I remember you mentioning this before, but I don't remember why it helps.
Could you restate that?
I know that a breeze can help reduce the chance of dew by providing "reverse
wind chill"- is that it?  Heavy dew nights here are usually dead calm, so
stability in the wind isn't a problem.
-John


--- Chris Peterson <cpeterson@...> wrote:
>
> John-
>
> If you continue to have dew problems, consider venting your shield. That
> will add significantly extra dew protection over a closed shield, and have
> the side benefit of increasing somewhat the stability of your scope in light
> wind.
>
> Chris
>
> *****************************************
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Mahony" <jmmahony@...>
> To: <sct-user@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [sct-user] Do-it-yourself Dewshield Disclaimer
>
> > I believe you- I had a similar experience.  I do a lot of all night
> sessions in
> > a place where the dew can be very heavy, so I needed a good dew shield...
>
>
>
>
> Visit the sct-user home page at:
>
>
>
> http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

--- geoff beneze <geoffb@...> wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2004, at 12:12 PM, starhopper44 wrote:
> >
> > My Gawd Tom!  Even with all they'd use in TEN YEARS, the 'savings'
> > couldn't possibly be all THAT significant.  If it makes that much
> > difference to them, they'd best just go ahead & close the doors!
>
> It's pretty simple. Let's pick, say, diabetes as an example
> ...
> I contend that this is common through all industries to one degree or
> another. Yes, C could spend the extra .8 cents to make the change, but
> then they'd kill the "second tier" industries that have popped up to
> "support" Celestron (Meade, etc)

I seriously doubt it.  Celestron and Meade sell all sorts of accessories, and
companies in all sorts of business prefer to keep as much of that type of
business to themselves as they can.  New car dealers do everything they can to
convince you that "factory authorized" replacement windshield wiper blades are
better than generic replacments from the local auto parts store.  Microsoft is
notorious for taking over different types of "accessory" software business by
developing their own version (of word processing, spreadsheet, etc software),
giving it away for free until the original developer goes bankrupt, and then
charging for it.

That leads to my only guess as to why Celestron switched to phillips screws,
but it sounds like way too much of a stretch to be true:  Maybe C has
recognized how useful Bob's Knobs are for helping their users keep their scopes
well collimated and performing at their best (leading to fewer complaints of
bad optical performance, and better first impressions for perspectives new
buyers checking our SCTs at a star party).  Maybe they like the idea enough
that they would like to add the feature at the factory, but Bob has somehow
managed to patent the idea, and won't sell to them.  So Celestron deliberately
went backwards, to a less convenient method, to help convince buyers to add
Bob's Knobs themselves.
Not too likely.  Scopestuff has been selling collimation knobs at a somewhat
lower price than Bob for a few years now, so Bob evidently can't afford an army
of lawyers.
-John




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

is that the reality?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/1/04 5:13:07 AM Central Standard Time, cno@...
writes:

is that the reality?

What?

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:_Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am interested in trying to use PoleAlignMax for alignment. However,
the instructions are pretty minimal. There is a paragraph in the Help
file which indicates I am doing AutoAstrometry:

"- Taking an image with CCDSoft, pasting it into TheSky and
performing an Image Link. The scale is found in the Image Link dialog
box. The value below is the setting used when running CCDSoft and
TheSky in simulator mode with the Real Sky CD set.

- Taking an image with CCDSoft, save the image and press Ctrl-Alt-W
or select the menu selection Research/WCS/AutoAstronometry."

In the FAQ (in the Help File):

"How Do I Sync the Telescope?

TheSky: Take an Image and perform an Image Link or AutoAstronometry
(requires CCDSoft). In TheSky, click on any star and select ImageLink
in the combo box found on the 'Object Information'. This will be the
precise position of your telescope pointing. Select the telescope tab
then press the 'Sync' button.'"


Huh? I thought the Nexstar does not have a sync command.

Does this all mean the telescope is being controlled by TheSky
through the RS-232 port? Or is this just software syncing various
values?


I have the most recent versions of PoleAlign, CCDSoft, and TheSky
version 6 installed. I also have MaximDL/CCD. Apparently I also have
to go out and purchase the RealSky CDs? This is not listed on the
Requirements page.

Are there people out there doing all this on a tripod mounted scope,
and is there a better description of how to do this? I looked around
on the Web and did not find much discussion of PoleAlignMax.

Thanks,
Robert Brewington

I have been using Focus Max for several months now, and am
experiencing a number of frustrations with it. I am hoping some of
you experienced guys can shed some light on this. I don't see a
FocusMax user group, maybe this is the place:)

I am running the current FocusMax (3.2.1), with a Nexstar11, Optec
TGF-S focuser, and ST2000XM camera.

1) Is there a good way to simulate a star for focus testing? I only
get about 1 clear night a month for observing, I would like to do
some of the testing ahead of time.

I tried putting a small LED in a cardboard box, placing the box about
50 yards away, and poking pinholes in the box. I get "stars", but
they do not generally show the donut patterns experienced with real
stars (unless things are WAY out of focus, beyond the range of
movement of the Optec). They are distinguishable as holes-in-a-box,
with the non-circular shape of the hole very evident.

I tried the ball bearing approach, but this did not give much of a
star at all. Again, I don't see a "star", I see the reflection in the
mirror surface of the ball. Maybe the sun needs to be at a particular
angle or something?

The problems discussed below all occur when focusing on real stars; I
was not happy with trying to focus on my simulated star.


2)  When you run VCurve within FocusMax, how far off are the
intersection points?

I generally get a nice line fit to the two curve sections, but the
curve's inflection point is kind of high. The PIDiff value is between
800-2000. Is this normal? The example picture in the help file shows
the inflection pretty close to the X axis, with a PIDiff of 6.43.

3) When the FocusMax routine runs, it is not unusual for the HFD
values at the "near focus" position to be better than the final focus
HFD.

Maybe this is due to random variations in the HFD, or maybe this is a
reflection of the PIDiff values being large?

4)  Does your focus routine keep losing the star outside of the frame?

The Focus Setup Tab has a parameter AutoFocus Frame Width, but this
value does not seem to be used (maybe it is the starting frame size,
not the minimum?). As the routine runs, it keeps making the frame
smaller and smaller; eventually the star is too close to the edge (or
out of the frame completely). The routine then backs up, making the
frame larger until the star is back in the frame. Then, it goes back
to decreasing the size of the window, and gets messed up again! The
VCurve routine also has a Frame Size parameter, which works correctly
and provides a minimum frame size.

Results are clearly poorer when this process occurs. Sometimes, the
routine never recovers the star and it fails; sometimes it just goes
on using an empty frame with 0.00 HFDs.

I originally thought this was happening due to the star drifting.
However, in testing with my artificial star the routine still loses
the star! The star (and scope) are stationary, there is no drift.

Any way to keep the Focus Frame from getting too small?

5)  Can I change the plotting colors on the Focus screen?

The plots for each focus exposure (showing the Gaussian shape of the
star, integral of intensity) are plotted with red lines on white
background. Of course, when you switch to Night View, it is now
plotting Red on Red, which you can't see.

I have been looking for a configuration file or someting which lets
me specify the plot color.

6) Are your focus positions reproducible?

I know that for my scope, the "sweet spot" of good focus should be
about 100 steps long; focus positions could easily be off by 50-100
steps. However, when I focus several times in a row, the resulting
positions may be very far off. For example, several focus runs one
after the other may yield focuser positions of 1723, 2050, 3150, and
4580. This does not give much confidence in the final focus position!
Often, the latter positions are visibly terrible - obviously blurred,
or large donuts.


Obviously, I am having some problems getting focus. I am impressed
that people are able to script observing runs which include re-
focusing; whenever I have to refocus it typically involves 20 minutes
of futzing around until I think I have at least a reasonable focus.
Help!!

Thanks,
Robert Brewington

It works because a closed dew shield traps a pool of cold air against the
corrector. In most cases, if you can keep the corrector at ambient
temperature it will be above the dew point. A vented shield prevents cold
air from being trapped.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mahony" <jmmahony@...>
To: <sct-user@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: [sct-user] Do-it-yourself Dewshield Disclaimer


>
> I remember you mentioning this before, but I don't remember why it helps.
> Could you restate that?
> I know that a breeze can help reduce the chance of dew by providing
"reverse
> wind chill"- is that it?  Heavy dew nights here are usually dead calm, so
> stability in the wind isn't a problem.
> -John

--- In sct-user@yahoogroups.com, "Thad Floryan" <thad@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In sct-user@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" <tim71pos@h...> wrote:
> >
> > There is an argument to be made for a phillips screw.  The
> > screwdriver delivers more torque than bob's knobs (check out radisu
> > of a screwdriver handle versus a bob's knob).  Compared to an Allen
> > screw, I find it easier to wield a screwdriver than an allen wrench
> > in terms of drop prevention.
>
> Guess you've never seen T-handle Allen wrenches; they're all I use (in
> my shop, not for collimation :-)
>

I DO use them for collimation. I've tried the knurled knobs, I prefer
Allen head screws. I put a nylon spacer on the T-handle Allen wrench
so that the tip is slightly recessed in the spacer and now I don't
even have worry about metal meeting glass. This is a minor point but
the Allen head screws do allow the cover on the NS11 to close and it
sure does look purty that way!

Ken

Hi folks,
Here is a interesting summary of some optics problems I have been
trying to diagnose with my Meade 8" bought in 2001.  This scope was
one of the last before the switch to the GPS version.

When imaging I have always noticed that my flat field frames have
been off centered which is telling me that the light cone is
offcentered.  I've checked collimation more times than I can
remember and its always been spot on.  The other annoying thing has
been I have always had coma on the left side of images concentrating
on the left top.  I can see this visually with eyepieces so I
investigated this more the last week.

The first shocker was when I took the corrector plate off,
disconnected the focus arm from the mirror and spun the mirror on
the baffel tube.  The mirror wobbled like either the baffel tube or
the mirror was off center in the OTA. When the mirror was positioned
with the focus arm in the right position it was shifted to the right
and down.  I also noticed that the secondary mirror holder was not
centered on the OTA.  Probably to offset the mirror being off
center.

I measured the centering of the baffel tube.  Centered which was
good.  My mirror must be mounted offcenter so I took it out and
disconnected the baffel tube slider..guess what, the hole in the
center of the mirror was bored almost .2" off center as measured
with dial calipers.  I wonder how that could of happened.  Meade QC??
This offcentering of the mirror in the OTA was causing the optical
issues.

Dont cringe but here is what I did.  I spent the good part of a day
grinding the center hole of the mirror in the direction of the
centering error, remounted the baffel tube slider and shimmed the
mirror to be within .03" of center on the baffel slider.  Remounted
the mirror, spun it on the baffel tube (much better, almost no
wobble noted) then remounted the corrector plate and centered the
secondary holder.

Recollimated and tested it last night and now my light cone is
almost exactly in the center and most of the elongation is gone.

I wonder how many other scopes out there have this problem?  I know
the mirrors are machine ground but I cant begin to imaging how the
center hole was drilled off center.

You probably ask why I didnt send the scope back to Meade.  Well its
had so many modifications and things done to the OTA that Meade
would probably just laugh when they saw it.

Interesting experiance and its taught me a good lesson on what to
check optically next time I buy another SCT OTA.

Jon Talbot

What does everyone think about the red goggles available through
Orion to protect night vision?  I was under the impression that it
was the nature of the red LED that made those lights safe to night-
adusted eyes and that red plastic taped over a conventional
flashlight would not be effective.  I'm inclined to think the same
about these goggles.  Any thoughts?

You are correct that in most cases red light (as commonly used) is not very
useful in protecting night vision. That is because you need to make sure
that the wavelength is very long, and most red plastic filters, cellophane,
paint, etc. let way to much light at shorter wavelengths through. Some,
although not all, LEDs have a long wavelength output, which is why they can
be much more effective light sources for astronomers.

The Orion red goggles are actually pretty deep red, and if you use them with
your external lighting very dim, they will actually help preserve your night
vision. But if you use them inside, with normal lighting, they aren't going
to help much. If you need to go inside during an observing session, and
can't turn off the lights, I'd suggest you wear dark glasses in addition to
using the red goggles.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "peacefield2" <peacefield2@...>
To: <sct-user@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 9:24 AM
Subject: [sct-user] Red Goggles


>
>
> What does everyone think about the red goggles available through
> Orion to protect night vision?  I was under the impression that it
> was the nature of the red LED that made those lights safe to night-
> adusted eyes and that red plastic taped over a conventional
> flashlight would not be effective.  I'm inclined to think the same
> about these goggles.  Any thoughts?

--- In sct-user@yahoogroups.com, John Mahony <jmmahony@y...> wrote:
> Scopestuff has been selling collimation knobs at a somewhat
> lower price than Bob for a few years now, so Bob evidently can't
afford an army
> of lawyers.
> -John

Hard for me to imagine that you can patent a screw with a knurled
top, given that they've been around for decades.

Ted

Hi
Try using a red pointer laser aimed at your ball bearing. (I prefer a
small Christmas ornament as ball bearings generally are not polished
enough)

Clamp it on and tie it to a small tripod.   Try to make it as close to the
optical line of the scope as you can.

Works great, gives lots of concentric rings.  I find the sun too bright
and besides, it has a tendency to move.

It will give you a sharp focus point.   For collimation it can be close
but for focus testing, I suspect the further away, the better.

---------
Phil Chambers [ptchamb@...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, robert_brewington wrote:

>
>
>
> I have been using Focus Max for several months now, and am
> experiencing a number of frustrations with it. I am hoping some of
> you experienced guys can shed some light on this. I don't see a
> FocusMax user group, maybe this is the place:)
>
> I am running the current FocusMax (3.2.1), with a Nexstar11, Optec
> TGF-S focuser, and ST2000XM camera.
>
> 1) Is there a good way to simulate a star for focus testing? I only
> get about 1 clear night a month for observing, I would like to do
> some of the testing ahead of time.
>
> I tried putting a small LED in a cardboard box, placing the box about
> 50 yards away, and poking pinholes in the box. I get "stars", but
> they do not generally show the donut patterns experienced with real
> stars (unless things are WAY out of focus, beyond the range of
> movement of the Optec). They are distinguishable as holes-in-a-box,
> with the non-circular shape of the hole very evident.
>
> I tried the ball bearing approach, but this did not give much of a
> star at all. Again, I don't see a "star", I see the reflection in the
> mirror surface of the ball. Maybe the sun needs to be at a particular
> angle or something?
>
> The problems discussed below all occur when focusing on real stars; I
> was not happy with trying to focus on my simulated star.
>
>
> 2)  When you run VCurve within FocusMax, how far off are the
> intersection points?
>
> I generally get a nice line fit to the two curve sections, but the
> curve's inflection point is kind of high. The PIDiff value is between
> 800-2000. Is this normal? The example picture in the help file shows
> the inflection pretty close to the X axis, with a PIDiff of 6.43.
>
> 3) When the FocusMax routine runs, it is not unusual for the HFD
> values at the "near focus" position to be better than the final focus
> HFD.
>
> Maybe this is due to random variations in the HFD, or maybe this is a
> reflection of the PIDiff values being large?
>
> 4)  Does your focus routine keep losing the star outside of the frame?
>
> The Focus Setup Tab has a parameter AutoFocus Frame Width, but this
> value does not seem to be used (maybe it is the starting frame size,
> not the minimum?). As the routine runs, it keeps making the frame
> smaller and smaller; eventually the star is too close to the edge (or
> out of the frame completely). The routine then backs up, making the
> frame larger until the star is back in the frame. Then, it goes back
> to decreasing the size of the window, and gets messed up again! The
> VCurve routine also has a Frame Size parameter, which works correctly
> and provides a minimum frame size.
>
> Results are clearly poorer when this process occurs. Sometimes, the
> routine never recovers the star and it fails; sometimes it just goes
> on using an empty frame with 0.00 HFDs.
>
> I originally thought this was happening due to the star drifting.
> However, in testing with my artificial star the routine still loses
> the star! The star (and scope) are stationary, there is no drift.
>
> Any way to keep the Focus Frame from getting too small?
>
> 5)  Can I change the plotting colors on the Focus screen?
>
> The plots for each focus exposure (showing the Gaussian shape of the
> star, integral of intensity) are plotted with red lines on white
> background. Of course, when you switch to Night View, it is now
> plotting Red on Red, which you can't see.
>
> I have been looking for a configuration file or someting which lets
> me specify the plot color.
>
> 6) Are your focus positions reproducible?
>
> I know that for my scope, the "sweet spot" of good focus should be
> about 100 steps long; focus positions could easily be off by 50-100
> steps. However, when I focus several times in a row, the resulting
> positions may be very far off. For example, several focus runs one
> after the other may yield focuser positions of 1723, 2050, 3150, and
> 4580. This does not give much confidence in the final focus position!
> Often, the latter positions are visibly terrible - obviously blurred,
> or large donuts.
>
>
> Obviously, I am having some problems getting focus. I am impressed
> that people are able to script observing runs which include re-
> focusing; whenever I have to refocus it typically involves 20 minutes
> of futzing around until I think I have at least a reasonable focus.
> Help!!
>
> Thanks,
> Robert Brewington
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Visit the sct-user home page at:
>
>
>
> http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In sct-user@yahoogroups.com, "peacefield2" <peacefield2@y...>
wrote:
>
> What does everyone think about the red goggles available through
> Orion to protect night vision?  I was under the impression that it
> was the nature of the red LED that made those lights safe to night-
> adusted eyes and that red plastic taped over a conventional
> flashlight would not be effective.  I'm inclined to think the same
> about these goggles.  Any thoughts?

I use them all the time, as follows: In my town, things tend not to
get really dark until after midnight, so I tend to get some sleep
from late evening to midnight.  The Orion red goggles sit on my
nightstand along with the red LED flashlight.  When I wake up at
midnight, my eyes are dark-adapted so I put the goggles on and use
the flashlight to go outside (where my scope has already been set
up).  I'm ready to start observing without any wait.  I'm always
surprised that anyone who can set their scope up in their own yard,
doesn't have those goggles.

But Chris Petersen is correct - they won't protect your night vision
very well, from room lights on at a normal intensity.

Ted

Do I detect some cynicism here?  How do you explain research in transplanting
Isles of Langaherns?  If it is successful it will be a cure for diabetes, not to
mention cures for some forms of cancer and other diseases that are being wiped
off the map.

And then there's the subject of failed marketing strategies by people that
"understand" markets and market forces.  Edsel and the new Coke and Beta come to
mind.

Celestron's marketing strategy are interesting to me from an Economics
standpoint but I for one would rather talk about Celestron from an Astronomy
standpoint.

peter.
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: geoff beneze
   To: sct-user@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 1:33 PM
   Subject: Re: [sct-user] Re: Bob's Knobs



   On Oct 31, 2004, at 1:22 PM, Tom Skinner wrote:

   >
   > Amazing.  It took less than 30 hours to go from "are Bob's Knobs worth
   > the
   > money?" to how much money is spent on diabetes.

   Diabetes was a random example. Unless we understand markets and market
   forces, we can't understand the WHY of marketing decisions.
   ---
   Geoff Beneze
   Tempe, AZ
   beast-enterprises DOT com
   --------
   Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
   the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
   --H.L. Mencken
   --------
   It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so.
   --Will Rogers



   Visit the sct-user home page at:



   http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     sct-user-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Jon:

"Don't cringe but here is what I did."

You have you-know-whats made of granite. How did you
stomach such a risky procedure? Glad everything
worked-out for the best, however.

Adam
--- Jon Talbot <hurricane4@...> wrote:

>
> Hi folks,
> Here is a interesting summary of some optics
> problems I have been
> trying to diagnose with my Meade 8" bought in 2001.
> This scope was
> one of the last before the switch to the GPS
> version.
>
> When imaging I have always noticed that my flat
> field frames have
> been off centered which is telling me that the light
> cone is
> offcentered.  I've checked collimation more times
> than I can
> remember and its always been spot on.  The other
> annoying thing has
> been I have always had coma on the left side of
> images concentrating
> on the left top.  I can see this visually with
> eyepieces so I
> investigated this more the last week.
>
> The first shocker was when I took the corrector
> plate off,
> disconnected the focus arm from the mirror and spun
> the mirror on
> the baffel tube.  The mirror wobbled like either the
> baffel tube or
> the mirror was off center in the OTA. When the
> mirror was positioned
> with the focus arm in the right position it was
> shifted to the right
> and down.  I also noticed that the secondary mirror
> holder was not
> centered on the OTA.  Probably to offset the mirror
> being off
> center.
>
> I measured the centering of the baffel tube.
> Centered which was
> good.  My mirror must be mounted offcenter so I took
> it out and
> disconnected the baffel tube slider..guess what, the
> hole in the
> center of the mirror was bored almost .2" off center
> as measured
> with dial calipers.  I wonder how that could of
> happened.  Meade QC??
> This offcentering of the mirror in the OTA was
> causing the optical
> issues.
>
> Dont cringe but here is what I did.  I spent the
> good part of a day
> grinding the center hole of the mirror in the
> direction of the
> centering error, remounted the baffel tube slider
> and shimmed the
> mirror to be within .03" of center on the baffel
> slider.  Remounted
> the mirror, spun it on the baffel tube (much better,
> almost no
> wobble noted) then remounted the corrector plate and
> centered the
> secondary holder.
>
> Recollimated and tested it last night and now my
> light cone is
> almost exactly in the center and most of the
> elongation is gone.
>
> I wonder how many other scopes out there have this
> problem?  I know
> the mirrors are machine ground but I cant begin to
> imaging how the
> center hole was drilled off center.
>
> You probably ask why I didnt send the scope back to
> Meade.  Well its
> had so many modifications and things done to the OTA
> that Meade
> would probably just laugh when they saw it.
>
> Interesting experiance and its taught me a good
> lesson on what to
> check optically next time I buy another SCT OTA.
>
> Jon Talbot
>
>
>
>

--- In sct-user@yahoogroups.com, "Peter K Rallis" <pkrallis@e...> wrote:
> Do I detect some cynicism here?  How do you explain research in
transplanting Isles of Langaherns?  If it is successful it will be a
cure for diabetes, not to mention cures for some forms of cancer and
other diseases that are being wiped off the map.
>
> And then there's the subject of failed marketing strategies by
people that "understand" markets and market forces.  Edsel and the new
Coke and Beta come to mind.
>
> Celestron's marketing strategy are interesting to me from an
Economics standpoint but I for one would rather talk about Celestron
from an Astronomy standpoint.
^^^^^^^^^^
Pete, not jumping on your post here - it's just the one at the end of
the threads & I'm tacking on from there........

Folks, please let's stop this before it gets any more distorted.  For
instance - funny that the one who first called for a cease did so
after gettin' in a few licks of his own.  But regardless......

In the comparison to 'diabetes', Geoff made some statements that I
feel were incorrect, and probably based on misinformation or lack of
knowledge - but I'm sure his intention wasn't for them to be hurtful
remarks.  I >am< a Type-2 diabetic.  And being intimately aware of
diabetics in general, thru support groups and health associations and
having many friends and acquaintances that are likewise afflicted,
believe me I've personally seen many causes-of-death being
"complications from diabetes"....more than I wish I ever had.  I lost
my very best friend to it not 6 months ago.

Also, I personally believe a cure is just around the corner - what we
don't know is how far away that corner is.  A cure might come in a
form you'd never expect....I can point you to recent a copyrighted
Associated Press article (for anyone who's truly interested) wherein
research seems to indicate that stomach-stapling can effect an actual
cure!   Millions of dollars are being spent in research for a
cure....the short of this without dragging out a page of details, is
that I can't agree with the cottage industry inferences either.

There were other wrongful (not sure that's the correct word)
statements made, but that's beside the point.  The hell of it is, I
understood where Geoff was coming from - it was the analogy itself,
not the analagous subject.  In furtherance, justification for the
remarks was made by referring to a need to understand marketing to
understand marketing decisions.  What I think is, that we're being a
bit presumptive in deciding it WAS a marketing decision at all!
There ARE other areas of a goods-producing enterprise besides
"Marketing"!

And now let's review our sundry speculations. Thus far we have:
"To advance their position in aftermarket corrector plates."
"....wonder if cost had anything to do with it?"
"....they'd kill the "second tier" industries that have popped up to
"support" Celestron (Meade, etc)"
"....expect it is just a simple case of an engineering "oops"."
"....don't think the change was driven by cost in any specific sense,
but just a trend to simplify when possible."
"....screwdriver delivers more torque..."
"....decisions....based on the fact that many of (sic) the people who
design the scopes don't USE the scopes...."
"....there is no argument at all for a Phillips head screw!"
"....think the reason that they don't make it easier to collimate is a
vague fear that people will actually make things worse, and damage the
reputation of their scopes."
"....deliberately went.... to a less convenient method (so buyers
would) add Bob's Knobs themselves (though) Not too likely"

....to cite a few. Whew! *LOL*

OK - cuttin' to the chase....nuttin' like asking those most likely to
know, right?  I've written Celestron & asked them.

~S*H

On Nov 1, 2004, at 12:19 PM, starhopper44 wrote:
> In the comparison to 'diabetes', Geoff made some statements that I
> feel were incorrect, and probably based on misinformation or lack of
> knowledge - but I'm sure his intention wasn't for them to be hurtful
> remarks.  I >am< a Type-2 diabetic.

Please allow me to point out that I AM also diabetic and have done
extensive research on the subject. I am also a nurse, as is my wife,
and my mother. My brother is a doctor. While the message was my
OPINION, one hopes it was formed using reasonably sound data and logic.

As a diabetic myself, I'm not sure how anyone could take the statements
as "hurtful," and would be pleased to shown my error.

> And being intimately aware of
> diabetics in general, thru support groups and health associations and
> having many friends and acquaintances that are likewise afflicted,
> believe me I've personally seen many causes-of-death being
> "complications from diabetes"....more than I wish I ever had.  I lost
> my very best friend to it not 6 months ago.

Please re-read my ACTUAL words. I have lost entirely too many friends
and family to diabetes. pure and simple.

HOWEVER, what I said was that diabetes was/is rarely LISTED as the
CAUSE of death.
---
Geoff Beneze
Tempe, AZ
beast-enterprises DOT com
--------
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
--H.L. Mencken
--------
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so.
--Will Rogers

On Nov 1, 2004, at 12:27 PM, geoff beneze wrote:
> Please re-read my ACTUAL words. I have lost entirely too many friends
> and family to diabetes. pure and simple.
>
> HOWEVER, what I said was that diabetes was/is rarely LISTED as the
> CAUSE of death.

Let me add, I would be happy to discuss this further, but as others
have suggested, it would probably be best to take it offline.

Please bear in mind that this was my OPINION, based on my studies and
observations, it wasn't a statement of  incontrovertible fact.
---
Geoff Beneze
Tempe, AZ
beast-enterprises DOT com
--------
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
--H.L. Mencken
--------
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so.
--Will Rogers

--- In sct-user@yahoogroups.com, "peacefield2" <peacefield2@y...> wrote:
>
> What does everyone think about the red goggles available through
> Orion to protect night vision?  I was under the impression that it
> was the nature of the red LED that made those lights safe to night-
> adusted eyes and that red plastic taped over a conventional
> flashlight would not be effective.  I'm inclined to think the same
> about these goggles.  Any thoughts?

^^^^^^^^
Long or short-wave, the intensity of the red light can have a big
effect too.  I think that's one of the advantages of the LED rigs (eg
Rigel's Starlite) - that they can be dimmed to a good degree.

There is obviously a lot of misunderstanding about 'red light'.  At
MASP last week, the "Official Site Vehicle" was an ancient golf cart
that had some kinda non-descript paint- or tape-over job on its
headlights.  After becoming dark-acclimated, this "thing" passed
suddenly behind me sounding like a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and I made
the mistake of turning to see what it was.  My dark-adapted eyesight
was blown for the next hour or so.  I was not a happy camper....literally!

I've also got red goggles....I try to wear them for at least an hour
when the sky's lookin' promising for that night....they do speed up my
early vision adaptation.  As far as coming back into the house for
something - it's become 2nd nature to me to close my right eye when I
come in....now do it without a thought. Not a bad habit to get into.
I've tried the Pirate's Patch....just doesn't "do it" for me...makes
my eyesight go all "ewwwwwwww" or sump'n -- dunno why.

Ted touched on a good idea I like to take advantage of. By going to
bed early & starting sessions post-midnight/early A.M., you get to
start with pre-adapted vision!  Early morning's also a time of day I
find especially peaceful.  'Course, that does NOTHING for the dew!

Clear, Still & DARK'ns! ~8)
~Star*Hopper

--- In sct-user@yahoogroups.com, geoff beneze <geoffb@b...> wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2004, at 12:27 PM, geoff beneze wrote:
> > Please re-read my ACTUAL words. I have lost entirely too many friends
> > and family to diabetes. pure and simple.
> >
> > HOWEVER, what I said was that diabetes was/is rarely LISTED as the
> > CAUSE of death.
>
> Let me add, I would be happy to discuss this further, but as others
> have suggested, it would probably be best to take it offline.
>
> Please bear in mind that this was my OPINION, based on my studies and
> observations, it wasn't a statement of  incontrovertible fact.
> ---
> Geoff Beneze
> Tempe, AZ
> beast-enterprises DOT com
^^^^^^^^

It wasn't an argument, nor an accusation, Geoff.  And you've missed my
point entirely!  But I'm won't discuss it any further, with you or
anyone else.
~S*H

I too have Type II diabetes.

I found NOTHING out of line with Geoff's posting.

Diabetes is RARELY if ever listed as the cause.  Even though my wife's
childhood friend lost her life at 34 to a stroke, after losing a leg,
and almost blind from it!

I am a military trained Special Operations Medic.  Served 20+ years.  My
medical knowledge is NOT limited!  I have the current PDR on the shelf,
and it is showing signs of wear already.

Geoff is on the mark!  The testing supplies are ridiculous in cost, but
we are forced to use them for fear of the consequences.  They have a
CAPTIVE market!  NO need or DESIRE to reduce costs.

One mad as a wet HEN Diabetic, AND amateur astronomer!

Bob - N0DGN

geoff beneze wrote:

>On Nov 1, 2004, at 12:19 PM, starhopper44 wrote:
>
>
>>In the comparison to 'diabetes', Geoff made some statements that I
>>feel were incorrect, and probably based on misinformation or lack of
>>knowledge - but I'm sure his intention wasn't for them to be hurtful
>>remarks.  I >am< a Type-2 diabetic.
>>
>>
>
>Please allow me to point out that I AM also diabetic and have done
>extensive research on the subject. I am also a nurse, as is my wife,
>and my mother. My brother is a doctor. While the message was my
>OPINION, one hopes it was formed using reasonably sound data and logic.
>
>As a diabetic myself, I'm not sure how anyone could take the statements
>as "hurtful," and would be pleased to shown my error.
>
>
>
>>And being intimately aware of
>>diabetics in general, thru support groups and health associations and
>>having many friends and acquaintances that are likewise afflicted,
>>believe me I've personally seen many causes-of-death being
>>"complications from diabetes"....more than I wish I ever had.  I lost
>>my very best friend to it not 6 months ago.
>>
>>
>
>Please re-read my ACTUAL words. I have lost entirely too many friends
>and family to diabetes. pure and simple.
>
>HOWEVER, what I said was that diabetes was/is rarely LISTED as the
>CAUSE of death.
>---
>Geoff Beneze
>Tempe, AZ
>beast-enterprises DOT com
>--------
>Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
>the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
>--H.L. Mencken
>--------
>It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so.
>--Will Rogers
>
>
>
>
>Visit the sct-user home page at:
>
>
>
>http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
<                      Bob Bethman - N0DGN
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| N0DGN AMRadio Manassas, VA    |    REAL Tube Radio and AM        |
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------+
|       Manassas Radio - Home of Homemade Kielbasa & Pirogi        |
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Bob Bethman                \\\|///     " The absence of a danger |
| rbethman(at)comcast.net   \\ ~ ~ //      signal does *NOT* mean  |
|                           (/ @ @ /)      that everything is OK " |
+-------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo----------------------------+
|               <http://home.comcast.net/~rbethman>                |
| 1 BC-610I w/BC-614I,1 T-213/GRC-26 w/BC614I 1 '51 Collins R-390A |
|  SP-600/NR Type 159, Heath DX-60, Apache, Mohawk, SX-101, HT-32A |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|           Amateur Astronomer - Celestron Nexstar 8               |
|             12" f5 Dob coming soon!  Being built                 |
|                  Meade ETX-60 (Got it back!)                     |
|               38 Deg 46.8' N - 77 Deg 28.5' W                    |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Opinions expressed are that of my own and do not necessarily   |
|         coincide with or represent those of ANYONE else          |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
   ALL E-mail received and sent scanned by AVG & Norton Anti-Virus>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Nov 1, 2004, at 12:54 PM, starhopper44 wrote:

> It wasn't an argument, nor an accusation, Geoff.  And you've missed my
> point entirely!  ~S*H

That seems likely. However, I am ALWAYS willing to be taught,
enlightened or learn another's view point.
---
Geoff Beneze
Tempe, AZ
beast-enterprises DOT com
--------
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
--H.L. Mencken
--------
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so.
--Will Rogers

On Nov 1, 2004, at 12:41 PM, Rbethman wrote:

> Geoff is on the mark!  The testing supplies are ridiculous in cost, but
> we are forced to use them for fear of the consequences.  They have a
> CAPTIVE market!  NO need or DESIRE to reduce costs.
>
> One mad as a wet HEN Diabetic, AND amateur astronomer!

Thank you. However, at this point, I'm almost sorry I brought it up. It
wasn't intended to be a statement ABOUT diabetes, but an example of
industry NOT "killing" a market that supports their primary product(s).

Just as a (hopefully humorous) sidenote. I can't ever afford new PDRs
so I have to settle for 1-2 year olds books. Sylvia has all the stuff
online at her work, but they won't let ME access their system, sigh.
---
Geoff Beneze
Tempe, AZ
beast-enterprises DOT com
--------
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
--H.L. Mencken
--------
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so.
--Will Rogers

Hi Rod:

I enjoyed your Focal Point Essay on page 166 of
December's S & T. My mom "bought" my twin girls their
own stars when they were born. The star-naming company
gave my kids two stars in the same constellation,
which made things easier for us: a single SLEW and
both stars are in the same FOV of my 10" LX200!

You gotta' smile!

Adam

Hi,

Here's a great site and article that talks about how the human eye
adapts to darkness and light.

http://webvision.med.utah.edu/light_dark.html

Its a bit on the biology and technical side, and explains a lot.  The
thing to remember is that your eye "should be" fully dark adapted
after 40 mins.  But it takes a big jump after 5-8 mins, when your eye
switches from "cone-vision" to "rod-vision" (not Uncle Rod-Vision
which would require consuming Rebel Yell to be fully adapted :)  So,
even though you can do some things to help speed up the process, like
red glasses, or reducing your exposure to light before and during
viewing, after 40 min, your night vision is as good as its gonna get,
and really after about 20 min, your eyes are pretty much there, so
glasses or not if you wait 20-30 mins you are set.  Also, I think
the "intensity" of the light has a lot more to do with "wavelength"
based on what I understand from this research.  So avoiding bright
light once your eyes are dark adapted is more important than whether
its red or not.

Timm

The last sentance should read.  Also, I think the "intensity" of the
light has a lot more to do with it  than "wavelength" based on what I
understand from this research. So avoiding bright light once your
eyes are dark adapted is more important than whether its red or not.

Timm

Hi Adam,
Its called a Silicon Dioxide grinding stone and a Dremel.  Works but
very slow procedure.

Jon

--- In sct-user@yahoogroups.com, Adam Stuart <eisenklein@y...> wrote:
> Hi Jon:
>
> "Don't cringe but here is what I did."
>
> You have you-know-whats made of granite. How did you
> stomach such a risky procedure? Glad everything
> worked-out for the best, however.
>
> Adam
> --- Jon Talbot <hurricane4@c...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi folks,
> > Here is a interesting summary of some optics
> > problems I have been
> > trying to diagnose with my Meade 8" bought in 2001.
> > This scope was
> > one of the last before the switch to the GPS
> > version.
> >
> > When imaging I have always noticed that my flat
> > field frames have
> > been off centered which is telling me that the light
> > cone is
> > offcentered.  I've checked collimation more times
> > than I can
> > remember and its always been spot on.  The other
> > annoying thing has
> > been I have always had coma on the left side of
> > images concentrating
> > on the left top.  I can see this visually with
> > eyepieces so I
> > investigated this more the last week.
> >
> > The first shocker was when I took the corrector
> > plate off,
> > disconnected the focus arm from the mirror and spun
> > the mirror on
> > the baffel tube.  The mirror wobbled like either the
> > baffel tube or
> > the mirror was off center in the OTA. When the
> > mirror was positioned
> > with the focus arm in the right position it was
> > shifted to the right
> > and down.  I also noticed that the secondary mirror
> > holder was not
> > centered on the OTA.  Probably to offset the mirror
> > being off
> > center.
> >
> > I measured the centering of the baffel tube.
> > Centered which was
> > good.  My mirror must be mounted offcenter so I took
> > it out and
> > disconnected the baffel tube slider..guess what, the
> > hole in the
> > center of the mirror was bored almost .2" off center
> > as measured
> > with dial calipers.  I wonder how that could of
> > happened.  Meade QC??
> > This offcentering of the mirror in the OTA was
> > causing the optical
> > issues.
> >
> > Dont cringe but here is what I did.  I spent the
> > good part of a day
> > grinding the center hole of the mirror in the
> > direction of the
> > centering error, remounted the baffel tube slider
> > and shimmed the
> > mirror to be within .03" of center on the baffel
> > slider.  Remounted
> > the mirror, spun it on the baffel tube (much better,
> > almost no
> > wobble noted) then remounted the corrector plate and
> > centered the
> > secondary holder.
> >
> > Recollimated and tested it last night and now my
> > light cone is
> > almost exactly in the center and most of the
> > elongation is gone.
> >
> > I wonder how many other scopes out there have this
> > problem?  I know
> > the mirrors are machine ground but I cant begin to
> > imaging how the
> > center hole was drilled off center.
> >
> > You probably ask why I didnt send the scope back to
> > Meade.  Well its
> > had so many modifications and things done to the OTA
> > that Meade
> > would probably just laugh when they saw it.
> >
> > Interesting experiance and its taught me a good
> > lesson on what to
> > check optically next time I buy another SCT OTA.
> >
> > Jon Talbot
> >
> >
> >
> >

Golly,

I'm sorry I opened the flood gates of criticism on the issue of Diabetes.

My point was this:  The question was pretty simple, are Bob's Knobs worth
the price?

After the first few, the answers got so far off topic (that being the
economic viability of Bob's Knobs), the question got lost in the noise.
High numbers of off-topic posts create problems for everyone.  Those on
dialup connections can't afford the time and the rest wind up with way too
much chaff to winnow from the wheat.

Can't we stick to the point?

Tom



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> It (air vents) works because a closed dew shield traps a pool of cold air
against the
> corrector.

Chris, where would you suggest placing the vent holes, and how large
should they be?

I'd guess they should be placed near the corrector (which seems
counter-intuitive because that's the area you're trying to shield),
and should be rather small.

Thanks,

Rex