Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Ryan Hernandez

Pages: [1]
ATM, Optics and DIY Forum / Post a Photo of your Homemade Binoscope
« on: January 08, 2018, 12:35:09 AM »
It's always nice toadmire and look through someone's splendid looking homemade binoscope or binocular telescope at a local star partyor annual telescope makers conference. Needless to say the celestial views through a binoscope or binocular telescopeare going to be great. Here's your chance to postsomephotos of your own personal binoscope. I've includedfour photos of my own humble homemade binoscopesfor starters....If you have a commercial one...they are welcome too.

1. 6 inch f/15 dual (Dall-Kirkham) Cassegrain binoculars (360 deg. rotation capable) on a clock drivenGerman equatorial fork mounting(Circa: 1980)

2. 6 inch f/15 dual (Dall-Kirkham) Cassegrain optical tube assemblies centered ina 360 degree dual steel ring rotation system (Circa: 1980)

3. The dual Bushnell (1979 vintage) 'cannibalized' binocular 7x-21x 'zoom' eyepieces that can range in magnification up to 315x (Circa: 1980)

4. GOTO 102mm f/6 Celestron binoscope with a 40K object database mounted on a Lumicon (adjustable height) Universal Pier (Circa: 2011)

5. My GOTO Bino-Chair with a 40K object database - I used an old IKEA semi-reclining chair I found in the trash, stripped it down, modified it
 into a full reclining chairand built a homemade GOTO Bino-chair fromit using Nexstar 4SE electronics (PCB's), servomotors (4)with two on
 each axis, gear (Azimuth drive) and cable drive (Altitude drive).I can mount my 80mm Parksand/or 100mm Celestron binocs on it and sit in
 comfort and just push the buttons on the Nexstar 4SE hand controller to GOTO a selected object and observe it while it tracks on the object....


<div id="attach_wrap">
<h4>Attached Thumbnails</h4><li class="">

<li class="">

<li class="">

<li class="">

<li class="">

<li class="">

ATM, Optics and DIY Forum / mirror cell: welding class project
« on: January 03, 2018, 09:22:31 PM »
I have a 8" f/5 newtonian telescope that I've been planning to make into a "suitcase dob." I have primary mirror cell, but it won't really make the transition to a suitcase form factor. I have been planning on making a new primary cell out of birch plywood... well, until a few weeks ago.

A few weeks before the semester started I decided to take a beginngers welding class at my local junior college. We just finished up 5 weeks of oxy-acetylene welding and 1 week taste of MIG (GMAW) welding. We're going to spend 5 weeks doing stick (SMAW) welding and then we get a 1 week taste of TIG (GTAW) and then 1-2 weeks of free time to do whatever we want to (make up missing assignment, personal projects, etc.).

Disclaimer: I'm 55+ and I've never built a telescope or held a welding torch before this class.

I'm getting pretty comfortable doing basic welds. I'm thinking that I'd like to make a mirror cell during my free time. I figure that if I can get all the metal (square tube steel in this case) prepped and ready to weld then I should be able to do the welds in one of the "free time" classes (3.5 hours).

I started playing around with a drafting package this morning to get an idea of the geometry and layout. The picture below is for an 8" f/5 mirror and just has some lines the the support members and filled in circles for the 6 support points. It's pretty crude, but it's a start.
At the moment I'm planning on using 1"x1" or 1"x1.5" square/rectangular steel tube with 0.065" walls.

Comments and suggestions are welcome and encouraged.


ATM, Optics and DIY Forum / Ross Null
« on: December 31, 2017, 09:39:31 PM »
I'm exicted! My first Ross Nuss test....I have all sorts of fine tuning to do, but this first glimpse looks like a may have an OK mirror! I know I need to look at less bars, maybe picthis is meaningless...Got to get things lined up better...Attached Thumbnails

Eyepieces Questions & Recommendations / Celestron Luminos Eyepieces
« on: December 30, 2017, 04:51:37 PM »
Generally what is the consensus of members regarding Celestrons 82* FOV Luminos eyepieces?
I should add that I have a Meade LX90 ACF 12" and 8" of the same both are F10.
Thnak you !

ATM, Optics and DIY Forum / Combinations of Telescope design.
« on: December 30, 2017, 02:40:03 PM »
I will start by saying that I am not an expert in telescope design, and there are many effects of lens and mirror use that are completely lost on me. My question is, what will be the result of combining telescope design? For example, say you mount a newtonian reflector behind a refractor telescope, so that before the light reaches the primary mirror it goes through multiple lenses? How about taking the hole in the primary mirror of a Cassegrain scope, and mounting a refractor there? What will be the positive/negative effects of such combinations? Are there any real life instances of such scopes?

It is the Agena Enhanced WA Eyepiece, Starguider, 20mm, 66* AFOV.
One reviewer said it looked the same inside as the Orion Expanse 20mm.

How high of an F# is needed to tame astigmatism? How sharp is it at f8 and at f16? I'm looking at it as a lunar eyepiece, both for myself and outreach.I recently bought a 23mm $9.88 Vite Aspheric, which does very well at f16. However, it is 58*, not the 62* advertised. I like the shorter eyerelief. The 22mm of my Plossl was giving me blackouts. Maybe I should save money and just stick to this.

However, I'm looking at the Agena Starguider 66*, and thinking of barlowing it and wondering how it does at f8. Also looking at the ES 8.8mm 82*, which costs a lot more and might not be a good outreach eyepiece at 14mm eyerelief.

The current 23mm and 58* should be enough. But 20mm is higher mag, and 66* could be nicer.
Is the Starguider a true 66*, close to the 68* of a premium eyepiece?
Is its edge at least as good as similar priced Erfles? I would hope it is much sharper than the edge of a 70*, since it is 66*.
Is eye placement easy?

Eyepieces Questions & Recommendations / Opinions on Brandon 48mm?
« on: December 29, 2017, 04:14:37 AM »

Light Pollution Topics / New Mexico: Mag/sq arcsec and Bortle
« on: December 27, 2017, 10:06:11 PM »
I have the incredibly good fortune of living in the Magdalena Mountains in central NM.  I've estimated that I live in the Bortle grey zone as I cannot see shadows cast by the Milky Way.I picked up a SQM-L amd measured sky brightness at nautical twilight in the evening and morning, taking several readings and averaging.  In the evening I was recording 21.50 mag/sq arcsec, and this morning, 21.90.  Pretty dark.I would have thought that these readings would be more appropriate for a Bortle black zone.As an aside, don't pack your bags for Mag (as we call it).  The mountains entail hefty scintillation.  The air here is pretty busy, though it settles down by early morning.

Reflectors Telescopes Forum / What did you name your REFLECTOR ?
« on: December 26, 2017, 11:01:57 PM »
Error: You cannot process articles with only whitespaces

We truly live in interesting times...

GW170817 is a gravitational wave signal detected by the LIGO/Virgo collaboration on 17 August 2017, also is the first such occasion simultaneously observed in telescopes having an audible counterpart. [1] The sign, which had a duration of approximately 100 seconds, is that the first gravitational wave detection of this merger of two neutron stars, also has been associated with a soft brief gamma-ray burst GRB 170817A, respectively[2][3] found in NGC 4993. [4] No neutrino applicants consistent with the source were found in follow-up searches

This pretty much confirms that short gamma ray bursts are from merging binary neutron stars.  This also reveals where much of the elements heavier than Iron come from:

The gravitational wave signal indicated that the gravitational wave event was associated with the collision of two neutron stars[6][7][12][9] with masses between 0.86 and 2.26 times the mass of the Sun (solar mass).  If a low spin is assumed, consistent with those detected in binary neutron stars which will merge within a Hubble time, this mass range decreases to 1.17 to 1.60 solar masses. [1] The total mass of the binary system was involving 2.73 and 3.29 solar masses. [1]
The neutron star merger event is believed to be a kilonova.  Kilonovae are applicants for the production of half the chemical elements heavier than iron from the Universe. [4] A total of 16,000 times the mass of the Earth in heavy components is expected to get formed, including about 10 Earth masses of gold and platinum. [13]
It isn't understood what object was produced by the merger.  Nominees are a neutron star heavier than any known neutron star now, or a black hole lighter than any known black hole. [11]

That is a good deal of precious metals...

Had my CGX. ES80ED & ES127ED outside for the third time because I purchased it back just before Christmas of 2016.  I took 2 minutes unguide of M104 & M13 after 2+4 alignment - ASPA another 2+4 alignment after the ASPA.

Both M104 & M13 did not appear too bad so I took a 3.5 minutes unguide of M51 just to see how the CGX perform unguided together with the ES80ED, ES127ED sitting on top of it.

Below are the unprocessed pictures I upload to AstroBin this morning, I am still new with all the uploading items.  Please let know if there is better way to upload images




Light Pollution Topics / Questions about light pollution
« on: December 24, 2017, 02:56:47 PM »
Hello Everybody,

I am a brand new member of forum.I'm not a native speaker so I will attempt to write in easy English.  My location of observation is suburbs of Istanbul  located in red zone for the time being.  I am now quite young and want to move to a darker spot in the future.   I've finished reading this subforum about LP and found it fairly depressing.  I want to ask a few questions to clean this up for me. - Can I find a house that will remain in precisely the same bortle skies scale course for at least 20 decades.

- Will a few floodlights nearby contribute a significant sum to overall sky glow even if you don't see these directly?  While I've moved to a rural area if I worry about lights nearby when I dont see these directly. ( No light trespass)?

- Why is this great thing about LP that bad as it's said in forums?  This subforum made me extremely cynical about future of my hobby.

Does anyone know if brand new (2017+) Losmandy G11GFT mounts come with the one part worm upgrade that everybody appears to be purchasing for elderly G11's, or is the OPW update still crucial to buy even for new G11GFT mounts?  Thanks!

This is the specific mount I'm asking about: https://www.bhphotov...rial_mount.html

Beginners Forum / Storing my mak?
« on: December 24, 2017, 04:53:53 AM »
So I've been maintaining my 127 mak in my garage so it's quicker to acclimate in chicago's beautiful winter weather.   Is it secure to do so, caps on and such?  Is this a bad idea in the summer when it becomes hot?  I am a bit worried about heating coming in and outside in the wintermonths,  but is this a good idea?  I believe that the cold will be OK, and I believe I should bring it inside for the summertime, but any guidance would sure be appreciated!  As always, thanks in advance!

General Astronomy & Observing / M42 in Sky and telescope.
« on: December 23, 2017, 10:54:23 PM »
When exercising problems involving spherical area like apply, e.g., when calculating the flux recieved from angularly massive resources, it happened to me to derive the identical f/ratio if a surface is illuminated by a source filling a complete 180 degree hemisphere.

I worked out the problem starting from the angular place for an f/10 equal, then doubling the region as suitable for one f/stop increments until reaching the place to get a 180 degree hemisphere.

F/10 is 5.71 degrees, for a place of 25.6 square amounts.

A 180 degree hemisphere contains 20,626 square degrees.  That can be 20,626/ /25.6 = 805.5 times larger area than for f/10.  In terms of f/stops:

2^9.65 = 805.5, meaning a hemisphere is 9.65 f/stops brighter than f/10.

This leads to a 180 degree hemisphere as being equal to f/0.3183.

This happens to equal 1/pi, that's the proportion of the radius to a 180 degree arc.

Why cannot a faster f/ratio obtain?  In the end, one might conceivably construct some hyper-fast system which has an entrance pupil 4X larger than the focal length, for f/0.25.  Or an entrance pupil 5X that the f.l., for f/0.2.

Ah, but the luminance of a pupil doesn't act as a surface tangent to its own center.  Instead, it behaves as a section of a sphere.  And so the simple and naive tangent function is wrong.  While it holds reasonably well for less speedy f/ratios, it becomes increasingly inaccurate at rapid f/ratios.  On the point that the suitable limit of f/0.318 corresponds to the tangent calculation of 1/infinity!  Or in technical terms, which is clearly nonsensical, for it implies infinite brightness.

To understand this, picture the following:

The daytime sky is covered with a smoothly uniform, overcast stratus cloud of completely uniform surface brightness.  A fully opaque tent is built that has a hole in the roof 5.71 degrees in diameter as seen from ground level.  This hole would be equal to a f/10 pupil as seen by the focus of this kind of objective.  (The presence or absence of a focusing lens is immaterial here as a result of target's uniformity in surface brightness.)  A light meter is put on the ground directly below the pit, and a reading taken.

Subsequently the tent is whisked away so that now the whole hemisphere of sky is observed.  The meter (supposing it correctly takes in a complete hemisphere) may or vide a reading 9.65 ceases, or 805 times brighter.  Because a 180 degree hemisphere introduces a good angle (angular area on its *curved* surface) 805 times larger than does a 5.71 degree diameter of the exact same curved surface.

To stress the way the angle, defined by a spherical surface of radius based on the observer/sensor, is the important variable, I present a very different case:

Imagine some strange object in space that is essentially a circular, thin sheet shining like a star, of uniform surface brightness, which we see from directly face on.  We approach to a space at which it subtends, say, 90 degrees and stay in place.

Originally this disc is level.  We've got a metered reading of its overall light hitting us.

Subsequently the disc bulges out toward us, like a section of a sphere, like the center is much nearer than the perimeter.  The surface brightness remains unchanged.  Our meter supplies exactly the same reading before.

Subsequently the disc bulges inward, introducing to us a bowl-like aspect where the center is further than the perimeter.  The surface brightness still remains unchanged, and our meter supplies the same total light hitting it.

Note that instead of a flat disc, when bulging out or at the surface region of the disc itself increases since the perimeter is fixed in place.  But since the angle we see is unchanged, the total light received in unchanged.  The lesson here is that for a source with surface area, whatever its real topology and space variation on its surface, what is that the angular place it presents, and that is always treated as a section of a surface adapting to a sphere based upon the observer/sensor.

Back to our disc of light.  We fly up to it, so as to be basically in contact in order for it to fulfill a 180 hemisphere.  We have a meter reading (the meter being effective at carrying in 180 degrees.)

Now the disc warps so it lumps from us, forming a hemisphere together situated in the center.  Its surface brightness remains the same, it still occupies a hemisphere because we see it, and so our meter accounts the same light input prior to the altering fit.  In spite of the true surface area having increased considerably from apartment to hemispherical.

Again, given a fixed surface brightness (which is invariant with space, incidentally), the total flux obtained depends entirely on the solid angle subtended by the source.  In most cases we treat the origin like lying on a spherical surface concentric about us, no matter its true morphology and topology.

I am hoping this is not too muddled and confusing.

Pages: [1]