The Great Goto Wars!
Rod Mollise
Don't need goto? Well, surely not. It's a luxury, no doubt about it. I will
admit that at this point in my life I REALLY _like_ luxuries. Rebel Yell is
fine, but now that I can afford the expensive scotch, I do indulge in it once
in a while! :-) But there is no doubt that goto IS a luxury and not a
necessity. You don't need goto.
But is it--goto--Satan's tool to lure unsuspecting novices to their doom and
final damnation? "No" to that as well.
I'm beginning to think that the debate over this is just getting
started--there's obviously a lot of pent-up emotion on the subject, that's
clear from what's gone on here in the last couple of days. What I'm ALSO
beginning to think, however, is that it's the _choosing sides_ that's harmful,
not goto or lack thereof. Who remembers the Great Morse Code Wars?
OK, you guys and gals out there. How many of you are active or former hams (if
you don't know what I'm talking about, you're dismissed for a moment). Good.
Now, think back to the Morse code debate that went on for at least 20 years.
Get the picture?
OK, you non-hams can come back now. For the uninitiated, "ham radio," amateur
radio, suffered from years and years of an ongoing debate over the value of
Morse code. The code, or "CW", it was obvious, was a dying form a
communications from the time SSB hit the amateur scene (for the average
amateur, in the 60s), and the new digital modes of the 80s were just the nail
in the coffin. Dying as a practical or necessary mode of communications. But
some hams insisted you couldn't _be_ one without the code. The situation was
slightly different there as, unlike amateur astronomy, you have to pass a test
and be licensed by the government to do ham radio. The test involved varying
levels of code proficiency, and the traditonalists swore to keep the tests as
they were: 5wpm for the new/young folks, 13wpm for the rabble, and 20 for the
annointed. But the argument was much the same over the code as it is over goto.
Does any of the following sound somewhat familiar?
"REAL hams use CW. It's more efficient."
"I don't have time to learn the code, I just want to communicate!"
"CW encourages hams to build their own equipment."
"Building is not my interest. Antennas and DX are."
"Learning this basic skill does you good. Look at the Technicans (class of
license that required minimal Morse code facility), they are NOT really hams!
They'll drop out of amateur radio after only a year or two. They did not have
to suffer for their art."
"More hams drop out due to problems learning the code than any other cause.
Leraning the code teaches you nothing about electronics and radio."
"I only work CW, that's what I love, and everybody should feel just like I do."
And on and on ad nauseum.
The point? All this debate _ever_, EVER did for ham radio was cause hurt
feelings and a general exodus from the hobby by bright kids who were not
interested in dah-dih-dah-dih/dih dah dah. The kids who might have contributed
a lot. It also drove many old-timers, who could have taught the novices a thing
or two, off into self-imposed virtual ghettos. The whole thing did ham radio a
LOT of harm, a TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HARM, and did not fade away until the FCC
finally de-emphsized the Morse code in its licensing structure, long after CW
was extinct in the world of commercial radio.
We should take note and learn from what happened there. If you like goto, use
it. If you don't like it, don't use it. But don't drag out a soap box. One
thing that led me away from ham radio (though I still maintain my license and
stay at a minimally active level) and toward an ever deeper committement to
amateur astronomy is its generally forward-looking and non-traditional nature.
And its value on the lone individual who's got a good idea. The herd mentality
has never ruled with amateurs (amateur astronomers), let's not get it started.
If you like your 20" DSCless dob, ENJOY IT. Offer the young woman set up next
to you a look through the eyepiece, accept a look through her LX200 12, and
ENJOY IT!
...de AC4WY (who got his Extra a goodly while back when you had to do code at
20wpm :-)).
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>
Cathy
--- -. / .-- .. - .... / ..-. .. .-.. -- / ...- . .-. ... . ... /
-.. .. --. .. - .- .-.. .-.-.- / .-- .... .- - . ...- . .-. / -.-. .-
-- . .-. .- / .. -- / ..- ... .. -. --. --..-- / .. ... / - .... . /
--- -. . / - .... . / .--. .. -.-. - ..- .-. . / .-- .. .-.. .-.. /
-... . / -- .- -.. . / .-- .. - .... .-.-.- / .. / -.- -. --- .--
/ -.-. --- -.. . / -.--.- -- -.-- / ..- -. -.-. .-.. . / .-- .- ...
/ .- / .... .- -- / --- .--. . .-. .- - --- .-. / ..-. --- .-. /
--- ...- . .-. / ..... ----- / -.-- . .- .-. ... / .- -. -.. / .- /
-.-. --- -. -.-. . .-. - / .--. .. .- -. .. ... - .-.-.- -.--.- / ..
/ .- .-.. ... --- / -.- -. --- .-- / .- -- . .-. .. -.-. .- -. / ...
.. --. -. / .-.. .- -. --. ..- .- --. . .-.-.- / .. / -.. --- / -.
--- - / .... .- ...- . / .- / .... .- -- / .-.. .. -.-. . -. ... . /
-... ..- - / .. / .- -- / -.-. . .-. - .. ..-. .. . -.. / - --- /
.-..-. ... .. --. -. .-.-.- .-..-.
I glance at the photo, and the pilot light of a memory flickers in my eyes.
.... __~o
.. \ -\<,
......(_)/(_).......................
SkySea
> ... there's obviously a lot of pent-up emotion
> on the subject, that's clear from what's gone
> ... it's the _choosing sides_ that's harmful,
> not goto or lack thereof....
As usual, you've hit the nail on the head. I haven't really been following the
wars, but it sounds like an escalation of the one of several that have occurred
here re subject before.
---------
Dale Gombert ( Sky...@aol.com )
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA, USA
http://flavorj.com/~skysea (stereo, scenic, and astro photos)
Rod Mollise
HI Cathy:
Hadn't thought about the uproar that must be going on in the photography world.
But, as a former professional photographer, I'd hope most of y'all are the
rugged individualists you've always been! :-)
Jackie LaVaque
"Rod Mollise" <rmol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020909174024...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> ...de AC4WY (who got his Extra a goodly while back when you had to do code
at
> 20wpm :-)).
Hey Rod,
EXCELLENT post. I'm just now starting to study for my first amateur radio
license (technician class) and so I missed all the CW v. no CW wars... I see
the parallels between that and go-to v. non-go-to... very good observations
you have, there. Let's face it folks, this is a HOBBY, and why do people
HAVE hobbies? Why, to have fun and indulge ourselves in something that is
personally interesting to us. We have hobbies because we cannot work ALL the
time, right?
Do any of us have the right to judge another's choices where our hobbies are
concerned? I suppose if you're dead set on believing that the no-go-to camp
is truly superior to the go-to camp (or vicey-versey), then you'll stay in
your little camp and get your undies in a collective bunch over the whole
deal. Well, here's a dateline: if you don't LIKE go-to telescopes, then
don't USE them! It just ain't good form to trod on another's choices and
slam them to the ground. This is a hobby, folks, so let's let others enjoy
it the way they see fit.
FWIW, I don't have a "go-to" scope, but I've used a friend's and it was
fun... but, truth be told, ALL scopes are potentially "fun", from the humble
60 mm refractor to the giant 30" Dobs... and everything in between... if you
want to make them that way.
Jackie
David Staup
It's that age old status quo thing... been around forever.
I for one do not have the patience to memorize the sky, nor do I enjoy
the hunt. Without the goto I never would have really enjoyed this hobby
enough to justify the cost. I've had telescopes for 30 years and only
since acquiring an LX 200 have I spent more than 5-10 hours per year
observing. Since acquiring the goto scope 4 years ago I've spent
hundreds of hours enjoying this hobby.
Hopefully this thread will stop those threads for a while :)
--
David Staup
Arlington TX
Thomas
Cathy <cat...@nospamworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D7D18F6...@nospamworldnet.att.net...
Thomas
this really cool set-up in his garage, and when ever we went to visit, he'd
always take me in there and we'd talk to people all over the world. I
thought it was great.
I got a little older, and approached a teacher about it, and he loaned me a
book on getting a ham license.
All I could think was "why do I have to learn morse code to be able to push
a button and say "hi!""
Needless to say, I'm not a ham operator...
Rod Mollise <rmol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020909174024...@mb-ca.aol.com...
Go Vols!
insightful post.
Thanks.
GO VOLS!!!!
Go Vols!
>
> Hadn't thought about the uproar that must be going on in the photography
world.
> But, as a former professional photographer, I'd hope most of y'all are the
> rugged individualists you've always been! :-)
There is an intense digital vs film battle going on in photography. I sit on
the fence. I shoot film, scan it and edit in Photoshop.
Go Vols!
the
> wars, but it sounds like an escalation of the one of several that have
occurred
> here re subject before.
I didn't start it either.
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
>> -.--.-
Whasis character? I think it must be a punctuation I never use...
>> .-..-.
And this one too?
>Hadn't thought about the uproar that must be going on in the photography world.
The thing about film v. digital is that as digital becomes more
prevalent and of higher quality, it is more difficult to obtain
traditional photo materials. In this case, the new technology is
advancing to the detriment of the old.
As far as Code v. No-Code, I agree that it has hurt the amateur ranks
considerably, and continues to do so. Some of us (paranoid) OFs fear
that eventually, the ability to use the old low-tech mode will
disappear, that it will be outlawed.
In both of those cases, the new technology may push (eventually) the
old technology away...much to the chagrin of the amateurs (root =
love, no?).
Back to the topic of GOTO v. NOGOTO, well, unless someone is forcing
you to use GOTO, don't worry about it. It doesn't matter what the
other guy does.
Now, if the continued manufacture of GOTO scopes "advances" to the
point where you're not able to buy a scope in your desired
configuration (little refractor, big ol' Dob', SCT, or whatever) that
will just let you point it where you want to, then the NOGOTOers have
a legitimate complaint.
For the record, I prefer film, Morse code, and have DSCs on my
SCT...but I've observed more without them than with. Oh, and I'm
thinking about buying a GOTO scope...
BTW, Cathy:
.. / .... .- - . / .-. . .- -.. .. -. --. / -.-. --- -.. . /
.-- .-. .. - - . -. / .. -. / -.. --- - ... / .- -. -.. /
-.. .- ... .... . ... / .-.-.- /
But it is pretty easy to write! ;-)
Lee
--
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
Cornelia, GA
If emailing me...well, you can figure it out!
Rod Mollise
>license (technician class) and so I missed all the CW v. no CW wars... I see
Hi Jackie:
Good for you. I always liked ham radio, but it was really something that I did
more with my Dad (who is now a Silent Key, W4SLJ) than something I did for
myself. Amateur astronomy is _my_ thing, and what sucks up a lot of my money
and time...ain't it grand! :-)
For me, the glory days of ham radio were the 60s, and we won't see that agin!
:-)
Rod Mollise
>I didn't start it either.
>
>
Hi Shawn:
No, I will say, though you joined in--LIKE A LOT OF OTHER FOLKS INCLUDING
ME--you are not the bad goober this time! :-)
Rod Mollise
>The thing about film v. digital is that as digital becomes more
>prevalent and of higher quality, it is more difficult to obtain
>traditional photo materials. In this case, the new technology is
>advancing to the detriment of the old.
>
Hi Lee:
No doubt. I damn sure will miss the smell of Dektol and hypo, though! I
mean...a lot. Wonder if anybody would think I was crazy if I did some Moon
pictures on Tri X 'stead of CCD/video/digital? Might just do that when it
clears out and cools off! One last time for old time's sake anyhoo! :-)
Cathy
> There is an intense digital vs film battle going on in photography. I sit on
> the fence. I shoot film, scan it and edit in Photoshop.
>
>
>
Hiya Shawn
I shoot film, transparencies, polaroids, shoot digital, scan, use
photoshop. Whatever floats my boat and satisfies my creative addiction.
Cathy
Richard F.L.R. Snashall
Rod Mollise wrote:
>>- .... . / ... .- -- . / .- .-. --. ..- -- . -. - / --. --- . ... /
>>--- -. / .-- .. - .... / ..-. .. .-.. -- / ...- . .-. ... . ... /
>>-.. .. --. .. - .- .-.. .-.-.- / .-- .... .- - . ...- . .-. / -.-. .-
>>-- . .-. .- / .. -- / ..- ... .. -. --. --..-- / .. ... / - .... . /
>> --- -. . / - .... . / .--. .. -.-. - ..- .-. . / .-- .. .-.. .-.. /
>> -... . / -- .- -.. . / .-- .. - .... .-.-.- / .. / -.- -. --- .--
>>/ -.-. --- -.. . / -.--.- -- -.-- / ..- -. -.-. .-.. . / .-- .- ...
>>/ .- / .... .- -- / --- .--. . .-. .- - --- .-. / ..-. --- .-. /
>>--- ...- . .-. / ..... ----- / -.-- . .- .-. ... / .- -. -.. / .- /
>> -.-. --- -. -.-. . .-. - / .--. .. .- -. .. ... - .-.-.- -.--.- / ..
>>/ .- .-.. ... --- / -.- -. --- .-- / .- -- . .-. .. -.-. .- -. / ...
>>.. --. -. / .-.. .- -. --. ..- .- --. . .-.-.- / .. / -.. --- / -.
>>--- - / .... .- ...- . / .- / .... .- -- / .-.. .. -.-. . -. ... . /
>> -... ..- - / .. / .- -- / -.-. . .-. - .. ..-. .. . -.. / - --- /
>> .-..-. ... .. --. -. .-.-.- .-..-.
>>
>>
Too long ago... too far away!
Rick S.
>>
Sean Golden
A great post full of great points that should be obvious to anyone who
has the sense to listen to you in the first place. The problem is that
you are preaching to people who either haven't the sense to listen, or
else who enjoy the fight more than they enjoy the hobby.
I can't think of any hobby that hasn't gone through the same thing.
Twenty years ago the recording industry began to move from analog vinyl
recording to optical digital recording and the battle was joined in
earnest. Now it is a rare home that has a turntable, but most homes
have half a dozen CD players.
Fifteen years ago all "woods" were made of wood, who could even conceive
of a "metal wood." When they came out the outrage was palpable on the
golf courses, but now everyone uses metal woods.
Ten years ago Graphical User Interfaces were the tool of the devil, and
using one was tantamount to confessing that you were a technophobe, an
artist, or worse. Now everyone uses GUI interfaces, even in Linux, the
last refuge of the dyed-in-the-wool techno-geek.
The last few years has seen the decline of film and the rise of CCD in
photography, and the battle is raging in full fire in that area, even
though any fool can see that in twenty years film photography will be
the equivalent of using vacuum tubes in audio equipment.
I could go on and on and on.
But what's the point? People who are threatened by new techniques and
new technology will always exist, and they will always say the same
thing, which basically boils down to "It's not fair! I had to work
harder to achieve the same results, so your results are less valid than
mine." Or to put it another way "You haven't paid your dues."
It may be hard to believe it, but exactly the same arguments used today
by anti-goto forces were used back in the nineteenth century by
portraitists when confronted with the rise of photography.
And I would bet that the first person who learned how to spark a fire
from flint and steel was attacked and reviled by those whose lives were
made relevant by keeping the fire burning since they did not know how to
light a new one.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I always try to be on the side of things that history vindicates. In
the goto debate, that is the goto side, not the starhopping side.
People will gripe, moan and complain about it, but they will eventually
die off and the debate will end and people will continue to enjoy the
stars without them. Starhopping will also continue, but by the time my
kids have kids of their own, it will be mostly a venerable tradition
pracdticed by those who do it because they love it, not because they had
to learn it and resent that others do not.
-sdg
David Whysong
topic; don't you people ever go out and observe? ;-)
People need to understand that DSC's and go-to are useful tools. Sometimes
I'm using telescopes with automatic pointing, and I'm trying to get results.
Those times are all at major observatories for me, but that's not material
to this discussion; if I had the money for DSC's on my personal equipment,
I would get them. The point is that automatic pointing is very useful in
certain circumstances.
On the other hand if I'm browsing through the Milky Way and trying to relax
and see something new and unexpected, automatic pointing would be both
unnecesarry and unwelcome.
There is room for both camps. Use what you need.
Dave
Have a CCD camera? Join the Amateur Deep Field collaboration!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amateur_Deep_Field/
David Whysong
DWhysong (at) physics (dot) ucsb (dot) edu
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~dwhysong -- PGP keys available
Graduate student, astrophysics group
University of California, Santa Barbara
js...@gtf.org
-> The thing about film v. digital is that as digital becomes more
-> prevalent and of higher quality, it is more difficult to obtain
-> traditional photo materials. In this case, the new technology is
-> advancing to the detriment of the old.
I agree this is unfortunate. However, for the average joe like me
that just wants to shoot some snapshots, most will never go back to
film once they have tried digital. I have many rolls of film, some
over 10 years old, that I never developed and have no idea what's
on them. Further, I don't have a darkroom full of chemicals but
I do have a computer.
I hope your film stuff stays available so you can pursue your
hobby the way you see fit though.
-> As far as Code v. No-Code, I agree that it has hurt the amateur ranks
-> considerably, and continues to do so. Some of us (paranoid) OFs fear
-> that eventually, the ability to use the old low-tech mode will
-> disappear, that it will be outlawed.
Do you really think Morse Code will be outlawed? Just curious. I
for one really don't have a burning desire to learn Morse code - I
could, I am sure, I learned triple integration and differential
equations at one point, but I just have no desire to know how to
use Morse code. I was a radio operator in the Army 15 years ago
and I didn't have to learn it then, why should I have to learn it
if I want to communicate as an amateur. Again, I have absolutely
no problem with you doing so, but I don't see it as a necessity.
-> In both of those cases, the new technology may push (eventually) the
-> old technology away...much to the chagrin of the amateurs (root =
-> love, no?).
That is sad. Power tools exist, and no doubt that made quality
hand tools a little more difficult to come by, but if you want to
do woodworking with hand tools only, you can. Similarly, power
boats dominate the market but you can get a row boat or canoe
if that is what you really want. Cars dominate but you can get
a horse or bicycle if you want. I see no reason why the introduction
of a new technology should result in the total loss of the old.
Of the two you mention, I think that film photography may be in
the most trouble because of the large amount of specialized equipment
required (chemicals in particular). I think it would be sad if that
totally goes away some day. I think it will certainly become less
affordable.
-> Back to the topic of GOTO v. NOGOTO, well, unless someone is forcing
-> you to use GOTO, don't worry about it. It doesn't matter what the
-> other guy does.
-> Now, if the continued manufacture of GOTO scopes "advances" to the
-> point where you're not able to buy a scope in your desired
-> configuration (little refractor, big ol' Dob', SCT, or whatever) that
-> will just let you point it where you want to, then the NOGOTOers have
-> a legitimate complaint.
I noticed a strange thing - a NS11GPS costs *LESS* than a CM1100.
I suspect it is the shape of things to come, but I don't think
non-GoTo scopes are in the same danger that film photography may
be in. On the very cheapest end, it will always be cheaper to make
scopes without GoTo, and at the high end, you will always have some
purists who produce high quality scopes with no GoTo. In the middle,
market demand will drive what is available. I personally don't mind
GoTo, but I would not buy a scope that MUST use GoTo (ie can't be
operated with the GoTo turned off). I have a bunch of stuff for
my Celestar 8 Deluxe, but I often just take it outside with no
hand controller, no external power, nothing but a small case with
some eyepieces in it. When I get the DSCs, I suspect I often won't
bother to carry the computer outside either. I have only been doing
this for a couple weeks, but I suspect that will be the way of it.
-> For the record, I prefer film, Morse code, and have DSCs on my
-> SCT...but I've observed more without them than with. Oh, and I'm
-> thinking about buying a GOTO scope...
I think freedom is what the debate should be, not whether people
who use GoTo or don't use GoTo should be considered second class
citizens.
--
John Cronin
mailto: `echo Njs...@SgtPfA.orMg | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
Tony Flanders
> I can't think of any hobby that hasn't gone through the same thing...
>
> [records vs. CDs]
> [metal woods]
> [film vs. CCD]
> But what's the point? People who are threatened by new techniques and
> new technology will always exist, and they will always say the same
> thing, which basically boils down to "It's not fair! I had to work
> harder to achieve the same results, so your results are less valid than
> mine." Or to put it another way "You haven't paid your dues."
>
> It may be hard to believe it, but exactly the same arguments used today
> by anti-goto forces were used back in the nineteenth century by
> portraitists when confronted with the rise of photography.
> ...
>
> I always try to be on the side of things that history vindicates. In
> the goto debate, that is the goto side, not the starhopping side.
Sorry, I disagree strongly. You talk as though history is the
uniform march of progress, with one technology replacing another.
That is simple-minded, and wildly at odds with the historical
record. In fact, each one of the cases that you cite is different
(except maybe "metal wood", which I have never heard of before).
In the case of records vs. CDs, you have an example of a vastly
superior technology replacing one that was always known to be
inadequate from day one. Edison's wax cylinders wore out, my
parent's 78s wore out, and so did my 33s. Advances in materials
and electronics stretched the technology amazingly, but from the
moment that magnetic recording technology reared its head, it
was obvious that plastic was doomed in the long run.
Film vs. CCD is not so obvious -- not obvious at all. Somebody
told me 15 years ago that digital cameras would make film obsolete
in 10 years, and it didn't happen. Digital cameras will surely
expand at the expense of film, and they will almost certainly
capture the majority of the low-end market fairly soon. But
film is still progressing at a good clip, much faster than
plastic records ever did or could, and film is inherently
different from digital, and arguably has some inherent advantages.
I betcha film is still going strong 50 years from now.
On paint vs. photo portraiture, you are on even weaker ground.
Yes, photography got rid of the mass of hack portraitists --
and good riddance. But it is obvious that paint can do things
that film cannot, and that it will be going strong 500 years
from now.
Rod's example of Morse Code is another very poor analogy. Morse
Code was a very specific tool resulting from a very specific
technological limitation, and it made no sense once that limitation
disappeared. Actually, that's not quite true; there are still
cases where Morse Code might be useful, like two prisoners
communicating with each other by banging on the pipes. But
for the great majority of people, semaphor would be much more
useful. And who knows that these days?
Starhopping, however, is a generically useful tool, using
generically useful skills. For one thing, it is how one finds
one's way around the sky when observing naked-eye, and I hope
and trust that naked-eye observing never disappears. It is
also how one finds things with binoculars; fitting 10x50
binoculars with GoTo is not completely unthinkable, but I
doubt that many people will ever find it attractive.
Even back before the term was invented, before starhopping
was identified as a concept, lots of people did it, including
people who relied on setting circles, simply because it happens
to be an easy and convenient way to get between two objects
that lie close to each other.
So it seems quite certain to me that history will not vindicate
GoTo at the expense of starhopping. The two things are different
and complementary, and will coexist forever, and enrich each other,
just as photography and paint portraiture have enriched each other
since the very first photo was taken. GoTo *may* indeed replace
older technologies that aim to do precisely the same thing,
like old-fashioned analog setting circles and digital setting
circles. But even that I doubt. Setting circles work just
fine, and will probably continue to have a niche for people
with good EQ mounts and limited power supply, or just for people
who happen to like them.
I predict that it is also going to be quite a long time, if ever,
before all mass-market scopes are fitted with GoTo. Nobody has
yet made and marketed a cheap and effective GoTo for Dobs, and
until they do, the all-manual 6" or 8" Dob is *still* going
to be the instrument of choice for a beginner with $500 or
less to spend. Now, a cheap Dob with built-in GoTo is a
development that I expect and await eagerly; I think that
it could truly revolutionize the hobby. But even then, I
doubt that it could be sold for less than a $100 premium,
and there are likely to be some people who would prefer a
$400 Dob without GoTo to a $500 Dob with GoTo.
- Tony Flanders
William C. Keel
>>
>>The thing about film v. digital is that as digital becomes more
>>prevalent and of higher quality, it is more difficult to obtain
>>traditional photo materials. In this case, the new technology is
>>advancing to the detriment of the old.
>>
> Hi Lee:
> No doubt. I damn sure will miss the smell of Dektol and hypo, though! I
> mean...a lot. Wonder if anybody would think I was crazy if I did some Moon
> pictures on Tri X 'stead of CCD/video/digital? Might just do that when it
> clears out and cools off! One last time for old time's sake anyhoo! :-)
Happened a decade ago in the world of photographic plates - prices
were going up and availability was dropping. That was the last straw
for use of prime-focus plates at Palomar and Kitt Peak, well before
CCD arrays brought back wide-field imaging. The UK Schmidt folks
experimented with using big sheets of film held in place by vacuum
seals; available emulsions had some really interesting bumps and
wiggles in sensitivity with wavelength that made the results less
than thrilling.
I still insist on teaching B&W developing and darkroom use to my
2nd-year observing classes. It was great to hear them do their
first enlargements last week and pronounce the results "sweet!"
right over the Dektol tray.
Bill Keel
mark d. doiron
news:20020909174024...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> ...de AC4WY (who got his Extra a goodly while
> back when you had to do code at 20wpm :-)).
Rod--
yep. de wb6mpd (formerly, who never could quite get that 13 wpm after 3
tries and resigned himself to a life as a technician until he finally
got a job in electronics [too much of a busman's holiday] and let the
license quietly expire after 10+ years).
clear, dark skies--
mark d.
mark d. doiron
> > There is an intense digital vs film battle
"Cathy" <cat...@nospamworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D7D4949...@nospamworldnet.att.net...
> I shoot film, transparencies, polaroids, shoot digital,
> scan, use photoshop.
all--
professional digital is fine. what i hate is consumer digital. the
color rendition is often horrendous, and far too many folks shoot photos
at low rez so they can have more photos. combine this with the tendency
of folks to stand back (waaay back) when taking a photo of something,
and there's little room to crop and enlarge their images (i work a lot
with other folks images in my boy scout volunteer work).
i figure for about $3G i can go digital (Canon d60, new lens to allow me
to keep shooting wide angle, a digital storage device for the film i
shoot [10-40 rolls during a single trip]). currently i'm okay with film
and scanning, then paintshop pro as my image editor. i don't take as
many "artistic" photos as Cathy and Shawn (both of you take really nice
photos, btw!)--leaning more toward a documentary/photojournalism
approach to my work. however, you can see some of it (combined with
that of a few other folks as well) here:
http://members.cox.net/mdoiron/index.html
the links for the ice storm, route 66 and favorite scout photos are all
photos of mine. probably 75% of the others are mine as well (obviously
if i'm in the photo it's not mine, but i almost always set it up and ask
someone to press the button--why is it that folks like to stand way back
and cut folks off at the knees to include empty sky over their head when
taking a picture??).
btw: my son's probably going to be better photographer than me. he
just took an award of excellence at the oklahoma city zoo's annual photo
contest last week. i'm pretty proud of him. :-)
Les Blalock
Yeah, how many of us kept thinking, "if only I could hear di dah dit
instead of having to read dot dot dot dash dash". Whatta pain. On
the other hand, none of us could resist reading it, huh? :^)
Les/N5KOA
Odessa, TX
http://www.cableone.net/les/Astro/
Richard Harding
passed away last year was an avid computer enthusiast up until
Parkinson's incapacitated him and eventually led to his death. He
started with a Texas Instruments 8k computer (with tape memory!!) and
learned TI Basic and then moved to a Tandy 386. He bacame very
proficient with Dos and Dbase, and loved to write programs for various
other interests. He wrote a program to use as a "phone-book" where he
stored all of his various phone numbers. It would take him 5 x the
time it took me to go get a phonebook and look up a number. But he
didn't care....he WROTE THE PROGRAM!! As Windows started to dominate
the market, he became a VERY vocal detractor of this technology. He
ranted about the "wasted memory" and need to upgrade equipment to
handle the graphics. He ridiculed people who used computers as
"typewriters" and knew nothing "about computers". He refused to use
Windows based programs unless no Dos program was available, and cursed
the whole time. Heaven help us if it should "crash"!! Shortly before
he became incapacitated, I was discussing this subject with him, and
he finally came out and said exactly why he held Windows in such low
esteem. He stopped, got red in the face, and shouted "because these
people haven't had to LEARN how to use computers!!! They don't have
any idea what they are doing, and shouldn't have it so easy!! They
are sooooo smug in believing that they are using computers, and treat
them as toys!!!" So here we have the truth.....my father thought that
his chosen hobby should be difficult, exclusive, and only open to
people who had "earned their wings". I understood him, but disagree.
Given his argument, no person should be able to drive a car unless
he/she can completely rebuild an engine and explain every nuance about
internal combustion!
This is the same thing in our wonderful hobby. Some people wrap
themselves in a mantle of being "real" amateur astronomers who have
learned the sky intimately over years and years of painstaking
observation as opposed to the smart-alec go-toers who have chosen not
to make the same arduous journey.
The same for short wave, photography, phonographs, horse drawn
buggies, and muzzle loading guns. It is snobbery, nothing else.
Personally I love using my Dob sans DSCs as much as my go-to SCT, but
it is a choice I make.
Richard in Ottawa
David McKee
lots of togotoornottogoto stuff snipped.
> Starhopping, however, is a generically useful tool, using
> generically useful skills. For one thing, it is how one finds
> one's way around the sky when observing naked-eye, and I hope
> and trust that naked-eye observing never disappears. It is
> also how one finds things with binoculars; fitting 10x50
> binoculars with GoTo is not completely unthinkable, but I
> doubt that many people will ever find it attractive.
>
I like the last sentence!!
Personally I think that Tony has hit upon one of the most interesting things to have come up in any of the "GoTo" threads
(which are getting distinctly "old" as I believe our American cousins term it). Would it be possible / useful to mount a
pair of 10x50 binoculars on top of a telescope to act as a finder? I'm guessing that both the telescope and the mounts
would have to be pretty chunky, but it would give magnificent wide FOVs. Plus if your mount is already GoTo, then you get
free GoTo bins!! The other problem might be comfortable viewing - perhaps bins with some sort of prism or mirror?
Has anybody done this?
Cheers
Dave
(Who is happily learning the sky, also sometimes uses manual setting circles, would like digital setting circles, and
thinks that GoTo would let him see a lot more of the wonders of the night sky on those rare ocassions when it ain't cloudy
in Scotland)
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
>-> As far as Code v. No-Code, I agree that it has hurt the amateur ranks
>-> considerably, and continues to do so. Some of us (paranoid) OFs fear
>-> that eventually, the ability to use the old low-tech mode will
>-> disappear, that it will be outlawed.
>
>Do you really think Morse Code will be outlawed? Just curious.
Eventually yes...for reasons that don't need to be brought to this
forum, but yes. It may be paranoia, but it's not paranoia if they're
really out to get you, eh? ;-)
>Of the two you mention, I think that film photography may be in
>the most trouble because of the large amount of specialized equipment
>required (chemicals in particular). I think it would be sad if that
>totally goes away some day. I think it will certainly become less
>affordable.
That has already happened. I think the chemicals will always be
available if you want to roll-your-own solutions and create your own
light-sensitive materials, but that's a whole lot different from going
and buying chemicals and paper in little yellow boxes from Rochester
NY.
>-> Back to the topic of GOTO v. NOGOTO, well, unless someone is forcing
>-> you to use GOTO, don't worry about it. It doesn't matter what the
>-> other guy does.
>
>-> Now, if the continued manufacture of GOTO scopes "advances" to the
>-> point where you're not able to buy a scope in your desired
>-> configuration (little refractor, big ol' Dob', SCT, or whatever) that
>-> will just let you point it where you want to, then the NOGOTOers have
>-> a legitimate complaint.
>
>I noticed a strange thing - a NS11GPS costs *LESS* than a CM1100.
>I suspect it is the shape of things to come, but I don't think
>non-GoTo scopes are in the same danger that film photography may
>be in.
I agree. And that's the point. As long as no-one is forcing you to
abandon star-hopping or iron setting circles, you shouldn't care what
someone else does.
>I have a bunch of stuff for
>my Celestar 8 Deluxe, but I often just take it outside with no
>hand controller, no external power, nothing but a small case with
>some eyepieces in it.
Me too...in fact, I did that just last night!
>I think freedom is what the debate should be, not whether people
>who use GoTo or don't use GoTo should be considered second class
>citizens.
Correct.
And a much bigger problem than GOTO v. NOGOTO for the future enjoyment
of amateur astronomy for all of us is light pollution. THAT is where
this energy should be focused!
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
<l...@NOSPAMcableone.net> wrote:
>Yeah, how many of us kept thinking, "if only I could hear di dah dit
>instead of having to read dot dot dot dash dash". Whatta pain. On
>the other hand, none of us could resist reading it, huh? :^)
.... .. !
Cathy
Thank you for the lovely compliment.
<snip>
>why is it that folks like to stand way back
> and cut folks off at the knees to include empty sky over their head when
> taking a picture??).
Oh...thats all about COMPOSITION. A select group of folks have little or
no artistic background or appreciation and the idea of composing the
photograph just doesnt enter their mind.
(Then you have the folks having their snapshot-picture taken and photo
after photo, year after year, they are the only one NOT looking at the
camera. After awhile I found myself ordering a certain family member to
"Look at the f%&*#^n camera!") xp;)
> btw: my son's probably going to be better photographer than me. he
> just took an award of excellence at the oklahoma city zoo's annual photo
> contest last week. i'm pretty proud of him. :-)
Very nice!
Cathy
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
<seang...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Ten years ago Graphical User Interfaces were the tool of the devil,
Still are. ;-)
Stephen Paul
I don't suppose this translates to: "doo wah did-ee, did-ee dum, did-ee doo"
?
:-)
Cathy
Stephen Paul wrote:
No...perhaps Jumpin Jack Flash is a dot dash dash?
I glance at the photo, and the pilot light of a memory flickers in my eyes.
Rod Mollise
>
> Rod's example of Morse Code is another very poor analogy. Morse
> Code was a very specific tool resulting from a very specific
> technological limitation, and it made no sense once that limitation
> disappeared. Actually, that's not quite true; there are still
> cases where Morse Code might be useful, like two prisoners
> communicating with each other by banging on the pipes. But
> for the great majority of people, semaphor would be much more
> useful. And who knows that these days?
>
Hi Tony:
I'm afraid you missed the point of my (admittedly rambling) post. I'm
NOT making the point that CW and Starhopping are the SAME. It's the
ensuing ARGUMENT and SIDE-CHOOSING that's the SAME.
By the way, I like CW, and have in the past operated on high-speed
(35wpm+) traffic-passing nets. I like starhopping, too, and have
hopped my way to most of the h400 from less than perfect skies. :-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Stephen Paul
news:928eaf92.02091...@posting.google.com...
> This thread has got me thinking (dangerous, I know). My father who
> passed away last year was an avid computer enthusiast up until
> Parkinson's incapacitated him and eventually led to his death. He
Sorry for your loss. Been there all too recently.
> he finally came out and said exactly why he held Windows in such low
> esteem. He stopped, got red in the face, and shouted "because these
> people haven't had to LEARN how to use computers!!! They don't have
> any idea what they are doing, and shouldn't have it so easy!!
For the consumer and application user, a computer is a tool, and a means to
an end. For many (if not most) applications, what that end is, is not really
a hardware issue, it is a software issue. When buying a computer solution to
a computational problem, you first must research what software is available,
and then purchase hardware which will run the application. Not the other way
around. How the hardware works matters nought. Intimate knowledge of
hardware or software is not required, provided a unique and undeveloped
solution is not needed. What matters is how easy it is to learn and use the
solution to solve the problems for which it was purchased.
> his chosen hobby should be difficult, exclusive, and only open to
> people who had "earned their wings". I understood him, but disagree.
> Given his argument, no person should be able to drive a car unless
> he/she can completely rebuild an engine and explain every nuance about
> internal combustion!
>
> This is the same thing in our wonderful hobby. Some people wrap
> themselves in a mantle of being "real" amateur astronomers who have
> learned the sky intimately over years and years of painstaking
> observation as opposed to the smart-alec go-toers who have chosen not
> to make the same arduous journey.
> The same for short wave, photography, phonographs, horse drawn
> buggies, and muzzle loading guns. It is snobbery, nothing else.
I don't agree that it's "snobbery", at least not in all cases. More likely
it's fear (and ignorance of a kind) of what the future holds.
Developing an application specific hardware solution, requires a deeper
knowledge of how computers and software work together, as well as an
intimate knowledge of the problem to be solved. I suspect that if someone
showed up at Stellafane with home built axes encoders and computational
hardware that ran hand coded aiming software, they would have walked away
with a prize for ingenuity. Even the staunchest of star-hoppers would have
to admire the mind of the one who understood the problem well enough to
manufacture a computerized solution. That's not to say that they would care
to adopt the technology, but they would have to at least admire the mind of
its creator. On geek factor alone this has amzaing merit, IMO.
Considering this, one thing becomes pretty self evident, GoTo was created by
a star-hopper. :-)
The problem on a mass production scale, is that such things circumvent, on a
mass scale, the necessity of the very understanding of astronomy, and the
inherent problem of pointing a telescope, that was required to develop a
computerized solution. An understanding that was once commonplace, is now at
risk because it is no longer required. I submit that the intimate knowledge
of the motions of the sky, the equatorial grid, and the manual pointing of a
telescope are so integrated into the experience of those who had to learn
them just to be able to observe, that some feel a great sense of loss. These
skills are intimately nurtured, refined, and purified through the investment
of time, and to the point that they become part of the spirit of the
astronomer. Take them away, and you take away that spirit. It is the
difference between painting, and painting by numbers. Losing the "art" of
astronomy is something that someone who loves astronomy, might fear, and
righfully so, if it were in truth what happens.
It is not, in all cases.
Personally, for me, the main attraction to a GoTo telescope had little to do
with observing the sky. I wanted a telescope long before I knew anything
substantial about the sky, and, whether I wound up using it regularly or not
wasn't even important. In fact, with my first scope I didn't know there was
anything to look at other than the moon, Saturn and Jupiter.
To me the telescope is representative of both human achievement, and the
history of scientific discovery.. It is a true Icon of human intelligence,
and carries a romantic quality about it that speaks of the desire to
participate in the advancement of science and understanding. That's not to
say that I wasn't buying one to make use of it optically however, and that
being the case, my first telescope was completey useless to me and my
abilities. It was an inadequate gift that I soon exchanged for a GoTo after
having done some limited research on observational astronomy through the
web.
As an admirer of innovation, I earn my living understanding the work of
others, and learning the inner workings of their designs. I didn't buy my
little 4" Mak GoTo scope because I was lazy, and didn't want to learn the
sky (I didn't realize how much there was to learn). I bought one because it
was a _way cool_ piece of technology that would take me to places I didn't
even know existed, without requiring anything more than an understanding of
that which I am trained to understand, computers; this also being a feature
for which I was willing to eat the cost.
In the end I found that my interest in astronomy and latent love for
observing was even greater than I had suspected. I wanted to learn more, and
do more. I soon added a DSC equipped 8" SCT to gain some aperture for
further exposure, both to DSOs and increased planetary detail, while at the
same time learning more and more about how to read a chart, and how to use
my astronomy software to good effect and for planning. Later I added a
completely manual 10" F5 Dob to secure the easiest method of finding objects
on my own, whether by choice or by circumstance.
(Did I mention that I have only been "into" observational astronomy for 20
months?)
Learning the problem from the solution is the way I operate. GoTo taught me
that there was a problem, a problem which I can now solve without GoTo. Just
like time in the driver's seat of a car, got me interested in understanding
mechanics (and ultimately Newtonian physics to a measure), and learning to
program Cobol on cards, got me interested in understanding computer
hardware, which lead to working with operating systems, from which I now
derive my income.
GoTo is good for astronomy because it is a great way to get the common 21st
century fence sitting technofile, to take a look at, and then through, a
telescope. That may, or may not lead to a desire for a deeper understanding.
But, at least it made them look. I only wish that telescope marketing
literature were more readily visible in public places. It is a good thing to
convince busy people that they can observe effortlessly with the aid of a
computer.
Most of the people I work with have a deep love of science, and deep pockets
with which they buy convenience for the sake of saving time. If they only
knew the convenience of, and how much they could see with an NX11GPS!!, they
might find their way into a love of the night sky, and THAT should be our
aim as a community. For each person who is converted to an amateur
astronomer, there is one less porch light at night.
-Stephen Paul
Bill Becker
"Rod Mollise" <rmol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020909174024...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> HI Guys:
>
> Don't need goto? Well, surely not. It's a luxury, no doubt about it. I
will
> admit that at this point in my life I REALLY _like_ luxuries. Rebel Yell
is
> fine, but now that I can afford the expensive scotch, I do indulge in it
once
> in a while! :-) But there is no doubt that goto IS a luxury and not a
> necessity. You don't need goto.
Single malt Scotch? Goto? Heck, at our ages, we've earned them. ;^)
>
> But is it--goto--Satan's tool to lure unsuspecting novices to their doom
and
> final damnation? "No" to that as well.
Viewing object after object...CANNOT be a bad thing. How you get there,
imho, is less important than the fact that you got there. Satan's probably
got one of them 60mm 800x dept. store scopes
and he deserves it. LOL!
>
> I'm beginning to think that the debate over this is just getting
> started--there's obviously a lot of pent-up emotion on the subject, that's
> clear from what's gone on here in the last couple of days. What I'm ALSO
> beginning to think, however, is that it's the _choosing sides_ that's
harmful,
> not goto or lack thereof. Who remembers the Great Morse Code Wars?
I'm not choosing sides. I believe that whatever method one chooses to
observe the skies is ok by me. One does have to look through the eyepiece no
matter
how they got there and that still is the epitamy of this great hobby of
ours.
Can't address the GMCWs.
>
> OK, you guys and gals out there. How many of you are active or former hams
(if
> you don't know what I'm talking about, you're dismissed for a moment).
Good.
> Now, think back to the Morse code debate that went on for at least 20
years.
> Get the picture?
>
> OK, you non-hams can come back now. For the uninitiated, "ham radio,"
amateur
> radio, suffered from years and years of an ongoing debate over the value
of
> Morse code. The code, or "CW", it was obvious, was a dying form a
> communications from the time SSB hit the amateur scene (for the average
> amateur, in the 60s), and the new digital modes of the 80s were just the
nail
> in the coffin. Dying as a practical or necessary mode of communications.
But
> some hams insisted you couldn't _be_ one without the code. The situation
was
> slightly different there as, unlike amateur astronomy, you have to pass a
test
> and be licensed by the government to do ham radio. The test involved
varying
> levels of code proficiency, and the traditonalists swore to keep the tests
as
> they were: 5wpm for the new/young folks, 13wpm for the rabble, and 20 for
the
> annointed. But the argument was much the same over the code as it is over
goto.
> Does any of the following sound somewhat familiar?
>
> "REAL hams use CW. It's more efficient."
>
> "I don't have time to learn the code, I just want to communicate!"
>
> "CW encourages hams to build their own equipment."
>
> "Building is not my interest. Antennas and DX are."
>
> "Learning this basic skill does you good. Look at the Technicans (class of
> license that required minimal Morse code facility), they are NOT really
hams!
> They'll drop out of amateur radio after only a year or two. They did not
have
> to suffer for their art."
>
> "More hams drop out due to problems learning the code than any other
cause.
> Leraning the code teaches you nothing about electronics and radio."
>
> "I only work CW, that's what I love, and everybody should feel just like I
do."
>
> And on and on ad nauseum.
>
> The point? All this debate _ever_, EVER did for ham radio was cause hurt
> feelings and a general exodus from the hobby by bright kids who were not
> interested in dah-dih-dah-dih/dih dah dah. The kids who might have
contributed
> a lot. It also drove many old-timers, who could have taught the novices a
thing
> or two, off into self-imposed virtual ghettos. The whole thing did ham
radio a
> LOT of harm, a TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HARM, and did not fade away until the
FCC
> finally de-emphsized the Morse code in its licensing structure, long after
CW
> was extinct in the world of commercial radio.
>
> We should take note and learn from what happened there. If you like goto,
use
> it. If you don't like it, don't use it. But don't drag out a soap box. One
> thing that led me away from ham radio (though I still maintain my license
and
> stay at a minimally active level) and toward an ever deeper committement
to
> amateur astronomy is its generally forward-looking and non-traditional
nature.
> And its value on the lone individual who's got a good idea. The herd
mentality
> has never ruled with amateurs (amateur astronomers), let's not get it
started.
> If you like your 20" DSCless dob, ENJOY IT. Offer the young woman set up
next
> to you a look through the eyepiece, accept a look through her LX200 12,
and
> ENJOY IT!
I enjoy EVERY view I take through my fellow backyard observers' scopes. I
look at it as a priveledge. I don't give a darn
whether it's a 60mm refractor or a 25" Dob. It ain't my scope and I feel
honoured that they are giving me the opportunity
to look through it.
>
> ...de AC4WY (who got his Extra a goodly while back when you had to do code
at
> 20wpm :-)).
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
> Like SCTs and MCTs?
> Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
> Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>
Thanks for a wonderful post.....typical Rod Mollise style!
Best regards,
Bill
Sean Golden
tony_f...@yahoo.com (Tony Flanders) wrote:
Tony:
I guess we'll have to revisit this in twenty years and see who was
"vindicated" this time. I'm willing to let it play out and see who's
right.
By the way I think you missed my whole point. I specifically stated
that starhopping would remain for people who wanted to do it. What I am
saying is that the GOTO **DEBATE** will go away when those who are
threatened by it die off. I never said all scopes would have goto, I
said that those who make an **ISSUE** of goto will lose the debate and
Goto will become just as accepted as any other aspect of the hobby. It
is unlikely newcomers to the hobby in the future will have the same
anti-goto attitude that some profess today.
That was my point and it seems I stated it poorly because you completely
missed it.
Back to film vs. CCD in photography. The part of this that most people
don't understand is that film is available at a reasonably cheap price
becuase of huge economies of scale where film is produced in enormous
quantities. As digital overtakes film those economies of scale will
work in reverse, causing an escalation of price in film that will
accelerate the move to digital, ending up with film being produced by
specialty producers who cater to a specialized market, just as vacuum
tubes are produced and marketed today for the audophile market.
As far as the portraitist example, again you missed my point completely,
it is the example of the "mass hack of portraitists" that I was
specifically referring to, which you say "good riddance" to, in actual
recognition that my point was 100% correct in the first place. They are
gone, replaced by film portraitists, except for a very small number of
portraitists who service an elite market mostly of the very rich. I
never said film replaced painting, I said portrait painters were
replaced by portrait photographers, a point you even admit to as you say
I was completely wrong... A conclusion I find difficult to understand...
-sdg
drdrb
>
> > I can't think of any hobby that hasn't gone through the same thing...
> >
> > [records vs. CDs]
> > [metal woods]
> > [film vs. CCD]
>
> (except maybe "metal wood", which I have never heard of before).
>
>
> Rod's example of Morse Code is another very poor analogy
> - Tony Flanders
Your knowledge of golf is on par with your understanding of Rod's analogy:-)
Jeff Quinn
is that the hobby is about fun, not results. If using a dob w/o any
kind of intervention by a computer setting circle or servo drive
automatic pointing is more fun than operating the computer or servo
drive to some, of course they will do what is funnest on their spare
time.
I am personally a star hopper. I have a set of DSCs and encoders for
my AP800 mount but never use them. The work involved in finding
objects manually is very rewarding to me, but sometimes I want to take
the easy way out and use the circles. I always feel empty after
viewing galaxies and other objects I had not seen before if I used the
circles to find them. Finding them manually seems to put them in
context for me.
I also use a 6" Meade refractor half of the time instead of my 12" SCT
even though about 80% of my observing is deep sky and not double star
or planetary. For some reason I get as much enjoyment out of the
refractor's plusses (ie. wider maximum field of view, greater contrast
and darker sky backround, star images less sensitive to seeing,
quicker cooldown) as I do out of the larger scope's forte, which is
raw power and light gathering ability due to a plethora of aperture.
Hmmm. Whatever lights your fire is what I may be getting at. Some
work is enjoyable to some people, like straining to see a dim feature
in an NGC galaxy which would be much easier in a larger SCT than a 6"
refractor, or straining to navigate using charts and a finderscope
rather than digital setting circles. Had Burt Rutan been a taker of
the easiest way, we would never had been provided with some of his
breakthrough canard experimental aircraft designs like the Long-EZ and
later, the Beechcraft Starship among others such as the Cozy,
Velocity, Defiant, Quickie, and Dragonfly. Some people get immense
joy and satisfaction out of doing things the hard way. I enjoy my
hobby of astronomy (enough to have invested four times the $ in my
astro equip. compared to my automobile) despite being backwards and
taking the slower, more laborous route of star hopping and using
smaller than optimum aperture scopes on deep sky at times. The
heavenly awareness that I sometimes approach when deep in
concentration on the sky above is all I am after.
I hope my perspective does not escalate this "war". Reading
everyones' posts has been quite enlightening.
Jeff Quinn
Jon Isaacs
>that starhopping would remain for people who wanted to do it. What I am
>saying is that the GOTO **DEBATE** will go away when those who are
>threatened by it die off.
Interesting idea but outside of a couple of trollers well known for stirring up
trouble, I haven't noticed anyone who seems threatened by GOTO.
Anyway, what I find interesting is the great variety of approaches to astronomy
and varied interests.
And hopefully that means that rather than being a war or a debate, it is a
discussion where people on both sides are open to understand the desires and
wants of people with differing desires.
Jon Isaacs
Sean Golden
joni...@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) wrote:
Maybe it is semantics. What I see over and over again in this debate is
a steady stream of statements from those who dislike Goto that indicate
their belief that Goto users haven't "paid their dues" and as such their
results are less valid than the results of those who have.
It is my belief that a large part of this is due to feelings of
resentment towards those who did not have to endure the same hardships.
I believe that when relative newcomers with Goto gleefully post their
observing results, this threatens the anti-goto crowd's personal image
of themselves as battle-scarred veterans who have earned the right to be
spokesmen of the hobby.
I don't think it is a "couple of trollers" either, although these
threads are always started by trollers, they are nurtured by people with
real differences, which is why they are such great troll-bait.
Personally, I don't care if you use goto, dsc, starhop, or have a
computerized telescope you run remotely from the Internet and never set
foot outdoors. If you are learning about the universe and get
satisfaction from how you pursue your hobby, I am completely fine with
it.
However, I do take exception to people telling others "if you didn't do
things my way, then your experiences are less rewarding than mine."
After a certain amount of that I feel compelled to point out the
fallacies in people's arguments and what I perceive to be the hidden
agendas that really motivate people.
I starhop and I use Goto. I do both at the same time. I frequently
move over to my dob to starhop to an object while my apo is slewing to
the same object. It is not uncommon for me to beat the apo to the
object if I am very familiar with it (like M57, M31, M13, etc).
Probably 70% of the time I am looking at the same object in each scope.
In my case starhopping is a means to an end, not an end in itself, but I
am a results oriented person, not a process oriented person. It doesn't
matter much to me how I got there, what matters to me is the ability to
observe what I'm looking for.
On occasion I have a serendipitous moment while starhopping and say
"gee, I didn't know that was there" and those moments are like little
gifts from the sky. For that reason I understand why people might want
to promote starhopping just for those little lagniappes that are
offered. But on the other hand, using goto I can see a lot more in a
lot shorter time, especially new objects I am not that familiar with,
which is a benefit in itself.
I like both, but I don't like either side telling the other side they
are nitwits.
-sdg
Rod
You are missing a simple point; there are many of us that just don't want to
pay more for something that doesn't fit our observing style. I have no
argument with GOTO, but give me the option to spend that money on something
more useful to me.
Rod B.
Sean Golden wrote in message ...
Tony Flanders
> I'm afraid you missed the point of my (admittedly rambling) post. I'm
> NOT making the point that CW and Starhopping are the SAME. It's the
> ensuing ARGUMENT and SIDE-CHOOSING that's the SAME.
Sorry; I really did and do understand that, and in my eagerness to
make my own point, I failed to acknowledge that fact. You spoke
well, and I agree with essentially everything that you said.
In my own defense, you should have taken a little more pains to
point out the differences between Morse Code and starhopping.
Analogies are dangerous things; even if you are aware of the
limitations, someone else may extrapolate them to false conclusions.
- Tony Flanders
Jon Isaacs
>a steady stream of statements from those who dislike Goto that indicate
>their belief that Goto users haven't "paid their dues" and as such their
>results are less valid than the results of those who have.
I have not seen the posts which contend this. I have seen posts which state
the experience will be different.
>
>It is my belief that a large part of this is due to feelings of
>resentment towards those who did not have to endure the same hardships.
>I believe that when relative newcomers with Goto gleefully post their
>observing results, this threatens the anti-goto crowd's personal image
>of themselves as battle-scarred veterans who have earned the right to be
>spokesmen of the hobby.
I suggest that guessing at peoples motivations is counter productive. There is
a saying that goes something like:
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be accounted for any other way."
>Personally, I don't care if you use goto, dsc, starhop, or have a
>computerized telescope you run remotely from the Internet and never set
>foot outdoors. If you are learning about the universe and get
>satisfaction from how you pursue your hobby, I am completely fine with
>it.
I think we are most all in agreement that anyone one studying the sky in any
way is a good thing and that we ought to be together as a group rather than
divided as separate factions.
I further think it is important to share the differences in experiences so that
others may understand the differences and similarities between different
observing styles. I think how one chooses to observe has a great deal to do
with why one is attracted to Amateur Astronomy.
For example, Chris Peterson and I have quite different interests, he seems to
be interested in observing a variety of targets and is not interested in
visually finding his way to the objects. In light of this, he has spent a
great deal of effort to assemble a system that is appropriate for his needs,
including building a significant part of it himself. I can admire the effort
involved and the results he has produced.
At the same time, I hope that he can understand someone like myself who has a
different motivation, I came to AA because I wanted to know the sky and how to
navigate my way around it. The small targets are interesting and of course I
spend a lot of time observing them and finding them but in my view the entire
sky is like one big DSO. Add that an inharent appreciation of simplicity, a
dislike of unnecessary wires and motors and it is clear to me, that what I do
is right for me. For me, it is not that I have to starhop but rather that I
get to star hop, that for me is an integral part of the pleasure and joy.
And it is important to realize that I am not saying that my choices are best
for others, rather just that they work for me and might work for others with
similar interests.
My hope is that all of us can read the ideas, techniques, skills and
frustrations of others and understand them as experiences without judgement.
Jon Isaacs
Tony Flanders
> By the way I think you missed my whole point. I specifically stated
> that starhopping would remain for people who wanted to do it. What I am
> saying is that the GOTO **DEBATE** will go away when those who are
> threatened by it die off.
My apologies. I didn't exactly miss your point, but I think I may have
read more into some of your statements than you intended. Re-reading
your post now, I agree that you are presenting a pretty balanced view,
although I would slant it somewhat differently.
Anyway, I agree that all of the heat and noise of the debate will
die when the last pre-GoTo starhopper dies. In fact, I think that
most of the heat and noise has died already, as people realize that
life continues after GoTo.
> As digital overtakes film those economies of scale will
> work in reverse, causing an escalation of price in film that will
> accelerate the move to digital ...
That is certainly a plausible scenario. It is also plausible that
film will continue to co-exist with digital in the mass market;
there are certainly cases like that. It will be interesting to
see. On the whole, I suspect that you are right.
> I never said film replaced painting, I said portrait painters were
> replaced by portrait photographers ...
Well, but that's an overstatement. Portrait photography caused
a seismic shift in the marketplace for portraiture, but it
certainly did not *replace* portrait painting. To a large
extent, it simply carved out an entirely new market. Paint
portraits were *never* affordable by the masses -- not the
real masses. Sure, portrait photography cut into the painter
market, and no doubt put many people out of work. But portrait
painters are still going strong in their core market, the wealthy.
Not just the wealthy, by the way. One of the major sidewalk
businesses here in Cambridge, MA is people who will draw or paint
you on the spot, for a modest fee. Admittedly a niche, but a
bigger and more thriving one than one might imagine.
Back to my reaction to your posting. Obviously, I over-reacted,
and read my own agenda into it. The people that I was *really*
responding to is not people like you but those who say that the
only reason to like starhopping is because one is a technophobe.
And there are plenty of them.
- Tony Flanders
Marty
> due to feelings of resentment towards
> those who did not have to endure the
> same hardships.
While it makes no difference to me how anyone else enjoys astronomy, I
think this statement shows a basic misunderstanding. For most of us
starhoppers, learning the sky was not a hardship, but one of the most
enjoyable aspects of the hobby. When I first got involved in astronomy,
I had no desire to own a telelscope. All I wanted to do was know the
sky like the ancient navigators. Then I got in deeper and deeper...
Marty
Thad Floryan
|
| Personally I think that Tony has hit upon one of the most interesting
| things to have come up in any of the "GoTo" threads (which are getting
| distinctly "old" as I believe our American cousins term it). Would it be
| possible / useful to mount a pair of 10x50 binoculars on top of a telescope
| to act as a finder? I'm guessing that both the telescope and the mounts
| would have to be pretty chunky, but it would give magnificent wide FOVs.
| Plus if your mount is already GoTo, then you get free GoTo bins!! The other
| problem might be comfortable viewing - perhaps bins with some sort of prism
| or mirror?
|
| Has anybody done this?
Sure; didn't you see my article a week or so ago in the thread "Orion vs.
Antares Finder" in which I wrote:
[...]
If you want to see a pic of a "GOTO binoculars", feel welcome to look at:
http://www.thadlabs.com/JimH/a.jpg
and don't laugh too hard. The reason the binoculars appear larger than
the LX200 is I held the camera too close (still getting used to using it)
and I was really shooting it to give some feedback to Jim Henson of
ScopeStuff whose rails and rings I recently purchased (and modified).
Note also I deliberately cropped the shot and reduced the JPEG (it's only
30KB or so) because I didn't know what, if any, bandwidth limits Jim might
have.
The binocular mount is the Alt/Az one from Orion, part #07033 labelled as
"Precision Slow-Motion Adapter" (see www.telescope.com), and my picture of
mine with a ScopeStuff rail mounting foot can be found at URL:
js...@gtf.org
That certainly seems to be the case with the Celestron NS11 GPS versus
the CM1100, and even if you buy the C11 OTA yourself for $2000, you will
still need to spend roughly $1000 for a decent mount and accessories, at
which point you are back to the $2999.99 for a NS11 GPS.
I suspect this is the wave of the future except at the extreme low end
and the extreme high end.
Rod <blue...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
-> Sean,
-> You are missing a simple point; there are many of us that just don't want to
-> pay more for something that doesn't fit our observing style. I have no
-> argument with GOTO, but give me the option to spend that money on something
-> more useful to me.
-> Rod B.
-> Sean Golden wrote in message ...
->>Rod:
->>
->>A great post full of great points that should be obvious to anyone who
->>has the sense to listen to you in the first place. The problem is that
->>you are preaching to people who either haven't the sense to listen, or
->>else who enjoy the fight more than they enjoy the hobby.
->>
->>I can't think of any hobby that hasn't gone through the same thing.
->>
->>Twenty years ago the recording industry began to move from analog vinyl
->>recording to optical digital recording and the battle was joined in
->>earnest. Now it is a rare home that has a turntable, but most homes
->>have half a dozen CD players.
->>
->>Fifteen years ago all "woods" were made of wood, who could even conceive
->>of a "metal wood." When they came out the outrage was palpable on the
->>golf courses, but now everyone uses metal woods.
->>
->>Ten years ago Graphical User Interfaces were the tool of the devil, and
->>using one was tantamount to confessing that you were a technophobe, an
->>artist, or worse. Now everyone uses GUI interfaces, even in Linux, the
->>last refuge of the dyed-in-the-wool techno-geek.
->>
->>The last few years has seen the decline of film and the rise of CCD in
->>photography, and the battle is raging in full fire in that area, even
->>though any fool can see that in twenty years film photography will be
->>the equivalent of using vacuum tubes in audio equipment.
->>
->>I could go on and on and on.
->>
->>But what's the point? People who are threatened by new techniques and
->>new technology will always exist, and they will always say the same
->>thing, which basically boils down to "It's not fair! I had to work
->>harder to achieve the same results, so your results are less valid than
->>mine." Or to put it another way "You haven't paid your dues."
->>
->>It may be hard to believe it, but exactly the same arguments used today
->>by anti-goto forces were used back in the nineteenth century by
->>portraitists when confronted with the rise of photography.
->>
->>And I would bet that the first person who learned how to spark a fire
->>from flint and steel was attacked and reviled by those whose lives were
->>made relevant by keeping the fire burning since they did not know how to
->>light a new one.
->>
->>The more things change, the more they stay the same.
->>
->>I always try to be on the side of things that history vindicates. In
->>the goto debate, that is the goto side, not the starhopping side.
->>People will gripe, moan and complain about it, but they will eventually
->>die off and the debate will end and people will continue to enjoy the
->>stars without them. Starhopping will also continue, but by the time my
->>kids have kids of their own, it will be mostly a venerable tradition
->>pracdticed by those who do it because they love it, not because they had
->>to learn it and resent that others do not.
->>
->>-sdg
--
John Cronin
mailto: `echo Njs...@SgtPfA.orMg | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
Thad Floryan
| [...]
| [...]
| If you want to see a pic of a "GOTO binoculars", feel welcome to look at:
|
| http://www.thadlabs.com/JimH/a.jpg
Looking at that picture again brings back memories and more than a twinge of
nostalgia. Those binoculars are older than me (originally were my Dad's) and
are the instrument that first brought the wonders of the night sky to me back
in the late 1940s. I've taken them on 100s (perhaps 1000s) of camping trips
and it's still the most-used instrument in my "Scope Stable".
Believe me, a good pair of binoculars is a life-long investment and will pay
back manifold in the joy they can bring searching the skies.
David McKee
Sorry I did miss your previous posting - but that is exactly the sort of thing I
was thinking of!! Looks fantastic. Definitely on my list of "Things to try when I
get some spare cash". Alas it gets longer by the day.....
Thanks for re-posting your message.
Cheers
Dave
Thad Floryan wrote:
Rod Mollise
>In my own defense, you should have taken a little more pains to
>point out the differences between Morse Code and starhopping.
>Analogies are dangerous things; even if you are aware of the
>limitations, someone else may extrapolate them to false conclusions.
Hi Tony:
Welll....when I ramble, I RAMBLE! :-)
Sean Golden
mov...@webtv.net (Marty) wrote:
I don't think most of you starhoppers (and I include myself in that
category) have that sort of attitude, and if you think I believe that,
then I apologize to those of you starhoppers who have healthy and
pleasant attitudes. My comments were directed to those who express
opinions that you don't get as much out of stargazing unless you
starhop, or that goto robs you of the joy of astronomy, or goto users
are less knowledgeable about the sky, etc.
I don't think you are one of those.
-sdg
Sean Golden
In article <20020911083331...@mb-bd.aol.com>,
joni...@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) wrote:
> >Maybe it is semantics. What I see over and over again in this debate is
> >a steady stream of statements from those who dislike Goto that indicate
> >their belief that Goto users haven't "paid their dues" and as such their
> >results are less valid than the results of those who have.
>
> I have not seen the posts which contend this. I have seen posts which state
> the experience will be different.
>
You've never seen a post expressing the opinion that you don't get as
much out of stargazing unless you starhop, or that goto robs you of
"some of" the joy of astronomy, or goto users are less knowledgeable
about the sky, etc? Funny I think I recall a letter that said exactly
that in Sky & Telescope, or even more than one. I don't feel like
searching deja news, but I recall plenty of such opinions being
expressed here. You've never seen them?
> >
> >It is my belief that a large part of this is due to feelings of
> >resentment towards those who did not have to endure the same hardships.
>
> >I believe that when relative newcomers with Goto gleefully post their
> >observing results, this threatens the anti-goto crowd's personal image
> >of themselves as battle-scarred veterans who have earned the right to be
> >spokesmen of the hobby.
>
> I suggest that guessing at peoples motivations is counter productive. There
> is
> a saying that goes something like:
>
> "Never ascribe to malice, that which can be accounted for any other way."
Good advice, I can accept that I deserve a bit of that.
>
> >Personally, I don't care if you use goto, dsc, starhop, or have a
> >computerized telescope you run remotely from the Internet and never set
> >foot outdoors. If you are learning about the universe and get
> >satisfaction from how you pursue your hobby, I am completely fine with
> >it.
>
> I think we are most all in agreement that anyone one studying the sky in any
> way is a good thing and that we ought to be together as a group rather than
> divided as separate factions.
My point exactly.
>
> I further think it is important to share the differences in experiences so
> that
> others may understand the differences and similarities between different
> observing styles. I think how one chooses to observe has a great deal to do
> with why one is attracted to Amateur Astronomy.
I agree completely.
>
> For example, Chris Peterson and I have quite different interests, he seems to
> be interested in observing a variety of targets and is not interested in
> visually finding his way to the objects. In light of this, he has spent a
> great deal of effort to assemble a system that is appropriate for his needs,
> including building a significant part of it himself. I can admire the effort
> involved and the results he has produced.
>
> At the same time, I hope that he can understand someone like myself who has a
> different motivation, I came to AA because I wanted to know the sky and how
> to
> navigate my way around it. The small targets are interesting and of course I
> spend a lot of time observing them and finding them but in my view the entire
> sky is like one big DSO. Add that an inharent appreciation of simplicity, a
> dislike of unnecessary wires and motors and it is clear to me, that what I do
> is right for me. For me, it is not that I have to starhop but rather that I
> get to star hop, that for me is an integral part of the pleasure and joy.
>
I have no problem with this either.
> And it is important to realize that I am not saying that my choices are best
> for others, rather just that they work for me and might work for others with
> similar interests.
Then you and I are in complete agreement.
>
> My hope is that all of us can read the ideas, techniques, skills and
> frustrations of others and understand them as experiences without judgement.
>
> Jon Isaacs
I agree again, with one caveat. I find it difficult to avoid passing
judgment on people who pass judgment on others. Saying "using goto robs
you of the joy of learning the night sky" is a judgment. Maybe someone
doesn't want to learn the night sky, they just want to see specific
things. Goto is perfect for them. Saying "Newbies should never start
with goto..." is a judgment. You seem to be saying you never see these
sentiments expressed, I see them frequently. We must be reading
different posts.
But I have to fundamentally agree that getting involved in these wars is
counter productive. My debate style is too argumentative and direct,
I'm not as careful with my wording as some of you are. I need to gain
more wisdom, perhaps, and be less judgmental myself.
I hope you all understand that I don't care what anyone uses, or if they
stargaze at all. I just get my dander up a bit when I see people
telling people what to do, instead of saying "here's what I do and here
is why, maybe you'd enjoy that too."
-sdg
Sean Golden
"Rod" <blue...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Sean,
>
> You are missing a simple point; there are many of us that just don't want to
> pay more for something that doesn't fit our observing style. I have no
> argument with GOTO, but give me the option to spend that money on something
> more useful to me.
>
> Rod B.
>
I am not missing that point. I have repeatedly said that I don't care
what you do or how you enjoy the night sky. My issue is with people who
tell OTHER people how to enjoy the hobby. If you don't want to pay for
Goto, if you just don't like Goto, if you think Goto is the work of the
devil, I couldn't care less.
I am not a proponent of Goto. I don't tell people "You need to use
goto, you'll learn more and get more out of the hobby. Until you use
Goto you'll never really appreciate the night sky." I don't know if
I've ever seen that posted by anyone, although the reverse has been
posted many times. And I know people believe that, and that is fine,
but I wish they would just say "I enjoy starhopping because it has
helped me gain more of an intimate relationship with the sky, I can do
it for free (compared to goto) and I don't have to rely on batteries. I
recommend that everyone give starhopping a chance, you might be
pleasantly surprised by the experience."
And some of the posts are like that, perhaps most of them are. But some
of them are judgmental posts that characterize goto users as less
knowledgeable bumblers who are essentially stargazing dilettantes with
more money than brains, who stand around twiddling their thumbs when
their batteries die.
Just like the post that started all this. Which is why I responded,
although I acknowledge that I should not have.
-sdg
Sean Golden
tony_f...@yahoo.com (Tony Flanders) wrote:
> Sean Golden <seang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<seangolden-7AD9A...@nnrp02.earthlink.net>...
>
> > I never said film replaced painting, I said portrait painters were
> > replaced by portrait photographers ...
>
> Well, but that's an overstatement. Portrait photography caused
> a seismic shift in the marketplace for portraiture, but it
> certainly did not *replace* portrait painting. To a large
> extent, it simply carved out an entirely new market. Paint
> portraits were *never* affordable by the masses -- not the
> real masses. Sure, portrait photography cut into the painter
> market, and no doubt put many people out of work. But portrait
> painters are still going strong in their core market, the wealthy.
>
> Not just the wealthy, by the way. One of the major sidewalk
> businesses here in Cambridge, MA is people who will draw or paint
> you on the spot, for a modest fee. Admittedly a niche, but a
> bigger and more thriving one than one might imagine.
>
>
> - Tony Flanders
Tony:
Hmmm... maybe you are right here, if I recall some weird public
television program I saw not too long ago, the mass market that is now
filled by portrait photographers may have actually been filled by
"artists" who created and sold portrait silhouettes, a market I never
realized existed, but for quite a while seems to have been a cheaper
alternative to actual portraiture.
So maybe photography really killed the silhouette market, not the
portrait market...
Or maybe I completely misunderstood what they were saying...
-sdg
Rod
We appear to be in basic agreement about this issue. Hey, life is short. If
goto enables a greater enjoyment of the hobby for the observer it should be
used. Does it matter that one doesn't first know how to navigate without it,
probably not. That said, I've learned in my 50+ years that tasting the
greatest variety of life's offerings generally results in the richest
experience. If nothing else, it affords the wisest choices, which in this
case may or may not be the decision to be a goto user.
I take most (but not all) of the impassioned views/'attacks' here on s.a.a.
to be a sort of misspoken attempt to convey the author's love a device or
process, and there sure seems to be a lot of love here! :-)
Clear Skies,
Rod B.
Sean Golden wrote in message ...
jerry warner
_. _ _. ._.. ._.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _... _.__ .
__... ...__ >>>>>>>>> and ___.. ___..
.___ . ._. ._. _.-- ..
Rod Mollise wrote:
> HI Guys:
>
> Don't need goto? Well, surely not. It's a luxury, no doubt about it. I will
> admit that at this point in my life I REALLY _like_ luxuries. Rebel Yell is
> fine, but now that I can afford the expensive scotch, I do indulge in it once
> in a while! :-) But there is no doubt that goto IS a luxury and not a
> necessity. You don't need goto.
>
> But is it--goto--Satan's tool to lure unsuspecting novices to their doom and
> final damnation? "No" to that as well.
>
> I'm beginning to think that the debate over this is just getting
> started--there's obviously a lot of pent-up emotion on the subject, that's
> clear from what's gone on here in the last couple of days. What I'm ALSO
> beginning to think, however, is that it's the _choosing sides_ that's harmful,
> not goto or lack thereof. Who remembers the Great Morse Code Wars?
>
> ...de AC4WY (who got his Extra a goodly while back when you had to do code at
> 20wpm :-)).
>
Jon Isaacs
>much out of stargazing unless you starhop, or that goto robs you of
>"some of" the joy of astronomy, or goto users are less knowledgeable
>about the sky, etc?
>Funny I think I recall a letter that said exactly
>that in Sky & Telescope, or even more than one.
I personally am discussing what has been said in this thread and in other
recent threads here on S.A.A.
>I agree again, with one caveat. I find it difficult to avoid passing
>judgment on people who pass judgment on others. Saying "using goto robs
>you of the joy of learning the night sky" is a judgment.
> Maybe someone
>doesn't want to learn the night sky, they just want to see specific
>things. Goto is perfect for them.
>Saying "Newbies should never start
>with goto..." is a judgment. You seem to be saying you never see these
>sentiments expressed, I see them frequently. We must be reading
>different posts.
I have seen these in the past (and might have made a few myself) but
fortunately I think the recent threads have been remarkably free of such
judgements.
>I hope you all understand that I don't care what anyone uses, or if they
>stargaze at all. I just get my dander up a bit when I see people
>telling people what to do, instead of saying "here's what I do and here
>is why, maybe you'd enjoy that too."
I believe this sort of personal approach is best. "What works for me and why."
Hopefully after reading a Jon Isaacs post, someone can say "There is a guy who
likes it simple, no extra gizmos to get in the way, no long involved setups,
nothing fancy. Just a pair of binos, a telescope, some eyepieces and a chart."
Gets out of the car and is setup and ready to rip in a few minutes.
And then the reader can say to themselves, yeah, I can see how that makes sense
for him and I can see the appeal of it. And hopefully there will be enough
communicated that the reader will have a sense whether it might be right for
them. And of course, in the years ahead, I might find myself the owner of a
serious GOTO scope. It almost happened earlier this year when I was interested
in a scope for astrophotography.
Jon Isaacs
William R. Mattil
Tony Flanders <tony_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Rod's example of Morse Code is another very poor analogy. Morse
>Code was a very specific tool resulting from a very specific
>technological limitation, and it made no sense once that limitation
>disappeared.
I suppose you have some actual experience here from which you speak on
Morse Code ?
> Actually, that's not quite true; there are still
>cases where Morse Code might be useful, like two prisoners
>communicating with each other by banging on the pipes.
Oh I see ... where were you doing time when this occured ?
> But
>for the great majority of people, semaphor would be much more
>useful. And who knows that these days?
Pontificating again on something that you lack experience is beneath you.
Morse Code has its use. Anyone fluent in it will tell you so. Just because
your narrow mindedness won't permit you to see it doesn't mean its a dead
*technology*. For communication to take place there must be a meaningful
exchange of information. This can be difficult at times due to the current
state of the sunspot cycle and the mode used. The amount of power needed
to actually communicate using SSB for example is greated than that of CW.
Just as the power requirements for SSB was less than that of AM. The
inherent ability of the brain/ear to weed out spurious signals (noise)
and yet still decypher the minimum amount of data being sent (mark or space)
make it preferable at times to other modes of communication. I
personally have carried out conversations using CW in conditions where
any other mode were unusable. This is practical experience. Not hearsay.
It seems that those people crying the loudest about the Morse Code
requirement are simply those that are too lazy to pay their dues. The
FCC has responded to public pressure and I believe have implemented
No-Code licenses for those persons on VHF/UHF.
Otherwise if we were to carry your ridiculous argument to the next logical
step, why don't we do away with radio completely and just call the person
on the phone. Then the problem goes away right ? And no license required.
Bill ... Holder of a FCC 1st Class radiotelephone license, 2nd class
radiotelegraphers license and an amateur extra ticket. And FWIW....
I star hop but really don't care how anyone else chooses to find
whatever it is that they want to view. It matters not.
Roger Cole
Hiers, AA4GA) wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:36:54 +0000 (UTC), js...@gtf.org wrote:
>
>>-> As far as Code v. No-Code, I agree that it has hurt the amateur ranks
>>-> considerably, and continues to do so. Some of us (paranoid) OFs fear
>>-> that eventually, the ability to use the old low-tech mode will
>>-> disappear, that it will be outlawed.
>>
>>Do you really think Morse Code will be outlawed? Just curious.
>
>Eventually yes...for reasons that don't need to be brought to this
>forum, but yes. It may be paranoia, but it's not paranoia if they're
>really out to get you, eh? ;-)
Can't imagine why that would be. It is a very old and universally
known standard, and easily read by machines costing little enough as
to be essentially free in today's terms. No security risk there at
all.
>>Of the two you mention, I think that film photography may be in
>>the most trouble because of the large amount of specialized equipment
>>required (chemicals in particular). I think it would be sad if that
>>totally goes away some day. I think it will certainly become less
>>affordable.
>
>That has already happened. I think the chemicals will always be
>available if you want to roll-your-own solutions and create your own
>light-sensitive materials, but that's a whole lot different from going
>and buying chemicals and paper in little yellow boxes from Rochester
>NY.
Humm..Last I checked price this wasn't really so. Sensitized film and
paper is somewhat more expensive than the last time I worked with them
very much a few years ago, but not greatly so and it seemed consistent
with usual increases and fluctuations. I'm not sure if the price of
silver has gone up along with the price of gold in the exodus from the
stock market, but if so that certainly would account for part of that
too.
I didn't notice any real increase in B&W chemistry prices, but I
didn't look that closely.
In any case, I think the primary "danger" of losing our beloved old
materials is in color. BW material is sufficiently easy to make and
the chemistry sufficiently simple that I think it will be available to
the hobbyist market for a long time, perhaps always. Heck, there's
even commercially available platinum printing paper, or was a few
years ago.
This part is ok with me. I enjoy BW darkroom work and I'm not all that
"color oriented" in my terrestrial imaging, but even when I do color,
color darkroom work is something I have done only to maintain creative
control and because I could not get it done by others to my
satisfaction, not because I enjoyed it. I can live without color
sensitized emulsion work, but I really hope to be able to do BW
conventional imaging and darkroom work when the notion strikes me
again.
Of course there is already less selection, and that is a bad thing.
Not all of it is due to digital, of course. Some is just the decrease
in popularity of BW "fine art" imaging in general, and the demise of
most graded papers due in part to the vast improvements in VC
materials and such.
Let's hope we can still get the materials for all our hobbies
(including CW!)
Roger
de WD4IGX
(Advanced since 1977, Extra since 1985 or so, forget exactly, but
definitely at 20 wpm!)
AR, SK
--
Remove "SPAMPRUF" to email me.
Note new email forwarder domain.
Roger Cole
wrote:
Well, another thing(s) the non-ham may not realize is that there are a
lot of places and times where code can deliver the goods that more
complex modes cannot, not just two prisoners banging away. That is
actually difficult anyway. International morse was designed for
sequences of short and long tones; adapting it to thumps or clicks is
difficult on the spur of a moment like that.
To the point: CW (code - actually "continuous wave" meaning no
modulation, just a keyed carrier) is still far and away the most
efficient means of radio communications in terms of both bandwidth and
power. The bandwidth of an unkeyed carrier is essentially nil.
Keying the carrier effectively increases the bandwidth slightly in
proportion to the keying rate, but it is still _far_ narrower than any
audio modulated waveform will be. Due in part to the fact that the
available power is concentrated into a much narrower bandwidth, and
also to the fact that it is not necessary for any variations in the
signal to be detectable at the receiving end, only the presence and
absence of signal, code is also far more efficient in terms of power.
The upshot of all that was that I used to run a Ten-Tec Argonaut with
about 2-2.5 watts of output power and never had any problem making
code contacts all over the world. SSB (single sideband - voice) was
MUCH more difficult, both due to more effectively using the low power
level, and also to the fact that the much narrower signal allowed the
receiving operators to use much narrower passband receive filters to
eliminate interference from other stations, most much louder than my
signal. I also built a small crystal controlled transmitter using a
single very cheap transistor (2N2222) and made contacts all over the
world with that. Power level was way less than a watt, perhaps 200 mW.
Total cost was under $10 and most of that was for the crystal.
Does any of that mean I think we should have kept the more stringent
code requirements or that I think code is a terribly relevant
communication medium today? Nope. But it's a little less cut and
dried than it might appear.
And I did enjoy operating on CW a lot more than I did on any phone
mode, for whatever reason. I think it just hearkened back to an older
era I was always sorry to have missed.
Roger
Jon Isaacs
>didn't look that closely.
I think one place were supplies are getting cut is for some of the more exotic
Polaroid films. Since this is an area that directly competes with digital, it
seems Polaroid started cutting back quite a while before their financial woes
began.
jon isaacs
Cathy
Ah... no, Jon not really. Theres alot of polaroid films out there for
large format. B/W and color. Lately Ive been shooting polaroid for
transfers and emulsion lifts. INTERESTING!!! Almost like going back 100
years. Beautiful 'art'.
.... __~o
.. \ -\<,
......(_)/(_).......................
Jon Isaacs
>Ah... no, Jon not really. Theres alot of polaroid films out there for
>large format.
These are black and white films specifically for use with microscopes. These
were cut several years ago. We have/had a high speed imaging camera (16
frames, upto 50 nanoseconds per frame) that used a Polariod back. The entire
film type for that back was discontinued.
I also believe there is a reduced selection of X-ray films.
jon isaacs
Cathy
ah ok brain fog
I glance at the photo, and the pilot light of a memory flickers in my eyes.