Newbie who bought Meade 4400 from Costco and wants to know more
Russell Shigeoka
I realize now that I bought a junk telescope. But what a great junk telescope!
Me and my wife took it out and its first light (is that the right phrase?) was
of the half moon on 12/26. We never bothered to look at the moon with anything
other than our naked eye ... we were floored, wow! We never realized how
bright the moon really is! We excitedly looked for the next object to see. My
wife pointed to a star right next to the moon and she said, "that has to be a
planet." Sure enough, we found Saturn and its rings! These two sightings kept
us busy for 3 hours (learning how to use the slow motion controls etc., boy the
earth sure spins pretty quickly), and then it was off to bed.
The next night we read the instruction manual and figured out how to roughly
polar align the telescope. Again, my wife just looked to the sky and said,
"that has to be another planet." And amazingly she found Jupiter. It had to
be because it had several really small dots around it, which had to be its
moons. We then opened a star map and found M42 in Orion. We were able to see
the fuzzy gassy cloud like structure. Again this kept us busy for hours.
We are now hooked. This morning I bought a Nikon 7x50 binocular, eager for our
3rd night out skywatching. But it is cloudy and rainy tonight. So if you
don't mind I'm am here at the computer trying to learn more, and I would like
to ask a lot of questions. Any reply to any or all would be appreciated.
1) We live in the city. We could not see any planetary detail on Jupiter or
Saturn. We've got 3 .965" eyepieces. A H25mm, H12.5mm, SR4mm and a 3x Barlow.
The 4mm and barlow separately produce nothing but big shaky blobs that
encompass the entire field of view which could only be kept in view for a few
seconds before being lost. The book that I read tonight said that these
eyepieces are pretty much only good for doorstops. If I buy a Kelner? or
Plossl? eyepiece would I be able to see detail on Jupiter and Saturn with a
4.5" reflector? Should I buy a new 1.25" focuser or just a .965-1.25 adapter,
does it make a difference? I can envision building a Dobs in the near future,
and could use the focuser and new lenses with it. Should I just give up on a
4.5" aperture altogether and go bigger?
2) From what I read 300x magnification is the practical limit for all
telescopes. So what is the visual difference between a 4.5, 6, 8, and 10"
aperture when you are viewing Jupiter? Is there a striking difference in
detail with each step? What about deep sky objects like nebulae?
3) Is there striking color out in the universe somewhere with the naked eye or
can this only be obtained through astrophotography? Is the naked eye limited
to black and white and subtle colors?
4) How do you track an object with a Dobs? Do you need a large field of view,
then put the object on one side of the fov and then shift the Dobs as it is
about to leave the fov? Or is it possible to track an object that takes up
most of fov smoothly and continuosly? In other words, as you move a Dobs is
there any shaking as you look through the eyepiece or is it more like the slow
motion controls on an equatorial mount?
5) Would you recommend a reflex sight over a viewfinder?
6) If dust, dirt, or rain get on the mirrors. Do you simply just clean it with
window cleaner?
Again, thanks for any advice. I now understand how astronomy can be a lifetime
hobby. The amount of objects in the sky is staggering!
RMOLLISE
Hi Russell:
Junk scope, schmunk scope...ANY telescope is better than none. While there may
have been slightly better choices for you, success in this game is more
dependent on the enthusiasm and industry of the man or woman behind the
eyepiece than the pedigree of the telescope.
As for your questions:
You should be able to see some detail on Jupiter at 100x--or even less. But
remember, Jupiter is bright and the cloud bands are subtle. Forget the Voyager
pictures: Jupiter is a world of pastel colors. Better eyepieces would probably
improve matters. As for whether your scope needs an adapter or a new focuser,
this depends on whether you would have enough focus travel to incorporate any
kind of an adapter...how much in and out travel remains with your current
eyepieces when they are in focus? Also, SOME Meade 4"ers I've seen lately don't
really need an 'adapter' per se...they actually have 1.25" focusers with
nothing more than a .965 'step down' ring screwed into them. If this is the
case with your setup, the simple change of this ring would give you a 1.25"
focuser. Rex's Astrostuff (they advertise regularly in the back of the astro
mags) sells these 1.25" rings. Check it out. 1.25" eyepieces of decent quality
could be used no matter what scope you and your wife 'graduate' to.
There is a difference in all objects when going to larger aperture. It is
probably more striking on deep sky objects under a dark sky. But a 6" will
deliver a 'better' image of Jupiter than a 4". The image will, for example, be
brighter at a given magnification, and you'll be able to resolve finer details
with the large scope. That said, there is one Hell of a lot to see with your
4"! Some years ago, I went through most of the Messiers and many NGCs with my
old f10 4" for a book I was writing. I did this from an urban location and was
amazed at how well this little scope did. Of course it is on a very steady 60s
style mount, so anything you can do to make your mount more steady will
help--usually the optics are pretty good on these little scopes, but their
quality is negated by shaky mounts. If yours doesn't prove workable in the long
run, you could easily build a dob mount for your OTA (optical tube assembly).
You'll occasionally see some colors in deep sky objects. But this is usually
restricted to green hues in bright objects (like M42 once in a while with a big
enough scope, or the Saturn (planetary) Nebula in almost any scope). Stars, of
course, will easily show color...and the planets display subtle colors. M42
ain't gonna look like the pictures...the human eye simply isn't responsive
enough to the red end of the spectrum at these low light levels.
A good dob tracks very smoothly with NO shaking as you move it! A wide field
eyepiece might be helpful, but it is not mandatory. I've often tracked objects
in my 12" dob and over 400x--with a normal field (50 degree or so) eyepiece!
I recommend both. Reflex or 'unit power' finders like the Telrad are
great...but may present a problem if you're working in light polluted
environs....you may not be able to see enough dimmer stars through the Telrad
to easily locate objects far from bright stars. A finder _telescope_ will help
you here. Telrad gets you in the neighborhood, finderscope gets you right on
the money. Many beginners do find Telrads easier to use due to the noninverted
image.
NO! Usually a little dusting off with a blower-brush you get from a camera
store is sufficient (use just the blower part, not the brush). If more cleaning
is required, a rinse in distilled water will probably do it (stand the mirror
on edge--safely--to let it dry). My advice about cleaning mirrors is DON'T! You
are much more likely to do more harm than good by cleaning! A mirror has to be
REALLY dirty before you'll notice a difference in performance! These are first
surface mirrors which are very vulnerable to scratching! Oh, and try not to let
your mirror get rained on! :-)
One last thing...you'll need to be sure the optics in your little scope are
collimated before you can hope to have the best images it can deliver. JOIN
YOUR LOCAL ASTRONOMY CLUB! They'll help ya! Failing this for some reason, I
suggest you IMMEDIATELY run down to the book store and get a copy of s.a.a.
member Phil Harrington's _Star Ware_ book! It'll answer all your questions.
While you're at it, pick up Terrence Dickinson's _Nightwatch_ too! Both are
usually found at Barnes and Noble and similar joints!
ENJOY! And welcome to amateur astronomy, the GREATEST HOBBY IN THE WORLD!
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Mobile Astronomical Society
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html
The Home of _From City Lights to Deep Space_:
The Urban Observer's Guide to the Deep Sky
*********************************************************
Joseph O'Neil
>We are now hooked. This morning I bought a Nikon 7x50 binocular, eager for our
>3rd night out skywatching. But it is cloudy and rainy tonight. So if you
>don't mind I'm am here at the computer trying to learn more, and I would like
>to ask a lot of questions. Any reply to any or all would be appreciated.
you did the right thing buying binoculars. May I reccomend
one more purchase - the book 'NightWatch" by Terrence Dickinson, you
will find it most usefull. (unless you already have it)
>1) We live in the city. We could not see any planetary detail on Jupiter or
>Saturn. We've got 3 .965" eyepieces. A H25mm, H12.5mm, SR4mm and a 3x Barlow.
> The 4mm and barlow separately produce nothing but big shaky blobs that
>encompass the entire field of view which could only be kept in view for a few
>seconds before being lost. The book that I read tonight said that these
>eyepieces are pretty much only good for doorstops. If I buy a Kelner? or
Actually a freind of mine once took them out to a driving
range and took out an old 3 wood,a nd had a great tiem with them. Not
sure if th eowner of the golf course was all that ahppy about it
thoguht.
:)
>Plossl? eyepiece would I be able to see detail on Jupiter and Saturn with a
>4.5" reflector? Should I buy a new 1.25" focuser or just a .965-1.25 adapter,
>does it make a difference? I can envision building a Dobs in the near future,
>and could use the focuser and new lenses with it. Should I just give up on a
>4.5" aperture altogether and go bigger?
You can buy some half-decent eyepieces in the 0.965 range, but
if you ever move up, you will be stuck, as the 1.25" size is the
common standard. If it is possible to either buy an adaptor or
change the focuser, either way, to 1.25" and then buy a coupel fo
plossls, I think you would be happy with that choice.
As for the scoep itself, while I would certianly agree a 6" or
8" dob would be much better, you can still do a lot from the city with
a 4.5" scope, especailly on the moon and planets. Take you time
before another big purchase, and enjoy what you have.
>2) From what I read 300x magnification is the practical limit for all
>telescopes. So what is the visual difference between a 4.5, 6, 8, and 10"
>aperture when you are viewing Jupiter? Is there a striking difference in
>detail with each step? What about deep sky objects like nebulae?
Athmosphereic conditions often make observing above 150X
difficult in many areas fo the world, especially form inside a city.
One reason you go outside of a city to observe is not just to excape
light pollution, but to get away form all the rough thermal currents
over a city as it cools down at night,
As for differnt sizes and what you can see, let me explain it
like this. Let's say you are painting one outside wall fo your house.
First you use a 1 litre (or one quart) can of paint to cover the
entire wall. You can see the colour of ht epaint, but it is kinda
thin looking.
Then you paint the next outside wall using alrge can of paint
(4 litre, one gallon, whatever), and you notice that while both walls
are the same colour, the wall with painted using the larger amount of
paint actually looks brighter, has deeper colour, is easier to see.,
Telescopes, as they grow larger, work in a similar fashion.
>3) Is there striking color out in the universe somewhere with the naked eye or
>can this only be obtained through astrophotography? Is the naked eye limited
>to black and white and subtle colors?
Sometimes you do not even get those strikign colours through
astro-photography, you still need soem major darkroom work or digital
imaging to bring out those colours, so yes, visual = subtle colours.
>4) How do you track an object with a Dobs? Do you need a large field of view,
>then put the object on one side of the fov and then shift the Dobs as it is
>about to leave the fov? Or is it possible to track an object that takes up
>most of fov smoothly and continuosly? In other words, as you move a Dobs is
>there any shaking as you look through the eyepiece or is it more like the slow
>motion controls on an equatorial mount?
Very easily actually, as long as your dob as smooth bearings,
you very quickly learn to follow any object in your eyepieces. First
few tiems you use a dob, track at low pwoer, then as you grow
experienced, you become very good at it without even thinking aobut
it.
>5) Would you recommend a reflex sight over a viewfinder?
You mean, which is better, a Tlerad or a 50mm finder? Six of
one, half dozen of another. I find both are good choices, and the
ultimate answer to which is better is liek debating Pepi vs Coke,
Kodak vs Fuji, etc. Lots of very strong opinions, but no real winner.
>6) If dust, dirt, or rain get on the mirrors. Do you simply just clean it with
>window cleaner?
ACK - no, never! Window cleaner, IMO, is only a step above
using a steel wool pad to clean your mirror. You are better off to
leave it alone unless it gets actually very dirty.
There is a proper way to clean a mirror, but i do not
recommend it unless absolutely essential.
joe
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
Large Format Images From Southern Ontario
Stephen Tonkin
[...]
>I would like
>to ask a lot of questions. Any reply to any or all would be appreciated.
>
>Saturn. We've got 3 .965" eyepieces. A H25mm, H12.5mm, SR4mm and a 3x Barlow.
My tutorial on upgrading a 60mm refractor deals with this (Tutorials
section of my web site).
>2) From what I read 300x magnification is the practical limit for all
>telescopes.
Depends on a number of factors, like seeing and what you're looking at.
I know some people who routinely push it up way beyond that for double
stars.
The rule of thumb is that, for planets, resolution is optimum when the
magnification is equal to the primary diameter in mm.
> So what is the visual difference between a 4.5, 6, 8, and 10"
>aperture when you are viewing Jupiter? Is there a striking difference in
>detail with each step?
For a given magnification, the planet will look brighter with the larger
aperture (but brightness isn't usually an issue with Jupiter). You will
also get better resolution (everything else being equal) with the larger
telescope.
Incidentally, I'm surprised that you were unable to see surface markings
on Jupiter; these are usually very distinct even in a small telescope.
Perhaps you need to check collimation?
> What about deep sky objects like nebulae?
Significantly better in a big 'scope.
>
>3) Is there striking color out in the universe somewhere with the naked eye or
>can this only be obtained through astrophotography?
Depends what you mean by "striking". I find the colour of some of the
naked-eye stars to be rather striking. Compare Betelgeuse and Rigel, for
example. Hershel's Garnet Star (mu Cephei) is also rather spectacularly
red in its own right -- no comparisons needed.
If you include colours of telescopic objects, there are some lovely
colours. The belts of Jupiter are but one example, as it the GS-PS
(Great Salmon-Pink Spot <g>). There are a fair few telescopically
reddish stars just beneath the "W" of Cassiopeia
> Is the naked eye limited
>to black and white and subtle colors?
See above. Don't expect to see colours in nebulae as you see in photos,
though -- even with a telescope insufficient light reaches the eye to
excite the colour receptors in all but a few cases, M42 (Orion neb)
being an obvious member of the "few".
>
>4) How do you track an object with a Dobs? Do you need a large field of view,
>then put the object on one side of the fov and then shift the Dobs as it is
>about to leave the fov? Or is it possible to track an object that takes up
>most of fov smoothly and continuosly?
I do the former.
>
>5) Would you recommend a reflex sight over a viewfinder?
Not necessarily a reflex sight, but certainly some form of unit-power
sight is very useful. However, with a bit of practice, you can
approximate to the value of a unit-power sight with a normal
finderscope. -- use it with both eyes open and superimpose the
crosshairs onto the "scene" through the unaided eye.
>
>6) If dust, dirt, or rain get on the mirrors. Do you simply just clean it with
>window cleaner?
No! Clean your optics as infrequently as possible (except that dust can
be blown (not brushed) off with a puffer-brush (not a can of air -- the
propellant my coat the mirror surface!). Keep them covered when not in
use (the 'scope shouldn't be left in the rain anyway). You can have
quite dirty optics before it becomes too much of a nuisance. The last
time I cleaned a mirror with anything other than a puffer was many years
ago, and that was only after my (then 2-yr old) daughter had decided to
see how many buckets of pond "water" and sandpit slurry would be needed
to fill the mirror-box of my open-tube 8" Dob which I had left outside
unguarded for a small fraction of a femtosecond.
If you really must clean them, take them out and do so with a "proper"
soap powder and distilled water. Swill it around a bit and rinse with
distilled water. If you need to wipe anything off, do so *very* gently
with a clean, lint-free cloth whilst the surface of the mirror is
submerged. For eyepieces there is a substance I have seen advertised
which you paint on and it dries and peels off with the muck -- I doubt
it is recommended for mirrors. I use isopropyl alcohol (not spectacel
spray which is full of other muck) to get eyelash grease, mascara,
toffee thumbprints, etc off euepieces.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | <http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk> +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
To send email, substitute "aegis1" for "nospam"
Michael
The blob-iness you are experiencing is the upper limit of your resolving
power, being magnified by your too high power eye pieces. The solution to
that, of course, is to buy a larger scope. Why?
Well, a scopes usefull magnification (where you can see clearly) can be
figured out by myltiplying it aperature (in your case, 4.5") by 50. That
should be in the ballpark of around x225 for your scope (don't forget to
convert your eyepieces and aperature to the same units of measurement for
figuring out what eyepieces to use <g>). The information you gleaned
concerning x300 being the all encompassing limit of magnification is
incorrect, it is indeed apperature * 50 (or 60 for some people, I prefer 50
to stay safe). That means that an 8" scope would have an upper limit of
around x400, 10" of x500, ect.
If you want to see details of the kind I think you are expecting on Saturn
or Jupiter, chances are you will have to buy a larger aperature scope (8" is
perfect for getting detail without blowing a load of cash, initially) and
some decent eyepieces (I use Plossl mostly, though others have their
advantages as well). A larger aperature gathers more light, and as a result
is able to resolve more detail. Consider this. If you look at a person
standing 500 feet away and holding a candle, through binoculars at night,
you might make out a bit of an outline, but probably not much. If you look
at the same person standing near a bonfire at the same distance, you could
probably get a reasonable idea of what he looked like. And in full daylight
at that distance, you could probably count the hairs on his head. Its all
in the amount of light you are receiving.
As to striking color, well, that too is an affect of aperature. In a 16"
dob, one can make out some color in M42 (green mostly, from what I can see).
You are correct, however, in assuming that the photo quality color is
obtainable usually only via photography and filters.
On another point, for a larger aperature dob, one can buy tracking devices
to stop that shaking you are noticing. I recommend keeping the object
center of eyepiece. Keeping it at the edges blurs the image, and doesn't
show a good picture to the eye.
As to sights, I prefer viewfinders.
As to cleaning the mirrors, you might want to consult the manufacturer on
what they recommend. I have no idea what kind of coatings are on your
mirror, and don't want to hazard a guess.
Hope this helps.
Michael
Russell Shigeoka wrote in message <3688c...@bonaparte.pixi.com>...
>Me and my wife bought <snip>
Jay Reynolds Freeman
is a world-wide directory of clubs on the Sky Publishing web site, at
http://www.skypub.com.
> This morning I bought a Nikon 7x50 binocular, eager for our 3rd
> night out skywatching.
Good supplemental choice. Try looking for some of the brighter deep-sky
objects with the binocular.
> 1) We live in the city. We could not see any planetary detail on
> Jupiter or Saturn.
In good "seeing" (atmosphere stable so the view doesn't jiggle from
air turbulence alone), a good 4.5 will show belts and similar
structures on Jupiter, the Cassini division in the rings of Saturn,
and so on, and will do it at less than 100x. You probably won't know
whether you have a good 4.5 until you get a night with good seeing.
The eyepieces in your kit are second rate, but their most obvious
failing will be narrow field of view -- like looking through a
toilet-paper tube (well, maybe not quite that bad). Better ones may
help a little, but unless the primary mirror is very good, they won't
help more than a little. Decent 0.965-inch-barrel eyepieces are
available -- try Orion Telescope and Binocular Center -- but there
isn't as much variety or quality as with 1.25-inch barrel eyepieces,
and the latter almost certainly won't work in your telescope unless
you change the focuser to a 1.25-inch model.
> The 4mm and barlow separately produce nothing but big shaky blobs
> that encompass the entire field of view which could only be kept in
> view for a few seconds before being lost.
The 4 mm by itself might be useful in very good seeing. The 4 mm
plus Barlow is too much magnification for your telescope.
> Should I just give up on a 4.5" aperture altogether and go bigger?
If returning the telescope is still an option, you might consider
a 6-inch Dobson-mounted Newtonian, which with eyepieces and shipping
will ring the cash register at about $450.
> 2) From what I read 300x magnification is the practical limit for all
> telescopes. So what is the visual difference between a 4.5, 6, 8, and 10"
> aperture when you are viewing Jupiter? Is there a striking difference in
> detail with each step? What about deep sky objects like nebulae?
300x is by no means the practical limit, though to exceed it
usefully takes a larger telescope than you have, as well as good
seeing. Larger telescopes have more detail in the image -- you see
more, even at the same, moderate magnification -- it is like the difference
between an old newsprint photograph and an expensive glossy print.
Larger telescopes also gather more light, so that faint objects look
brighter, and you can see really faint ones that you couldn't see with the
smaller telescopes.
> 3) Is there striking color out in the universe somewhere with the
> naked eye or can this only be obtained through astrophotography? Is
> the naked eye limited to black and white and subtle colors?
Color, yes. Striking, probably not, though some of us who have been
doing this for a long time are perhaps more easily stricken.
> 4) How do you track an object with a Dobs? Do you need a large
> field of view, then put the object on one side of the fov and then
> shift the Dobs as it is about to leave the fov? Or is it possible
> to track an object that takes up most of fov smoothly and
> continuosly? In other words, as you move a Dobs is there any
> shaking as you look through the eyepiece or is it more like the slow
> motion controls on an equatorial mount?
When you push on a good Dobson mount it feels like you are pushing on
warm butter. You can track smoothly with only fingertip pressure at
magnifications of several hundred diameters.
> 5) Would you recommend a reflex sight over a viewfinder?
I wouldn't, but my opinion is in the minority.
> 6) If dust, dirt, or rain get on the mirrors. Do you simply just
> clean it with window cleaner?
No, and there are several good web sites with directions for cleaning,
but I don't remember them -- I expect someone else will post them.
Clear sky, and enjoy your telescope.
--
Jay Reynolds Freeman -- freeman at netcom dot com -- I speak only for myself.
wturn...@my-dejanews.com
shig...@pixi.com (Russell Shigeoka) wrote:
> Me and my wife bought a $200 Meade 4400 4.5" newtonian reflector from
Costco.
I also own a Meade model 4400 that was given to me as a birthday gift. While
the optics (eyepieces and finder) are of low grade the actual tube and primary
and secondary mirrors are the same as the 4500. So I decided to keep the
scope instead of returning it for a refund at COSTCO (where it was purchased
for $199).
3. You can also replace the Finder for about $39 for ether a good quality
6x30 Achromatic scope, or a reflex scope (uses a red LED to pinpoint the
objects you are looking at, also dosn't invert the image and makes it easier
to find objects for the beginner.)
The equatorial mount isn't the best, but I have seen far worse and will be
servicable for your needs until you are willing to shell out some serious
money for a high quality scope (600 - 1000).
I think that with the above upgrades the 4400 will provide years of enjoyable
viewing for the new amateur astronomer.William Turner
> 1) We live in the city. We could not see any planetary detail on Jupiter or
> Saturn. We've got 3 .965" eyepieces. A H25mm, H12.5mm, SR4mm and a 3x
Barlow.
> The 4mm and barlow separately produce nothing but big shaky blobs that
> encompass the entire field of view which could only be kept in view for a few
> seconds before being lost. The book that I read tonight said that these
> eyepieces are pretty much only good for doorstops. If I buy a Kelner? or
> Plossl? eyepiece would I be able to see detail on Jupiter and Saturn with a
> 4.5" reflector? Should I buy a new 1.25" focuser or just a .965-1.25
adapter,
> does it make a difference?
Upgrade the focuser to use 1.25" eyepieces. You can order part# AD125
($20) from Astronomics (800) 442-7876. The .965" part unscrews from the
focuser and is replaced by this part. You now have the identical 1.25"
focuser the 4500 has.
To use a sleve adapter that sizes a 1.25" eyepiece down to 0.965" cuts off the
outer portion of the field of view and also extends the eyepiece futher out on
the focuser. This could limit your focus travel.
Yes using higher quality eyepieces and barlow lense will help considerably
with your image quality.
Upgrade the eyepieces to good quality 1.25" eyepieces. Orion Telescopes &
Binoculars (www.oriontel.com or (800) 676-1343) have a large selection of
excellent quality optics at resonable prices. I picked up some Explorer II
eyepieces (These are 3-element Kellner type, fully coated to improve contrast
and are a good starter $33.) The difference was night and day over the older
.965" eyepieces.
> 2) From what I read 300x magnification is the practical limit for all
> telescopes.
Actually with good optics and quality mirrors the upper magnification limit is
based on your aperature (the formual is "50 to 60" times the aperature.) So
you should be able to go up to 247X (55x4.5) on your 4400 with high quality
eyepieces and barlow.
> What about deep sky objects like nebulae?
Manafication is not as important with nebulae. The field of view in a high
qulity 25mm to 13mm eyepiece is probably going to provide a much better image
than a 4mm eyepiece will (field of view gets smaller with the eyepiece size.)
> 3) Is there striking color out in the universe somewhere with the naked eye
or
> can this only be obtained through astrophotography? Is the naked eye limited
> to black and white and subtle colors?
Color is limited mostly to photography because of the limitations of the human
eye. We view light in minor amounts (night vision) with the Rods in our eye,
cones which detect color can't detect the small amount from stars. Photograph
film with long (30min or longer) exposure times will pick up the color, it's
not instantaneous.
>
> 4) How do you track an object with a Dobs? Do you need a large field of
>view,
> then put the object on one side of the fov and then shift the Dobs as it is
> about to leave the fov? Or is it possible to track an object that takes up
> most of fov smoothly and continuosly? In other words, as you move a Dobs is
> there any shaking as you look through the eyepiece or is it more like the
>slow motion controls on an equatorial mount?
Dobsonian mounts are not able to track the RA (Right Assention) like a
equatorial, so you need to nudge it on two axis. When the mount is not moving
it's pretty stable in comparison to a low quality EQ.
> 5) Would you recommend a reflex sight over a viewfinder?
Both have their pluses and minuses. I use a reflex site because there is no
inversion of the image (looks the same through the site as it does on the
map.) The red iluminated reticle is also nice, bullseye that star. There is
no magnification so objects that you can't see with the naked eye need to be
mapped out with visible objects.
> 6) If dust, dirt, or rain get on the mirrors. Do you simply just clean it >
> with window cleaner?
NO WAY! The 4400 has aluminum deposited in a minute thickness on the lens.
Use only material rated for telescope optics and only if you must. I use a
blower brush and canned air to gently blow dust off and even then you must be
carefull. I had a small sharp particle of dirt scratch the mirror on the edge
(so it wasn't a disaster but a good lesson) as it blew across.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
KDaly10475
>Saturn. We've got 3 .965" eyepieces. A H25mm, H12.5mm, SR4mm and a 3x
>Barlow.
> The 4mm and barlow separately produce nothing but big shaky blobs that
>encompass the entire field of view which could only be kept in view for a few
>
>seconds before being lost. The book that I read tonight said that these
>eyepieces are pretty much only good for doorstops. If I buy a Kelner? or
>Plossl? eyepiece would I be able to see detail on Jupiter and Saturn with a
>4.5" reflector? Should I buy a new 1.25" focuser or just a .965-1.25
>adapter,
>future,
>
>4.5" aperture altogether and go bigger?
You should be able to see plenty of detail with a 4.5" scope. I've seen the
GRS, festoons, as many as seven eb's on Jupiter, Cassini's and Encke's
divisions in Saturn's rings, all with a 4.5" scope. Of course, a good
Orthoscopic eyepiece really helps bring out the detail in the planets.
>2) From what I read 300x magnification is the practical limit for all
>telescopes. So what is the visual difference between a 4.5, 6, 8, and 10"
>aperture when you are viewing Jupiter? Is there a striking difference in
>detail with each step? What about deep sky objects like nebulae?
From 4.5" to 6" is a big jump, from 6" to 8" not so much, from 6" to 10" there
again is a noticeable jump. They allow fainter objects to be seen which is
really important for deep sky stuff. For planetary viewing, a top notch
refractor of 4 or 5" is more than enough for most folks.
>3) Is there striking color out in the universe somewhere with the naked eye
>or
>can this only be obtained through astrophotography? Is the naked eye limited
>
>to black and white and subtle colors?
Some folks see color, especially in the Orion Nebula (M42). With my 8" I've
seen some color in the Ring Nebula, but that;s it. For realy striking color,
you need photos.
>4) How do you track an object with a Dobs? Do you need a large field of
>view,
>then put the object on one side of the fov and then shift the Dobs as it is
>about to leave the fov? Or is it possible to track an object that takes up
>most of fov smoothly and continuosly? In other words, as you move a Dobs is
>there any shaking as you look through the eyepiece or is it more like the
>slow
>motion controls on an equatorial mount?
High quality dobs are easier to push and pull than the mass produced ones. Some
folks (such as myself) prefer eq mounts for this simple reason (tracking).
>5) Would you recommend a reflex sight over a viewfinder?
Depends on your location, in a dark sky a reflex site is great, but if you
don't have a lot of stars available naked eye, then a powered finder such as an
8 X 50 is much better.
>6) If dust, dirt, or rain get on the mirrors. Do you simply just clean it
>with
>window cleaner?
Absolutely not! There's plenty of folks here who will give you advise on
cleaning mirrors.
Welcome tothe hobby!
Kevin Daly
Mattatuck Astronomical Society
http://members.aol.com/kdaly10475/index.html
r...@netgate.net
>Me and my wife bought a $200 Meade 4400 4.5" newtonian reflector from Costco.
Well, actually you have a "so-so" telescope with some junk accessories.
>If I buy a Kelner? or
>Plossl? eyepiece
You'll find an excellent introduction to what "Kellners", "Plossls",
and other eyepiece designs are like, and good for, at:
http://www-isl.stanford.edu/~marcush/ep.html
You'll definitely want to replace the ones that came with the scope,
but a little time spent learning what you want will probably save you
some money.
Also, I don't remember whether anyone mentioned:
http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/
In his "tutorials" section, the essay on how to improve "department
store" refractors has some tips you may be able to use to get some of
the shakiness out of that mount. Unfortunately, you're not going to be
able to get rid of all of it, but you can get some big improvements
with very little money and work.
Ran
AndersonRM
In article <3688c...@bonaparte.pixi.com>, shig...@pixi.com (Russell
Shigeoka) writes:
You sir, are a credit to all beginners. Despite having bought a telescope
hampered by useless accessories, you've managed to see quite a bit,
and have exploited the telescope properly. Well done!
However, consider changing the eyepieces to either good quality
0.976" (they do exist-Celestron has some, as well as Orion)
or better yet, get the 1-1/4" adapter that simply replaces the
screw-in 0.976" top part of the focuser. They cost about $10.
Get either a new finder (true 6x30mm) or a Telrad if your finder is one
of those tragic 5x24mm units. Don't worry about the mirror if it gets
somewhat dusty, this won't hurt it or the image too much. Just keep
the scope capped when not in use and put it away or cover it with
a clear plastic bag. If the main mirror does get dusty, you can clean
it by removing the bottom cell, removing the mirror and run the mirror under
room temp water. Use cotton balls and some mild dish soap to clean it,
using short strokes only. Rinse it with distilled water, and prop it on it's
side to dry.
-Rich
> Should I buy a new 1.25" focuser or just a .965-1.25 adapter,
>does it make a difference? I can envision building a Dobs in the near
>future,
>and could use the focuser and new lenses with it. Should I just give up on a
>
>4.5" aperture altogether and go bigger?
>
>2) From what I read 300x magnification is the practical limit for all
>telescopes. So what is the visual difference between a 4.5, 6, 8, and 10"
>aperture when you are viewing Jupiter? Is there a striking difference in
>detail with each step? What about deep sky objects like nebulae?
>
>3) Is there striking color out in the universe somewhere with the naked eye
>or
>can this only be obtained through astrophotography? Is the naked eye limited
>
>to black and white and subtle colors?
>
>4) How do you track an object with a Dobs? Do you need a large field of
>view,
>then put the object on one side of the fov and then shift the Dobs as it is
>about to leave the fov? Or is it possible to track an object that takes up
>most of fov smoothly and continuosly? In other words, as you move a Dobs is
>there any shaking as you look through the eyepiece or is it more like the
>slow
>motion controls on an equatorial mount?
>
>5) Would you recommend a reflex sight over a viewfinder?
>
>6) If dust, dirt, or rain get on the mirrors. Do you simply just clean it
>with
>window cleaner?
>
>
>Again, thanks for any advice. I now understand how astronomy can be a
>lifetime
>hobby. The amount of objects in the sky is staggering!
>
>
"If you can't tear yourself from your couch
to go out and observe, set the couch on fire..."
Andrea Merritt
University Optics Orthoscopics are a great deal at $60, and are very
good quality. I would avoid buying a standard Plossl (Celestron, Meade
3000, Sirius) under 7.5 mm, at very high mags they can be fuzzy. For
very high mags, it is better to invest in a better eyepiece (Orion
Ultrascopics, Celestron Ultimas, or University Optics Orthoscopics)
Above 7.5 most brand name Plossls are fine.
Getting the book Turn Left at Orion will really help out - it
details what you can see, how to find it, and pictures hand-drawn of
what it looks like in a scope your size.
You will likely need to collimate your scope, one of the web pages
already mentioned in other mssgs probably has a reference for a site.
I'd also get a planisphere and a moon filter, both are highly useful.
Clear Skies! Andrea
Russell Shigeoka wrote:
>
> Me and my wife bought a $200 Meade 4400 4.5" newtonian reflector from Costco.
> Me and my wife took it out and its first light (is that the right phrase?) was
> of the half moon on 12/26. We never bothered to look at the moon with anything
> other than our naked eye ... we were floored, wow! We never realized how
> bright the moon really is! We excitedly looked for the next object to see. My
> wife pointed to a star right next to the moon and she said, "that has to be a
> planet." Sure enough, we found Saturn and its rings! These two sightings kept
> us busy for 3 hours (learning how to use the slow motion controls etc., boy the
> earth sure spins pretty quickly), and then it was off to bed.
>
> The next night we read the instruction manual and figured out how to roughly
> polar align the telescope. Again, my wife just looked to the sky and said,
> "that has to be another planet." And amazingly she found Jupiter. It had to
> be because it had several really small dots around it, which had to be its
> moons. We then opened a star map and found M42 in Orion. We were able to see
> the fuzzy gassy cloud like structure. Again this kept us busy for hours.
>
> 3rd night out skywatching. But it is cloudy and rainy tonight. So if you
> to ask a lot of questions. Any reply to any or all would be appreciated.
>
> Saturn. We've got 3 .965" eyepieces. A H25mm, H12.5mm, SR4mm and a 3x Barlow.
> The 4mm and barlow separately produce nothing but big shaky blobs that
> encompass the entire field of view which could only be kept in view for a few
> seconds before being lost. The book that I read tonight said that these
> Plossl? eyepiece would I be able to see detail on Jupiter and Saturn with a
JOHN PAZMINO
RS> From: shig...@pixi.com (Russell Shigeoka)
RS> Date: 29 Dec 98 12:03:57 GMT
RS>
RS> Me and my wife bought a $200 Meade 4400 4.5" newtonian reflector from Costco.
RS> I realize now that I bought a junk telescope. But what a great junk telescope!
RS> . . .
RS> 3rd night out skywatching. But it is cloudy and rainy tonight. So if you
RS> don't mind I'm am here at the computer trying to learn more, and I would like
RS> to ask a lot of questions. Any reply to any or all would be appreciated.
RS>
RS> 1) We live in the city. We could not see any planetary detail on Jupiter or
RS> Saturn. We've got 3 .965" eyepieces. A H25mm, H12.5mm, SR4mm and a 3x Barlow.
RS> The 4mm and barlow separately produce nothing but big shaky blobs that
RS> encompass the entire field of view which could only be kept in view for a few
RS> seconds before being lost. The book that I read tonight said that these
RS> eyepieces are pretty much only good for doorstops. If I buy a Kelner? or
RS> Plossl? eyepiece would I be able to see detail on Jupiter and Saturn with a
RS> 4.5" reflector? Should I buy a new 1.25" focuser or just a .965-1.25 adapter,
RS> does it make a difference? I can envision building a Dobs in the near future,
RS> and could use the focuser and new lenses with it. Should I just give up on a
RS> 4.5" aperture altogether and go bigger?
All in all you got a junk scope. You say you live in the city.
Since that's not capitalized, you're not in New York. Never the less,
just about any 'city' has an astronomy club serving it. Go and join
it.S&T and Astronomy websites have directories of clubs based on the
clubs's offering of that magazine for its members. That includes all
the better clubs and very likely ones in your town or adjacent ones.
4/5 inch )say 115mm) is not too small for general stargazing. I
myself use scopes of 75 to 90 mm with great satisfaction. And I do
observe from New York! And, yes, I'm allied with the astronomers
society there, Amateur Astronmers association.
I really hesitate to urge you to spend much additional money on a
scope that should have been properly designed and built in the first
place, even for the modest extra price. The 25.4mm-to-31mm diam
eyepiece adaptor should cost about $25 and nice (not excellent, but
nice) eyepieces should cost about $50 each. But for two eyepieces and
the adaptor you putting so far $120 into the scoppe! Add a proper
finder and you tossed in an other $80 at least. even a Telrad costs
about $40. So you're already looking at an expenditure about equal to
that for a good instrument in the first place.
RS> 2) From what I read 300x magnification is the practical limit for all
RS> telescopes. So what is the visual difference between a 4.5, 6, 8, and 10"
RS> aperture when you are viewing Jupiter? Is there a striking difference in
RS> detail with each step? What about deep sky objects like nebulae?
RS>
RS> 3) Is there striking color out in the universe somewhere with the naked eye or
RS> can this only be obtained through astrophotography? Is the naked eye limited
RS> to black and white and subtle colors?
RS>
RS> 4) How do you track an object with a Dobs? Do you need a large field of view,
RS> then put the object on one side of the fov and then shift the Dobs as it is
RS> about to leave the fov? Or is it possible to track an object that takes up
RS> most of fov smoothly and continuosly? In other words, as you move a Dobs is
RS> there any shaking as you look through the eyepiece or is it more like the slow
RS> motion controls on an equatorial mount?
RS>
RS> 5) Would you recommend a reflex sight over a viewfinder?
RS>
RS> 6) If dust, dirt, or rain get on the mirrors. Do you simply just clean it with
RS>
RS> window cleaner?
RS>
RS>
RS> Again, thanks for any advice. I now understand how astronomy can be a lifetime
RS>
RS> hobby. The amount of objects in the sky is staggering!
RS>
RS>
---
þ RoseReader 2.52á P005004
GrapeApe
with
RS>
RS> window cleaner?
StarWare by Philip Harrington has a nice chapter on cleaning optics. Window
cleaner is generally a no-no. Prevention is better than cure, keep it clean do
you know what I mean?
bareynol
>
> RS> Subject: Newbie who bought Meade 4400 from Costco and wants to know more
> RS> From: shig...@pixi.com (Russell Shigeoka)
> RS> Date: 29 Dec 98 12:03:57 GMT
> RS>
> RS> Me and my wife bought a $200 Meade 4400 4.5" newtonian reflector from Costco.
> RS> I realize now that I bought a junk telescope. But what a great junk telescope!
> RS> . . .
> RS> 3rd night out skywatching. But it is cloudy and rainy tonight. So if you
> RS> don't mind I'm am here at the computer trying to learn more, and I would like
> RS> to ask a lot of questions. Any reply to any or all would be appreciated.
> RS>
<snip>
Hi Russel - re upgrading - been there done that.
One way to look at it is that upgrading eye pieces is a "carry over"
investment for when you move up. Meade sells a 0.965 -> 1.25 screw in
adapter (Meade part number 07194 - or see Astromart there's one for
sale there today). Budget about $150 for a good barlow, and two
EP's. You can also try Telescope Warehouse or Teletrade (see
http://www.astromart.com/ for links). HOWEVER DO YOUR HOMEWORK before
you buy any EP. You (and I also) didn't do our homework otherwise we
would have know not to buy such a "value engineered" product to start
with. It's an OK scope for the 8-14 year old to get them started.
But even they will get unhappy with it after a few months.
One "accessory" that will really make you life easier (here we go
spending more money :-) will be the motor drive. This is about $90 or
so. DO NOT upgrade the tripod/mount. It ain't worth it. I put my
114EQ onto a Celestron CG-4, but at a cost of about $400. Could have
bought a "real" scope for the $700 I had into that set up.
You'll also need to learn how to collimate your scope. It will make a
big difference. Oh - and stay away from high power, the optics can't
handle it and you'll be really disappointed. Those pictures on the
side of the box were NOT made with this scope!
However if you're like I was, when my wife mentioned buying a scope
what whooshing sound was the sound of the wallet coming out. :-)). Of
course "we've" now upgrades to a 10" SCT but that's another story.
:-))
regards, Brian