrical? Is it evenly illuminated? Look for
> > shells, crowns or ansae.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hope that helps?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >
> > From: backbayastro@... [mailto:backbayastro@...] On
> > Behalf Of nranderson_deepskyobserver
> > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 3:33 PM
> > To: backbayastro@...
> > Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Catalog numbers (was PN common name discrepancy)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Do I have to submit "J 320" and "Jonckheere 900" rather than just "J 320"
> > and "J 900" or "Jonckheere 320" and "Jonckheere 900"? What about the
> > Minkowski objects? I prefer to use a space in between the letter and number
> > so that I don't initially confuse it with a Messier object.
> >
> > Without looking back at the document I created, other the Campbell's
> > Hydrogen Star (which I may change back given what you just said) those were
> > the only such designation changes I made.
> >
> > As for submitting the logs, can I omit the common names then? I haven't been
> > able to find usage for some of the listed common names anywhere.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Nick Anderson
> >
> > --- In backbayastro@... <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > , "Ted Forte" wrote:
> > >
> > > As to Campbell's Hydrogen Star – the object is better known as a star than
> > > as a Planetary Nebula and as such the Bonner Durchmusterung was the
> > primary
> > > major catalog listing its position. Actually, Campbell's Star is its
> > > primary identifier in the literature. See SIMBAD. Keep in mind that the PN
> > > Program's object list and the primary object designation was selected by
> > > committee. You know what that can lead to. See Ron Robish's notes on the
> > > Makeup of the List and my Note on Designations in the Observing Guide. If
> > I
> > > had picked the objects, there would be no objects not primarily identified
> > > as PN on the list and there would have been far fewer stellar sized PNe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course you can refer to the object in any manner you prefer, except
> > when
> > > submitting for the program certification. You should list it with the
> > > designation used in the program. For instance, if you do the Open Cluster
> > > Program, you'll encounter a great many discrepancies between the listed
> > > designation and what other sources may list as the primary designator. You
> > > should in all cases follow the observing program's practice and naming
> > > conventions. As a program coordinator, I say that with some authority, as
> > I
> > > serve as a member of the group that rules on such things for the League.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ted
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: backbayastro@... <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:backbayastro@...
> > ] On
> > > Behalf Of nranderson_deepskyobserver
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:46 AM
> > > To: backbayastro@... <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Catalog numbers (was PN common name
> > discrepancy)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It just hit me in the face how I'm going to resolve this: I'll use the
> > > discover's naming system when applicable if the object isn't an NGC or IC.
> > > After that though...
> > >
> > > That resolves all but one object on the PN Program observing list:
> > > Campbell's Hydrogen Star. The program's webpage and observing guide has it
> > > as BD+30 3639, but I think it might be easier just to go with PK 64+5.1.
> > >
> > > -Nick Anderson
> > >
> > > --- In backbayastro@...
> > <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > , George Reynolds wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nick, beyond Messier, NGC, and IC, there IS no standardization! Â There
> > > are a lot of objects with people's initials attached to them, but no
> > > comprehensive standard.
> > > >
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > George Reynolds
> > > >
> > > > "Solar System Ambassador" for South Hampton Roads, Virginia
> > > > Back Bay Amateur Astronomers (BBAA)Â
> > > > http://www.backbayastro.org
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >________________________________
> > > > > From: nranderson_deepskyobserver
> > > > >To: backbayastro@...
> > <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > > > >Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:06 PM
> > > > >Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Catalog numbers (was PN common name
> > > discrepancy)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Â
> > > > >Oh and don't get me started on these catalog numbers. Beyond Messier,
> > > NGC, and IC objects...I have no idea how to standardize them! Anyone?
> > > > >
> > > > >-Nick Anderson
> > > > >
> > > > >--- In backbayastro@...
> > <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com> , William McLean
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That's funny, Nick. I don't take the names we give these objects too
> > > seriously. Just catalog #.
> > > > >> ÂÂ
> > > > >> Carpe Noctem
> > > > >> Bill McLean
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > >> From: nranderson_deepskyobserver
> > > > >> To: backbayastro@...
> > <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:34 PM
> > > > >> Subject: [backbayastro] PN common name discrepancy
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ÂÂ
> > > > >> Surprised? I was browsing through each object on the PN list a week
> > or
> > > so ago and I have yet to settle this common name dispute:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - NGC 6309: referred to as "Box Nebula"
> > > > >> - NGC 6445: referred to as "Box Nebula" or "Little Gem Nebula"
> > > > >> - NGC 6818: referred to as "Little Gem Nebula"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Because only NGC 6445 and 6818 are on the Herschel 400 list, that was
> > > my justification earlier this year for calling NGC 6445 the "Box Nebula"
> > and
> > > NGC 6818 the "Little Gem Nebula". Now there's another "Box Nebula"?!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> SIMBAD shows the common names as follows:
> > > > >> - NGC 6309 as the "Box Nebula"
> > > > >> - NGC 6445 as the "Little Gem"
> > > > >> - NGC 6818 as the "Little Gem Nebula"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Should I just go with SIMBAD's data? Similarly I could just go with
> > how
> > > C53/NGC 3115 and M102/NGC 5866 are both called the "Spindle Galaxy", but
> > I'd
> > > like to think there's a better way around this.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Nick Anderson
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Re: Orion 10x50 binoculars currently on sale

Robert Schonk
 

Nont that I can think of.
 
But George is right.  Old binoculars never die, they just get used for something else.  I've even got a couple of pairs of  "monoculars" that started as binoculars, but got dropped down the steps, so out comes the hacksaw......
 
Probably got a dozen pair.  A couple bouncing around in the truck covered with sand, one on each of the floors of my beach house, a couple of compact pairs in my backpacks, etc.
 
Check out some of the house brands at Bass Pro or Wally World.  You'll get to take a look thru them and check them for alignment.
 
Once upon a time cheap binoculars were BAD.  Now they're mass produced on CAM production lines in China, and even the cheap ones are pretty good.
 
Just get something in your price range and start using it.  By the time you shop for your second pair, you'll be an expert too.
 
> To: backbayastro@...
> From: nranderson.deepskyobserver@...
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 03:10:52 +0000
> Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Orion 10x50 binoculars currently on sale
>
> Wow, lots of good information in that article. Is it at all a disadvantage to have pupils that open larger than the exit pupil?
>
> -Nick Anderson
>
> --- In backbayastro@..., Rob Schonk wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here's a good discussion on binocular selection. http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1634 Basically, a 7mm exit pupil means a 7mm column of light comes out of the binoculars. If your pupil only admits 5mm of that, you're effectively losing half the light. There's more to it than that, but that's the simplistic explanation. When we're young, our irises are more flexible than when we're older, just as our lens is more flexible. One year at Coinjock, Doc Bodner was going around measuring our dark adapted pupils for us. If he's reading this, he might want to chime in with more information and advice. PS, it's very easy to get your Binocular Messier when you're working on Messier. In fact, it's very helpful to locate the object with binoculars before attempting it with a scope. I get a bit shakey when I try to handhold anything over 7 power. I did build a parallelogram binocular mount using a pair of crutches from a thrift store that works well with some 20X80s I own. Takes a bit of improvisitaion. http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=4979 http://oda.otis8.com/2011/12/diy-parallelogram-binocular-mount-cloudy-day-recipe/ Google it. There are plenty of different plans out there on the internet.
> > > To: backbayastro@...
> > > From: nranderson.deepskyobserver@...
> > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:28:33 +0000
> > > Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Orion 10x50 binoculars currently on sale
> > >
> > > I've seen the topic of pupil dilation come up several times before. How does pupil dilation affect the view in binoculars? The Scenix 7x50's have an exit pupil of 7.1mm versus 5.0mm for both 10x50's. Would I be limiting myself by getting 10x50's?
> > >
> > > Do we have any members that have done serious binocular astronomy in their 20's or younger?
> > >
> > > -Nick Anderson
> > >
> > > --- In backbayastro@..., Rob Schonk wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > They're all made in China now. I've bought a couple of pairs of cheap Barska binoculars to toss in my truck for use on the beach from Amazon and have been impressed with their quality. They make the whole range from super cheap to super expensive. When you're young, your pupils can dialate to 7mm, which justifies 7X50's. As you get older, your pupil won't dialate more than 4 to 5mm, so you can see as much in a set of 7X35's or 8X40's. Some of the best binocular reviews are actually found on the birdwatching websites. Still, the best binoculars I own are Fujinon 7X50, FMTR-SX. About 700 a pair, and worth every penny.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/backbayastro/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/backbayastro/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> backbayastro-digest@...
> backbayastro-fullfeatured@...
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> backbayastro-unsubscribe@...
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>


Re: Catalog numbers (was PN common name discrepancy)

Nick Anderson
 

Found this the other day. This site has star charts for all 110 (+4 bonus) objects in the PN Program. They also have charts for several other AL observing programs. It's not the first time I've been to the website. Their reference section is very useful. It helped me define the averted vision scale I use for my journal.

http://www.astronomylogs.com/pages/finderchart.html

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "nranderson_deepskyobserver" <nranderson.deepskyobserver@...> wrote:

Thanks, that puts things straight. Now that I'm organized I think I'm ready to start tackling this list. Where can I find star charts for these non-NGC/IC objects? I will be observing these manually.

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Forte" <tedforte511@> wrote:

No. To my way of thinking, Jonckhere 900 and J900 are equivalent
designations. But not Jonckhere 900 and PK 194+02.1; same object but
different designation. And the Minkowski objects need only the hyphen to
distinguish them from the Messiers. Space or no space – OK. In fact,
M2-9, M 2-9, Mink 2-9 and Minkowski 2-9 are equivalent and acceptable.



And I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't accept alternate designations for
the program objects. I will, and do. My point was that I shouldn't have
to. It is a courtesy to the coordinator to report on the objects with the
designation provided by the program for ease in checking completion. The
League gives coordinators broad discretion on what they will require and
accept, so other coordinators may take a narrower view. I try to
accommodate the observer to the maximum extent possible.



The common names and alternate designations provided in the PN guide are
meant to inform, and to assist the observer in identifying the object. They
need not be included in your log submittal. Quoting from the guide …



* The record of observations shall include for each object:

1. Specifics of the observer's site.
2. Date and time of the observation
3. Conditions including seeing, transparency and the darkness of the
site, to include the degree to which the moon interferes with the
observation.
4. Telescope used including aperture and focal ratio.
5. Eyepiece and magnification information
6. Filters used.
7. A detailed description of the object that includes at a minimum:

a) Is the central star visible?

b) Is a filter required to observe the PN?

c) How does the PN respond to different magnifications?

d) Is the object visible by direct vision, or does it require averted
vision?

e) A detailed description of the object's appearance in the observer's
own words, OR a detailed sketch of the object.



The observer is encouraged to list any unique characteristics such as colors
seen, blinking effects, and the shape of the object. Is it stellar? A disk?
A ring? Bi-polar? Is it symmetrical? Is it evenly illuminated? Look for
shells, crowns or ansae.



Hope that helps?



Ted



From: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:backbayastro@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of nranderson_deepskyobserver
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 3:33 PM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Catalog numbers (was PN common name discrepancy)





Do I have to submit "J 320" and "Jonckheere 900" rather than just "J 320"
and "J 900" or "Jonckheere 320" and "Jonckheere 900"? What about the
Minkowski objects? I prefer to use a space in between the letter and number
so that I don't initially confuse it with a Messier object.

Without looking back at the document I created, other the Campbell's
Hydrogen Star (which I may change back given what you just said) those were
the only such designation changes I made.

As for submitting the logs, can I omit the common names then? I haven't been
able to find usage for some of the listed common names anywhere.

Thanks,

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
, "Ted Forte" <tedforte511@> wrote:

As to Campbell's Hydrogen Star – the object is better known as a star than
as a Planetary Nebula and as such the Bonner Durchmusterung was the
primary
major catalog listing its position. Actually, Campbell's Star is its
primary identifier in the literature. See SIMBAD. Keep in mind that the PN
Program's object list and the primary object designation was selected by
committee. You know what that can lead to. See Ron Robish's notes on the
Makeup of the List and my Note on Designations in the Observing Guide. If
I
had picked the objects, there would be no objects not primarily identified
as PN on the list and there would have been far fewer stellar sized PNe.



Of course you can refer to the object in any manner you prefer, except
when
submitting for the program certification. You should list it with the
designation used in the program. For instance, if you do the Open Cluster
Program, you'll encounter a great many discrepancies between the listed
designation and what other sources may list as the primary designator. You
should in all cases follow the observing program's practice and naming
conventions. As a program coordinator, I say that with some authority, as
I
serve as a member of the group that rules on such things for the League.



Ted







From: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:backbayastro@yahoogroups.com <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
] On
Behalf Of nranderson_deepskyobserver
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:46 AM
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com <mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Catalog numbers (was PN common name
discrepancy)





It just hit me in the face how I'm going to resolve this: I'll use the
discover's naming system when applicable if the object isn't an NGC or IC.
After that though...

That resolves all but one object on the PN Program observing list:
Campbell's Hydrogen Star. The program's webpage and observing guide has it
as BD+30 3639, but I think it might be easier just to go with PK 64+5.1.

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
, George Reynolds <pathfinder027@> wrote:

Nick, beyond Messier, NGC, and IC, there IS no standardization! Â There
are a lot of objects with people's initials attached to them, but no
comprehensive standard.

George

George Reynolds

"Solar System Ambassador" for South Hampton Roads, Virginia
Back Bay Amateur Astronomers (BBAA)Â
http://www.backbayastro.org

Â



________________________________
From: nranderson_deepskyobserver <nranderson.deepskyobserver@>
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:06 PM
Subject: [backbayastro] Re: Catalog numbers (was PN common name
discrepancy)


Â
Oh and don't get me started on these catalog numbers. Beyond Messier,
NGC, and IC objects...I have no idea how to standardize them! Anyone?

-Nick Anderson

--- In backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com> , William McLean
<preciousmyprecious@> wrote:

That's funny, Nick. I don't take the names we give these objects too
seriously. Just catalog #.
ÂÂ
Carpe Noctem
Bill McLean


________________________________
From: nranderson_deepskyobserver <nranderson.deepskyobserver@>
To: backbayastro@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:backbayastro%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:34 PM
Subject: [backbayastro] PN common name discrepancy


ÂÂ
Surprised? I was browsing through each object on the PN list a week
or
so ago and I have yet to settle this common name dispute:

- NGC 6309: referred to as "Box Nebula"
- NGC 6445: referred to as "Box Nebula" or "Little Gem Nebula"
- NGC 6818: referred to as "Little Gem Nebula"

Because only NGC 6445 and 6818 are on the Herschel 400 list, that was
my justification earlier this year for calling NGC 6445 the "Box Nebula"
and
NGC 6818 the "Little Gem Nebula". Now there's another "Box Nebula"?!

SIMBAD shows the common names as follows:
- NGC 6309 as the "Box Nebula"
- NGC 6445 as the "Little Gem"
- NGC 6818 as the "Little Gem Nebula"

Should I just go with SIMBAD's data? Similarly I could just go with
how
C53/NGC 3115 and M102/NGC 5866 are both called the "Spindle Galaxy", but
I'd
like to think there's a better way around this.

-Nick Anderson



15341 - 15360 of 53803