the Beginners topics on the website...

[John Pierce]

I was browsing the topics under Beginners on our website,   and I'm thinking a few of them could use an update or alternative version from a newer perspective, especially the eyepiece article.   Jay's insights are just fine, but things have evolved since the early 90s...    and Jay is talking about a bunch of eyepieces that are not even available anymore, and doesn't mention a number of newer eyepieces that IMHO are quite good such as Explore Scientific..  With Meade and Orion being entirely out of business, that put a big chunk of stuff into the 'unobtanium' category.

Ditto the Glossary is full of fairly old stuff.

And, the 'how to find' article is entirely oriented towards a non-goto equatorial scope with sidereal drive using traditional star-hopping and paper charts and doesn't even mention using a telrad.    Maybe I should start an article on my favorite method of using a telrad with an entirely manual dobsonian ?   I mean, when I was using the Obsession 20" f/5, with an 18mm 82 deg. eyepiece that had an 0.6 degree FOV, and a telrad, and a rubylith covered tablet with Sky Safari and telrad circles, I could find most any object in the sky quite quickly.

I'm not saying we should touch any of Jay's classic articles, they are full of wisdom, I'm just suggesting supplementing them.  And I'd love to get some help.

--

-john r pierce

  recycling used bits in santa cruz

[Jay Freeman]

How can I help?

If you are going to keep my beginner articles on the site, may I suggest that you update them to the most recent versions, which can be found on my own web site at http://www.jayreynoldsfreeman.com/My/Astronomy.html, in the section "Recommendations for Beginning Amateur Astronomers". What is there is not as old as what is on the current observers.org site, and some of the changes are substantial (though the articles are still old 😸):

    The dates as last updated by me are as follows:

        Glossary: 2006 (TAC has 2004)

        Eyepieces: 2009 (TAC has 2002)

        Cosmic Bird-Watching: 2006 (though the note about "last revised" in it reads 2002) (TAC has 1999)

        Picking an Astronomical Binocular: 2006 (TAC has 1998)

        How to Find Deep-Sky Objects Rapidly: 2006 (TAC has 2001)

Another article on my web site that might be of interest is "Binocular Talk Outline and Summary". It is set up to fit on two sides of an 8.5 by 11 inch sheet of paper -- I used to pass copies out when I gave binocular talks here and there.

Most of the old eyepieces that I mention were old when I bought them -- typically from AstroMart -- and I got them there for the most part because they were much less expensive than newer ones and were entirely adequate at the longer focal ratios -- f/10 and up -- that I generally use. Most still turn up now and then. The ones mentioned in the latest article, as being in my eyepiece kit, are still there, and I have had no cause to replace them. They were intended as examples of a useful range of eyepieces, not as specific recommendations.

I deliberately included many old names and terms in the glossary: Much of the literature concerning amateur astronomy and amateur telescopes is quite old, and I thought it would be useful to have a source that explained some of the mysteries therein. If anyone wants to send me possible additions for the glossary, I will be happy to create an updated version that includes them.

The 'how to find' article is indeed entirely oriented towards a non-goto equatorial scope with sidereal drive using traditional star-hopping and paper charts. I have had go-to telescopes and software star charts for a long time -- since well before I wrote the latest edition of that article -- and I have always found them slower and clumsier to use than paper charts and star-hopping. I find the main disadvantage of software star charts is the small size of the likely monitors one will be using in the field -- no portable has nearly the size of a double-page spread of Millennium Star Atlas -- and the inability to restrict the illuminated portion of the "chart" to (say) 5 cm by 5 cm, which helps for maintaining dark adaptation. And with decent planning (which I stress in the article), I can usually star-hop from one object to the next in less time than it takes to punch in or call up coordinates for the next object. (Though with the right software and a target list prepared at home, one could arrange to do that by simply pressing a "next object" button.) Admittedly, star-hopping this way is an acquired skill, but once you have it, it is very useful. Your mileage may vary.

I also have had TelRads and several other kinds of straight-through unit-magnification finders. I have never found any of them nearly as useful as a straight-through magnifying finder with a faintly-illuminated cross-hair. The problems I find are (1) unit magnification is not enough to bring the object into the field of most of the eyepieces / magnifications that I use, (2) naked-eye limiting magnitude does not provide enough visible reference stars in many parts of the sky (note that the limiting magnitude of a 50 mm finder is approximately the same as the faintest stellar magnitude on Millennium), and (3) since I am near-sighted, I have to keep fumbling with my probably dewed-over glasses every time I switch back and forth from TelRad to main eyepiece. Your mileage may vary. I suspect the alternative-method article that John Pierce suggests would be a welcome addition to the coverage.

One further suggestion: Given the increasing popularity of imaging, perhaps there is need for some articles on beginning imaging, if there is anyone qualified (I am not) and willing to write them.

Clear sky.

--  Jay Reynolds Freeman, Deep-Sky Weasel
---------------------
Jay_Reynol...@mac.com
http://JayReynoldsFreeman.com (personal web site)

--
Observing Sites, Observing Reports, About TAC linked at top of:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sf-bay-tac
 
Subscribers post to the mailing list at:
 
sf-ba...@googlegroups.com,
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Astronomy Connection (TAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf-bay-tac+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/CAJnkzXLToy2yrc0Mh1i_hZJMMi86iRNJ1kM3-c7kU1UEQ1e9VQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Pierce]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 1:50 AM 'Jay Freeman' via The Astronomy Connection (TAC) <sf-ba...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

How can I help?

If you are going to keep my beginner articles on the site, may I suggest that you update them to the most recent versions, which can be found on my own web site at http://www.jayreynoldsfreeman.com/My/Astronomy.html, in the section "Recommendations for Beginning Amateur Astronomers". What is there is not as old as what is on the current observers.org site, and some of the changes are substantial (though the articles are still old 😸):

ah, cool, I'll get hose updated in the next couple days...

 

I also have had TelRads and several other kinds of straight-through unit-magnification finders. I have never found any of them nearly as useful as a straight-through magnifying finder with a faintly-illuminated cross-hair. The problems I find are (1) unit magnification is not enough to bring the object into the field of most of the eyepieces / magnifications that I use, (2) naked-eye limiting magnitude does not provide enough visible reference stars in many parts of the sky (note that the limiting magnitude of a 50 mm finder is approximately the same as the faintest stellar magnitude on Millennium), and (3) since I am near-sighted, I have to keep fumbling with my probably dewed-over glasses every time I switch back and forth from TelRad to main eyepiece. Your mileage may vary. I suspect the alternative-method article that John Pierce suggests would be a welcome addition to the coverage.

I generally was starting with an eyepiece with around 0.5-0.6 degree FOV which coincides with the smallest ring in a Telrad.   I found there's almost always a few bright naked eye stars close to the outer large circle of the Telrad, and by placing it with the same general geometric arrangement, my target would be in that 0.5 degree eyepiece.   Yes, there's a few places in the sky with no bright stars for many degrees where this doesn't work, and if you're in suburban conditions where you can only see the brightest stars naked eye, it doesn't work well at all, but then in those same suburban conditions, deep fuzzies aren't much fun even if you can find them

 

One further suggestion: Given the increasing popularity of imaging, perhaps there is need for some articles on beginning imaging, if there is anyone qualified (I am not) and willing to write them.

yeah, that's definitely not me.  I dabbled with DSLR wide field imaging in 2012 and decided it was all too much like 'work', which was the antithesis of why I was going out at night with my telescopes.

 

[Jason Newquist]

I just returned to the hobby (and TAC here) now that my triplets are all off to college.  I don't expect many here to remember me, but I sure do remember many of you!  Re-entering this hobby's atmosphere in the last few weeks has been weird and fun.  Not exactly a beginner, but in many ways a "wake up from a long coma" type thing.

Apropos of this thread: I will say that the one explainer I couldn't find anywhere was a piece which sought to orient the bright-eyed newcomer to all the different monastic orders we have these days.  To wit: night vision seems to be a thing now -- when the heck did that happen?  Also, EAA (with all its associated concepts, e.g. plate solving, image stacking automation, etc) vs. classic astrophotography.  Are those mostly the same thing, or mostly different?  Who knows!  Then you have things that even an unfrozen caveman can dimly recall: people who favor push-to with tech assistance (e.g. DSCs or star maps on your phone, etc.), and classic analog observing (screenless, motorless).  Oh, and then you have your sketchers and illustrators, too.  

Anyway.  I'd be more than happy to contribute to the site, if I can be of any help... once I learn where polaris is, again.

-Jason

--

Observing Sites, Observing Reports, About TAC linked at top of:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sf-bay-tac
 
Subscribers post to the mailing list at:
 
sf-ba...@googlegroups.com,
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Astronomy Connection (TAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf-bay-tac+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/CAJnkzX%2B1RmBsD2%3D6zhcs%2BMcZve6rkf0tufXBbBKCn57jYVtfRg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rod Brown]

Regarding astrophotography: One of the things I appreciate about this group is that the main subject is visual astronomy. Nothing wrong with astrophotography, but adding that would require some time and effort, and more frequent updates would be needed given the pace of change there. The right level for this website may be to briefly introduce it and direct the reader to other resources.

[Rod Brown]

I meant to say, "One of the things I appreciate about this group and website...."

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Astronomy Connection (TAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sf-bay-tac/uM8aYVQIIt8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to sf-bay-tac+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/31cd3cbb-d78a-4df7-93fe-a92f52a65828n%40googlegroups.com.