Orion Argonaut (MN-61) vs. Celestron G-9.25
J. Falker
how does the Orion Argonaut (aka Intes MN-61) measure up to the famous
Celestron G-9.25? (I feel a little better about this question since Stephen
Boyke's recent comparison of an 8" mak-newt and the C-11.)
The costs are similar -- around $1200 for either OTA, plus about $1500 for
the Losmandy GM-8 I'd probably want to support either one. Both come highly
recommended, with reviews describing each as providing outstanding views for
"inexpensive" scopes. (Hardly inexpensive to me, but not outside the realm
of possibility if they're really worth it.)
There are a couple of obvious trade-offs. With its larger aperture, the
G-9.25 should be much better than the Argonaut for at least deep sky
objects; the Argonaut, being a mak-newt, should offer better contrast for
planetary viewing. Being much shorter (24" vs. 39), the G-9.25 would be more
portable, though it is a tiny bit heavier (25 lbs vs. 21). OTOH, the
Argonaut would have shorter cool-down times (a big plus for me), and
probably would be less susceptible to dewing.
That's all I know. What say any who have experience with one/both of these
scopes? Or in the grand SAA tradition, those who have opinions without
experience? :)
One last question: these are both fine instruments, but they are pretty
expensive for me... are they worth it? About how much better, really, is
either than something like a Celestar 8 or an Orion XT8? (I'm more
interested in planetary viewing and portability, but I'm trying to include
the dob to be fair.)
Clear skies! -- Jay Falker
Rod Mollise
>expensive for me... are they worth it? About how much better, really, is
>either than something like a Celestar 8 or an Orion XT8? (I'm more
>interested in planetary viewing and portability, but I'm trying to include
>the dob to be fair.)
>
>Clear skies! -- Jay Falker
>
>
Hi Jay:
Frankly, these are all good scopes, including the Celestar 8, if all are cooled
and collimated. The Celestrons (and Meades too) probably have the best optics
ever in these companies' history at this particular point in time. As to how
they stack up...that's somewhat subjective for sure...especially where the 8
and 6 are concerned. But I'm not shy about putting my foot in it so...
The 9.25 is noticeably better on everything than the C8, and considerably
better than the 6 inch (including on the planets). A good C8 beats the 6--on
the deep sky, for sure, if not the planets, but it's certainly very much in the
running there--and doesn't quite catch the 9.25. Of course, things like seeing
in your location and your experience come into play, too.
The dob? Pretty much apples and oranges IMHO, but the XTs I've seen have been
OK--IF you want a simple dob. The optics in recent models of the XT have been
OK/Good, but not excellent in the small, small sample I've seen. It and the
Disconveries are probably the best popularly priced dobs in this size to come
along...certainly better than the old Meade and Celestron sonotube wonders! :-)
The 9.25 on a GM8 is, IMHO, a sweet setup. Not too heavy or expensive, but a
very good performer. SWEET!
Before you buy the 6 inch, give one a try. I love MCTs, and MNTs dearly; if
well done, one can be a superb performer...but beating out 3 inches of aperture
on a scope _known_ to be pretty danged good optically to start with is a tall,
tall order. Make sure the MNT will live up to your expectations.
_I'd_ get the 9.25 on the GM8 and maybe a set of DSCs and an f/6.3 r/c to go
with it. You will be very pleased with that system, I can pretty much promise.
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>
Michael Fasan
Please, excuse my sometimes poor english, I write from Austria, Europe and
am not so familiar with it as I should, probably.
In own a C 9,25 on a genuine Losmandy GM8 since a Year or so. This was an
expensive scope in Austria, indeed. Nevertheless, I dont regret the
purchase. The OTA is very good, optically, especially on deep sky objects,
which was not to expect at a focal ratio of 1/10.
I live in a little town in Austria and the seeing is not so good most of
the time. But I can glimpse spiral structure in M 51 for example at good
conditions. Most of the galaxies described in "Astronomy" are visible in
these nights.
On planets I think the scope not so good. The views lack this last point
of definition I expected. A very good Newton at the same size is sure
better, also I think a good Mak is. I didn't had the luck to compare yet.
Then there is the mount, of course. Very good, as everybody says. Yes, it
is portable, I can carry it easily into my garden, tripod and mount
assembled. I then put on the counterwight bar and the counterwight, fasten
the scope and am ready. Besides the electrics and the smallies. I am ready
in an half of an hour.
There are some "buts", indeed. The mount is stable enough for viewing, but
I think it hardly stable enough for serious photographies. the OTA ist
heavy, at about 10 kg. Even if Scott Losmandy specifies his mount to load
with instruments of 15 kg, I think, this is a "visible boarder" and not a
photografic one. Think of the accessories, you need to assemble.
If I would do this purchase a second time, I would of course chose the
scope again, I am satisfied. But if I had the money (I have not!) I would
chose a Losmandy G 11 mount for my scope.
But I think, you will have good views anywhere, or so I wish,
michael
Alan Figgatt
>
> It may be foolish to compare 6" and 9.25" scopes, but I'm really wondering:
> how does the Orion Argonaut (aka Intes MN-61) measure up to the famous
> Celestron G-9.25? (I feel a little better about this question since Stephen
> Boyke's recent comparison of an 8" mak-newt and the C-11.)
> One last question: these are both fine instruments, but they are pretty
> expensive for me... are they worth it? About how much better, really, is
> either than something like a Celestar 8 or an Orion XT8? (I'm more
> interested in planetary viewing and portability, but I'm trying to include
> the dob to be fair.)
>
> Clear skies! -- Jay Falker
I own a 9.25" SCT on a G-11 and have looked thru 6" MNs a number of times.
Planets/Moon - Most nights the 6" MN will beat my 9.25" SCT for detail and APO
like sharpness. Only when the seeing is very good (doesn't happen that often
here in Northern Virginia), the 9.25" is cooled off because the temps have not
dropped for the last hour or two, and the SCT collimation is really tweaked
will it "beat" an 6" MN for planetary details & sharpness.
Deep Sky faint fuzzies - the extra aperture of 9.25" is simply too much for the
6" MN to compete on detecting faint galaxies or nebulas
Open clusters - The "apo-like" sharpness of a good 6" MN will offer nicer
looking views. But the extra aperture of the 9.25 will show more stars.
I have a middling 9.25" SCT. Good but not great optics. I have had mine for
over 4 years, but have been having mirror flop problems with it lately. Going to
have to open it up sometime soon and fix it.
Mounts - You can get away with putting the 6" MN on a CG-5 or GP-DX mount
provided you beef up the legs. A fellow club member has his 6" MN on a CG-5 but
because he doesn't need long legs as you mount a Newt low to look thru the
eyepiece, he uses 2x4 for the tripod legs. The 9.25" SCT will have to be mounted
higher up, so you will need sturdy tripod legs to mount it. A GM-8 is a good
choice for a mount for either scope.
Cooldown - neither of these scopes will cool down quickly, but the 6" MN takes
maybe an hour in typical winter conditions (say 30-40 deg shift) while my 9.25"
SCT takes 90 minutes or more.
Portability - the 9.25" SCT is bigger than you might expect if you are used to
C-8s. I would give 6" MN the edge here.
Are you a member of a local astronomy club? If not, I would recommend that you
go out observing with other amateurs and look thru & at their scopes. Or get to
a public observing event put on by clubs in your area. You will find that most
of the scopes look a lot bigger in person than they do in the ads.
Clear skies,
Alan Figgatt
member, Northern Virginia Astronomy Club (www.novac.com)
J. Falker
Thanks for your replies! I really appreciate such detailed feedback (so
quickly!) from three people with first-hand experience. It sounds like both
the Argonaut and the G-9.25 are portable -- which is reassuring after all
the warnings that the 9.25 is larger than it appears in ads -- but that the
Argonaut may be a little more so. I'm definitely going to check out the
handling and setup/takedown in person before I make a purchase, but while I
wait for the opportunity (maybe at the upcoming NEAF), I'm quite interested
in others' experiences.
The discrepancy is planetary viewing assessment is interesting. Rod said the
C-8 gives the mak-newt stiff competition and the 9.25 is better, while
Michael anticipated and Alan attested to the mak-newt being better. Does
this mean they're pretty close, such that normal variation in optics quality
or personal preferences could swing the contest either way?
If so, that would be an important consideration for me -- don't know if I
could justify an Argonaut for the same money as an SCT with half again the
aperture unless its contrast really improved planetary/moon viewing.
Advantages in cool-down time and portability are nice, but both sound small
(the Argonaut and 9.25 are pretty close). Any other thoughts, any one?
Thanks again guys.
Randy Rourke
>
> Clear skies! -- Jay Falker
Hi Jay
Good luck on the scope choice, I thought I would throw this out. The
LDX55 mounts are very nice for the price. Not in the same league as a
Losmandy or Vixen, but most owners feel they are a step up from the
CG5. The GOTO is nice too. I have seen reports of people using the
mounts with C9.25's without a problem. So if you are looking to reduce
your cost you may want to think about one. I bought a package and sold
the scope on EBAY. My net cost for the mount was around $350.00. Given
the weight of the scopes you are looking at you may wish to upgrade
the tripod legs. I bought a CST surveyor tripod. These and an adapter
are available from Universal Astronomics. I also noticed that Hands on
Optics has some nice looking wooden legs for these mounts as well.
Thanks
J. Falker
"Randy Rourke" <rand...@att.net> wrote in message
news:207ef92a.02050...@posting.google.com... <snip>
> Hi Jay
>
> Good luck on the scope choice, I thought I would throw this out. The
> LDX55 mounts are very nice for the price. Not in the same league as a
> Losmandy or Vixen, but most owners feel they are a step up from the
> CG5. The GOTO is nice too. I have seen reports of people using the
> mounts with C9.25's without a problem. So if you are looking to reduce
> your cost you may want to think about one. I bought a package and sold
> the scope on EBAY. My net cost for the mount was around $350.00. Given
> the weight of the scopes you are looking at you may wish to upgrade
> the tripod legs. I bought a CST surveyor tripod. These and an adapter
> are available from Universal Astronomics. I also noticed that Hands on
> Optics has some nice looking wooden legs for these mounts as well.
>
> Thanks
Hey thanks Randy, I'll look into those. Saving $$ is good!
andrea tasselli
I had a couple of C8s (one for more than one year the other for a
couple of months for testing) to compare against the MN66 (the lighter
cousin of the Argonaut aka MN61) and there was no contest, the MN
walked over 'em.
At a star party I had the chance to compare the C9.25 against my MN66.
On the Moon the C9.25 held its own and gave more detailed images (with
quite good seeing) than the MN66 (which wasn't that far apart anyhow)
but on Jupiter the MN66 was definitely more contrasty and showed a
notch better details than the C9.25. The C9.25 was carefully
collimated (for 1 hour) before while my MN66 was fresh from the 600 km
ride to the star party. The C9.25 was a very good specimen (possibly
the best I've seen). On several occasions I had the chance to compare
its planetary views against a number of Meade 10" SCTs and again on
Jupiter it was clearly superior (to much astonishment of the owners of
the SCTs <g>).
Andrea T.
Tony Flanders
> The discrepancy is planetary viewing assessment is interesting. Rod said the
> C-8 gives the mak-newt stiff competition and the 9.25 is better, while
> Michael anticipated and Alan attested to the mak-newt being better. Does
> this mean they're pretty close, such that normal variation in optics quality
> or personal preferences could swing the contest either way?
>
> If so, that would be an important consideration for me -- don't know if I
> could justify an Argonaut for the same money as an SCT with half again the
> aperture unless its contrast really improved planetary/moon viewing.
> Advantages in cool-down time and portability are nice, but both sound small
> (the Argonaut and 9.25 are pretty close). Any other thoughts, any one?
A couple of minor additions.
The discrepancies w.r.t. planetary viewing might be due to variation
between units, to subjective preferences, or to prejudices. My bet,
though, is that they are due to variations in seeing.
People who live in places with routine excellent seeing, like the
Gulf Coast, are likely to appreciate the virtues of aperture for
viewing the planets. In New England, where I live, the planetary
views even through a scope as small as 6" are limited by the seeing
more often than not; nights when a 9" scope can perform to its limit
are rare indeed. That tips the balance strongly towards ultra-high
optical quality and small central obstruction as opposed to aperture.
Finally, one advantage of the MN61 that has not been mentioned is
its much wider maximum FOV. Even if you fit the 9.25" SCT with a
reducer-corrector and a 2" diagonal, its max FOV is still going to
be *much* smaller than what the MN61 delivers off the shelf.
Having said all that, the difference between 6" and 9.25" for
viewing faint fuzzies and clusters is pretty gigantic.
- Tony Flanders
Dave Bush
"Rod Mollise" <rmol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020505165144...@mb-fm.aol.com...
> The 9.25 on a GM8 is, IMHO, a sweet setup. Not too heavy or expensive, but
a
> very good performer. SWEET!
I agree. That's my setup and I am very pleased with it.
> _I'd_ get the 9.25 on the GM8 and maybe a set of DSCs and an f/6.3 r/c to
go
> with it. You will be very pleased with that system, I can pretty much
promise.
I swore by my f/6.3 r/c with my 8" Meade SCT but on the C9.25 I found that
it did not correct the curvature (which I think the C9.25 has less of), and
in fact seemed to make the edge resolution a bit worse. Also some eyepieces
(Pentax XL's) barely came to focus.
As for DSC for the GM-8, what are the options?
Dave
JaePbond
The SCT's observing position is a big plus for me. As much as I like my MN71,
my C8 comes fairly close in performance but is more portable and can sit on a
lighter mount. I'm in Rod's camp, a 9.25 should be better than a MN61 in
planetary under certain conditions: decent seeing, proper collimation and
adequately cooled. On the other hand, seeing is often limiting where I live
and larger scopes struggle. A high quality scope of 6" will show a lot and
more frequently in such conditions. If I had to choose, I'd get a C8 or the
C9.25 for the observing position.
Jae P
JMcad94630
Add the R200SS in the mix. How do the images at the eyepiece stack up against
your SCT? I know the R200SS is F4, but heck, the SCT mirror's focal ratio is
lots shorter, even though the system is F10/6.3.
Best Regards,
Jeff Mcadams
Nate Perkins
news:ba9aa3a9.02050...@posting.google.com:
> I had a couple of C8s (one for more than one year the other for a
> couple of months for testing) to compare against the MN66 (the lighter
> cousin of the Argonaut aka MN61) and there was no contest, the MN
> walked over 'em.
>
Having owned both a C8 and an MN61, this is also my impression. The MN61
beats the C8 easily on everything except maybe DSOs, and then in my opinion
the MN has a more pleasing deep sky view because the background is darker,
contrast is better, the view is flatter, and stars are more pinpoint. On
planetary detail/contrast and on color representation of stars, the MN is
much better.
I have only looked through a couple of C9.25s, and neither of them were
well enough collimated to allow a fair comparison.
Clear skies all,
Nate in Colorado
Herm
views are comparable but since the R200SS only has 800mm focal length its
difficult to reach high power, good barlows are a must.
BTW, the f4 ratio is not forgiving of orthos or inexpensive barlows.. unlike the
f10 C8. The Vixen is a superb imaging telescope with its 100% illumination and
flat field but it NEEDS TV Radians and Powermate barlows to handle the steep
light cone.
On 07 May 2002 03:35:54 GMT, jmcad...@aol.com (JMcad94630) wrote:
>Add the R200SS in the mix. How do the images at the eyepiece stack up against
>your SCT? I know the R200SS is F4, but heck, the SCT mirror's focal ratio is
>lots shorter, even though the system is F10/6.3.
Herm
Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez
Boris Štromar
Wow, there's a lot of different opinions in this thread :)
In summary: a smaller MN or MC will be a better planetary scope, but a
C9.25 will be a better all-rounder (with a C8 a lower cost alternative)?
Would you agree with that?
--
Boris Stromar : bstr...@grf.hr : AD Infinitum member : Zagreb, Croatia
Astro sketches, video & observing % http://astrobobo.tripod.com
Chris Woodruff
mentioned so far as well as the GM8 and GP-DX... If I had to pick just
one I'd have to go with a good C8 OTA w/faststar option on a Vixen GP-DX
mount. There really is not much difference between the the C8 and C9.25
except the size and weight of the OTA. The MN66 and MN56 for that matter
are really nice but as stated won't show quite as much as far as deep
sky goes and have focusing issues with 2" EP's and CCD camera. They are
very sharp and contrasty though. They are also much longer which adds to
their instability on the lighter mounts. The R200SS is good for imaging
but that's about it. The C8 is just very versitle, easy to transport
and will work wondefully on the GM-8 or GP-DX. With the F6.3 reducer
you will have a wider field of view than the C9.25 and if you ever got
in Photography the Fastar addition is wonderful. The GP-DX is in my mind
a better mount because it works flawlessly out of the box and has a very
good polar alignment scope built into it. Not to mention you can get
GOTO for it with the Sky Sensor 2000 PC. BTW, the whole setup would
be in the $2400 range (much cheaper used!) including GOTO! ANyways,
just my thoughts...
Good lUck!
Chris Woodruff
www.ccwoodruff.com
PS Here is a review from a CCD imagers pointof view...
http://www.wodaski.com/wodaski/review_GP_DX.htm
"J. Falker" <kes...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:<3cd57f9d$0$3949$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
J. Falker
"Chris Woodruff" <ccwoo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4c4260ab.02050...@posting.google.com...
> Hey Jay, I am coming into this a little late but I have used all 4 scopes
> mentioned so far as well as the GM8 and GP-DX... If I had to pick just
> one I'd have to go with a good C8 OTA w/faststar option on a Vixen GP-DX
> mount. There really is not much difference between the the C8 and C9.25
> except the size and weight of the OTA. The MN66 and MN56 for that matter
> are really nice but as stated won't show quite as much as far as deep
> sky goes and have focusing issues with 2" EP's and CCD camera. They are
> very sharp and contrasty though. They are also much longer which adds to
> their instability on the lighter mounts. The R200SS is good for imaging
> but that's about it. The C8 is just very versitle, easy to transport
> and will work wondefully on the GM-8 or GP-DX. With the F6.3 reducer
> you will have a wider field of view than the C9.25 and if you ever got
> in Photography the Fastar addition is wonderful. The GP-DX is in my mind
> a better mount because it works flawlessly out of the box and has a very
> good polar alignment scope built into it. Not to mention you can get
> GOTO for it with the Sky Sensor 2000 PC. BTW, the whole setup would
> be in the $2400 range (much cheaper used!) including GOTO! ANyways,
> just my thoughts...
> Good lUck!
> Chris Woodruff
> www.ccwoodruff.com
>
> PS Here is a review from a CCD imagers pointof view...
> http://www.wodaski.com/wodaski/review_GP_DX.htm
Thanks Chris -- and everybody! I really appreciate all of this information.
It's a big help. Now I've just got to get a look at a few of these fine
options in person, and make a decision. Thanks again!
Ratboy99
>C9.25 for the observing position.
>Jae P
In a way, I am now regretting having bought the C8 OTA instead of a 9.25". Do
you think there is enough of a difference to warrant the expense of trading up,
or are they going to be pretty similar anyway?
rat
~( );>
email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address
Ratboy99
>There really is not much difference between the the C8 and C9.25
>except the size and weight of the OTA.
Thanks, that makes me rest easier. Hell, I don't even use the C8 much, don't
know why I want a bigger one.
andrea tasselli
> Hey Jay, I am coming into this a little late but I have used all 4 scopes
> mentioned so far as well as the GM8 and GP-DX... If I had to pick just
> one I'd have to go with a good C8 OTA w/faststar option on a Vixen GP-DX
> mount. There really is not much difference between the the C8 and C9.25
> except the size and weight of the OTA. The MN66 and MN56 for that matter
> are really nice but as stated won't show quite as much as far as deep
> sky goes and have focusing issues with 2" EP's and CCD camera.
Never ever had *any* problem in focusing *any* 2" EP, ever, with my
MN66 nor I have any problem using my CCD with it.
Andrea T.
JaePbond
C9.25 will be a better all-rounder (with a C8 a lower cost alternative)?
Would you agree with that?>>>
No, I don't think I'd agree that a smaller MN or MC would be a better planetary
scope in all cases, even where I live, NE. It would be a better Mars scope in
recent years (being lower in the horizon a small scope would be less
susceptible to seeing), close for Jupiter although I like the brighter images
of a larger scope and not as good for Saturn. But yes better all-arounder I'd
agree with.
Jeff: >>Jae,
Add the R200SS in the mix. How do the images at the eyepiece stack up against
your SCT? >>
Very close. But the diffraction spikes might be offensive to some people. I
have no problem with high power as I use a binoviewer with a 3.5x barlow.
Cooldown is a must for the R200SS as well. I blow a fan down the tube.
Images are very close, so a R200SS is a heck of a scope. Get those
unbelievable wide field views of Veil, M82/82, Pleides, etc. then see detail
and color in the belts of Jupiter. I wouldn't have believed it of a f/4 with
a fat secondary attached to a spider with Alcatraz bars. I don't do any
imaging.
Rat: >>In a way, I am now regretting having bought the C8 OTA instead of a
9.25". Do you think there is enough of a difference to warrant the expense of
trading up, or are they going to be pretty similar anyway?>>
What are you talking about ?? You don't want to take a 9.25 camping !! C-8
is an incredibly portable, lightweight instrument.
If I want bulk, let me go for the 11 was my thinking.....although I often want
to test out a 9.25 to see if I know what I'm talking about...that is for the
lack of easy one handed portability (it sure looks about the same size), an 11
would be a better choice. The consistency of optics may come into play here.
Maybe Rod can help clarify this better until I can make room to try a Nexstar
11 someday.
Jae P
Chris Woodruff
> MN66 nor I have any problem using my CCD with it.
>
> Andrea T.
Do you use an SBIG ST7 WITH a color filter wheel? Not enough in-focus.
You can fiddle with it by moving the mirror up the tube a bit. About
the 2" EP's, I stand corrected although you need to use the extension tubes
to get there if I remember right. It would just be a better scope with a
nice focuser. I really do like the MN66 for the record... The real issue
is its length and weight on the lighter mounts. I bet on a G11 it would
work very nicely for both visual and CCD.
Chris
Tom Davis
I had enough focus travel to make it work with an
MX916 and a True Technology Micro-Filter holder.
By using the supplied 2" focuser adapter with the
MX916 attached in front of the filter holder, in
conjunction with the fact that the filter holder could
go part way into the focuser, I actually had close to
1/2" extra travel available. Now the ST7 may take
up more backfocus, but it might well work with the
Micro-Filter holder. Only drawback would be the
need to change filters manually (although the filter
holder would keep the same focus and orientation
of the image).
Mine worked flawlessly for imaging on a Celestron
CI700 with a homemade short pier.
Thanks, Tom Davis
"Chris Woodruff" <ccwoo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4c4260ab.02050...@posting.google.com...
Al M
I have had no focusing problems with any eyepiece, including Erfles
and large Naglers.
Al M
atas...@hotmail.com (andrea tasselli) wrote in message news:<ba9aa3a9.02050...@posting.google.com>...
Modoctor2001
endorsement for the Celestron 9 1/4. I have had one for 3 years, and after
peering endlessly through many telescopes, have found the 9.25 to be a superb
scope, both optically and mechanically. There is a very obvious difference in
views between the 9 1/4 vs. a C8. Sorry, I know squat about the argonaut. Oh,
I have found the 9.25 to be excellent for both deep sky and planetary viewing
AND imaging.
jerry warner
a 10-12" newtonian new, I think I would spring for the new GM8 and perhaps get both
a C9.25 and a MN61, used and
very good specimens of both can be had for not that much more than a 9.25 new ? No
commonly availabe sct can compete with
clarity (refractor like) or contrasty imaging of a mak-newt, but
of course aperture is required for dso work. Its as simple as this.
Or, you could get a good used mn61 (LNIB if you can find one)
and a 10" f/5-f/6 newtonian! Any good 10" newtonian is going
to surpass imaging opportunities of any c9.25 in my opinion.
Its really too bad 8" mak-newts are so much more expensive
than 6" mak-newts. That would probably be the single-scope
solution for you and we might not be having this discussion.
Ther really is nothing to justify the large leap in cost of an 8"
mak-newt over the 6" varieties outside of very tight controls
in the market place, on both ends of the spectrum. If this
economic-market-control barrier is ever broken it will open
up new vistas for many ... but mentalities and regimes are difficult to change.
But take cooldown times seriously for both the c9.25 and the
mn61.
Jerry