Jupiter

Troy Piggins wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 11:06 PM:


I've been to a few dark sites this last year, at new moon, not a
cloud in the sky. Got a sore neck from constantly gazing up at
the sky.

The dry air inland makes quite a difference: very little haze.
Never cease to be amazed how clear the sky is in the desert: I've got photos of
Mt Connor at nearly 30Ks that look like the blessed thing is just 5 away.


The C8 8" f/10 schmidt cassegrain I have had a 2.5x powermate
(like a teleconvertor) on it, which gave focal length of around
5000mm. Plus the image was slightly cropped to square it up from
the sensor size of 640x480.

Cool. Good luck with convincing the other half for the better camera!


"Aperture rules" - 10" lets in almost twice the amount of light
the 8" does

Yeah, I know. But it also increases the size and weight of the thing a lot!



Do you want it for visual observing or taking photos? If visual,
all good. If photos, slippery slope. Dobs/Newtonians might be
fine for planetary imaging, but no good unless you mount them on
equatorial mount for deep sky, long exposure shots.

If you're really keen, email me for more chats.


Mostly visual to start with: can't afford all the imaging stuff at the moment.
There are a few suppliers of eq mounts I can use later on once I can afford the
photography side. Figured the Dobsonians are a good priced entry point for wide
aperture visual and can be used as a base for more advanced stuff.
Thanks, I'll definitely ping you later on.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:56:56 +1000, Noons wrote:

Outing Trolls wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 9:24 PM:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:17:05 +1000, Noons wrote:

Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland,
eh?

Inland is worse, but then you'd know this if you knew the least bit about
photography and astronomy. Another **** poor attempt of yours to try to
look like you knew something. Trolls never do.


What an idiot...

Inland *is* worse, because inland air is more unstable, has higher
fluctuations in humidity levels, often contains more dust and particulate
pollutants, and is downright turbulent compared to areas near ocean air.
All are enemies of "seeing" conditions. The weakest link when you have a
decent telescope optics.

Some of the most stable pristine skies can be found in less-inhabited
regions of places like Florida, where any part of the land is only a couple
hundred miles from either coastline. The skies deep in the Everglades for
example, easily rival the night-skies you will see in some remote national
forest at the very top of the Rocky Mountains. (Viewed and photographed the
night-skies at both, so I have first-hand experience with these locations
for night-sky seeing conditions.) Ocean water has generally laminar
air-flows, most of the pollutants have dropped out of the sky--any coming
from other land-masses when airflow direction is inland. The fluctuations
in humidity levels (a killer of air quality and seeing for astronomy), are
usually much more gradual when dealing with ocean air as opposed to inland
continental air.

This is why the most favored large telescope installations are built
furthest from large land masses, as high as possible (when possible), and
surrounded by or very near the largest bodies of ocean water with
prevailing inland air-flows. This is precisely why they choose the Hawaiian
Islands for some of the larger and more advanced observatories not too long
ago. The upcoming mega-telescopes now in construction are being built near
the ocean in places like the coastal deserts in Chile near the Pacific
shore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope

Since he is doing planetary imaging, light-pollution is not much of a
concern, unless he gets into the outer planets (which won't show much in a
telescope of that size anyway). Or if he'd be trying to do long exposures
in place like downtown Times-Square New-York City.

Had you said, "Pity you can't move all that gear to a coastal region
further from light pollution." Then you might have been perceived as having
an iota of credible experience with either subject, photography or
astronomy. Since you gave him the worst advice possible concerning this
field of interest, there's only one conclusion possible.

Did you learn anything today? You useless **** of an ignorant troll.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:29:35 -0500, Look! Another Troll!
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:56:56 +1000, Noons wrote:

Outing Trolls wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 9:24 PM:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:17:05 +1000, Noons wrote:

Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland,
eh?

Inland is worse, but then you'd know this if you knew the least bit about
photography and astronomy. Another **** poor attempt of yours to try to
look like you knew something. Trolls never do.


What an idiot...

Inland *is* worse, because inland air is more unstable, has higher
fluctuations in humidity levels, often contains more dust and particulate
pollutants, and is downright turbulent compared to areas near ocean air.
All are enemies of "seeing" conditions. The weakest link when you have a
decent telescope optics.

Some of the most stable pristine skies can be found in less-inhabited
regions of places like Florida, where any part of the land is only a couple
hundred miles from either coastline. The skies deep in the Everglades for
example, easily rival the night-skies you will see in some remote national
forest at the very top of the Rocky Mountains. (Viewed and photographed the
night-skies at both, so I have first-hand experience with these locations
for night-sky seeing conditions.) Ocean water has generally laminar
air-flows, most of the pollutants have dropped out of the sky--any coming
from other land-masses when airflow direction is inland. The fluctuations
in humidity levels (a killer of air quality and seeing for astronomy), are
usually much more gradual when dealing with ocean air as opposed to inland
continental air.

This is why the most favored large telescope installations are built
furthest from large land masses, as high as possible (when possible), and
surrounded by or very near the largest bodies of ocean water with
prevailing inland air-flows. This is precisely why they choose the Hawaiian
Islands for some of the larger and more advanced observatories not too long
ago. The upcoming mega-telescopes now in construction are being built near
the ocean in places like the coastal deserts in Chile near the Pacific
shore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope

Since he is doing planetary imaging, light-pollution is not much of a
concern, unless he gets into the outer planets (which won't show much in a
telescope of that size anyway). Or if he'd be trying to do long exposures
in place like downtown Times-Square New-York City.

Had you said, "Pity you can't move all that gear to a coastal region
further from light pollution." Then you might have been perceived as having
an iota of credible experience with either subject, photography or
astronomy. Since you gave him the worst advice possible concerning this
field of interest, there's only one conclusion possible.

Did you learn anything today? You useless **** of an ignorant troll.

Ignorance is mutual.

Here is the lanscape not far from Oodnadata
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eric_th...69197/sizes/l/

Hardly ever any wind. Hardly ever any rain (those clouds are
exceptional). Hardly anyone or anything for many many miles in any
direction. Lovely flat terrain over which the air flow stabilises.
Oodnadata is not an entirely silly suggestion, except for the thought
of living there.



Eric Stevens

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:29:35 -0500, Look! Another Troll!
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:56:56 +1000, Noons wrote:

Outing Trolls wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 9:24 PM:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:17:05 +1000, Noons wrote:

Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland,
eh?

Inland is worse, but then you'd know this if you knew the least bit about
photography and astronomy. Another **** poor attempt of yours to try to
look like you knew something. Trolls never do.


What an idiot...

Inland *is* worse, because inland air is more unstable, has higher
fluctuations in humidity levels, often contains more dust and particulate
pollutants, and is downright turbulent compared to areas near ocean air.
All are enemies of "seeing" conditions. The weakest link when you have a
decent telescope optics.

Some of the most stable pristine skies can be found in less-inhabited
regions of places like Florida, where any part of the land is only a couple
hundred miles from either coastline. The skies deep in the Everglades for
example, easily rival the night-skies you will see in some remote national
forest at the very top of the Rocky Mountains. (Viewed and photographed the
night-skies at both, so I have first-hand experience with these locations
for night-sky seeing conditions.) Ocean water has generally laminar
air-flows, most of the pollutants have dropped out of the sky--any coming
from other land-masses when airflow direction is inland. The fluctuations
in humidity levels (a killer of air quality and seeing for astronomy), are
usually much more gradual when dealing with ocean air as opposed to inland
continental air.

This is why the most favored large telescope installations are built
furthest from large land masses, as high as possible (when possible), and
surrounded by or very near the largest bodies of ocean water with
prevailing inland air-flows. This is precisely why they choose the Hawaiian
Islands for some of the larger and more advanced observatories not too long
ago. The upcoming mega-telescopes now in construction are being built near
the ocean in places like the coastal deserts in Chile near the Pacific
shore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope

Since he is doing planetary imaging, light-pollution is not much of a
concern, unless he gets into the outer planets (which won't show much in a
telescope of that size anyway). Or if he'd be trying to do long exposures
in place like downtown Times-Square New-York City.

Had you said, "Pity you can't move all that gear to a coastal region
further from light pollution." Then you might have been perceived as having
an iota of credible experience with either subject, photography or
astronomy. Since you gave him the worst advice possible concerning this
field of interest, there's only one conclusion possible.

Did you learn anything today? You useless **** of an ignorant troll.

I should have give
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3338/...93aa1704_b.jpg as the
URL in my previous post.



Eric Stevens

Look! Another Troll! wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 12:29 AM:

Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland,
eh?
Inland is worse, but then you'd know this if you knew the least bit about
photography and astronomy. Another **** poor attempt of yours to try to
look like you knew something. Trolls never do.

What an idiot...

Inland *is* worse, because inland air is more unstable, has higher
fluctuations in humidity levels, often contains more dust and particulate
pollutants, and is downright turbulent compared to areas near ocean air.
All are enemies of "seeing" conditions. The weakest link when you have a
decent telescope optics.


Moron. Inland Australia is an inhabited desert, you twerp.
He lives in Australia, not your precious backwater in Florida.
You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

(rest of your crap deleted, no point in wasting time)

Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 10:49 AM:


Ignorance is mutual.

"mutual"? The stupid troll jumps in with crap from Florida in a post discussing
Australia and the ignorance is "mutual"?
How about one-sided, from the stupid aioe troll?


Oodnadata is not an entirely silly suggestion, except for the thought
of living there.

Oh, so that is not ignorance, now?
As for living there, in retirement it's probably not a bad place at all.
Which is what was said. Care to read properly instead of jumping to conclusions?

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:49:03 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:


Hardly ever any wind. Hardly ever any rain (those clouds are
exceptional). Hardly anyone or anything for many many miles in any
direction. Lovely flat terrain over which the air flow stabilises.
Oodnadata is not an entirely silly suggestion, except for the thought
of living there.

Sounds almost perfect, doesn't it? To an ignorant troll perhaps.

But like all useless trolls that know nothing about astronomy nor
photography, trolls who also know nothing about meteorology nor how land
cools off and heats up quicker with larger thermal contrasts (compared to
large bodies of water), they can't comprehend how this huge contrast in
thermal energies are fed into the atmosphere directly above the land .This
huge thermal turmoil occurring twice during each diurnal period is what
causes most of the bad seeing conditions for the required purposes. Flying
out to any appreciable distance over the ocean in a sail-plane is certain
death for the pilot for the exact same reasons.

On a smaller scale, this too is why you should never peer through a
telescope from inside a house that is aimed through an open window. The
thermal contrast between indoor and outdoor temperatures as the air is
exchanged between the two robs your telescope of most of its resolving
power. And is also why observatories are never heated where the telescope
resides. My own 16" diameter telescope mirror can take up to 3 hours to
reach very good thermal equilibrium before the rising or sinking air in the
telescope tube dies down enough for more perfect seeing conditions. (Day
vs. night temperatures dependent.)

Your post is a worthy display of a perfect example of what ignorance means.
Post some more just like it. (As you will do and have done so often.) I
don't believe your fellow trolls have quite caught on to what ignorance
means. Perhaps they can learn from you by example.

(A troll learn? To be honest, I typed that for my own hearty-laugh
benefit.)

Outing Ignorant Trolls Is FUN! wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 1:05 PM:


But like all useless trolls that know nothing about astronomy nor
photography, trolls who also know nothing about meteorology nor how land
cools off and heats up quicker with larger thermal contrasts (compared to
large bodies of water), they can't comprehend how this huge contrast in
thermal energies are fed into the atmosphere directly above the land .This

rest of demented raving clipped

And of course you are an expert in photography, meteorology and astronomy.
One wanders why you're posting as an unidentified troll from a well known troll
site, instead of working in Chile.
Ah yes: there are no "observatories" in florida...

BWAHAHAHA!


resides. My own 16" diameter telescope mirror can take up to 3 hours to

You're confusing the mirror in your bathroom with a telescope mirror.
Careful: the aliens you're seeing are actually your nose hairs...

Your post is a worthy display of a perfect example of what ignorance means.

Your post is a perfect example of crass, ignorant trolling.

Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 3:28 PM:


makes popcorn


it's wasted...

Ignorant Trolls wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:49:03 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:


Hardly ever any wind. Hardly ever any rain (those clouds are
exceptional). Hardly anyone or anything for many many miles in any
direction. Lovely flat terrain over which the air flow stabilises.
Oodnadata is not an entirely silly suggestion, except for the thought
of living there.

Sounds almost perfect, doesn't it? To an ignorant troll perhaps.

And here you are! The ignorant troll!

But like all useless trolls

You just keep coming back.

--
Ray Fischer