|
35s5 Heart of Gold
wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:14:52 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: As a kid, my buddies and I used to compete with each other seeing who could shoot dragonflys out of the air with a sling-shot or BB gun. Doing it with howitzers would not have made it a better competition. Why run marathons when you can hail a cab or take a bus? How stupid is THAT? So, you're saying the reward is in the finesse? The ability to finesse inferior technology and like it? Be satisfied with it? I just don't have standards that are that low. And, I agree with you on running marathons - pretty stupid. Any sane athlete pedals a lightweight, aero, race bicycle. That's where the money is. That's where true physical fitness and stamina is developed. That's where the respect and glory is. That's where real men compete. Wilbur Hubbard So, you stink at archery, too? Archery has it's standards. There are bows and there are bows. Compound and simple. When one competes with a bow one uses the best bow money can buy - one that is competitive at least. One with enough power and range to drop an elk? So, using the camera analogy, would you go elk hunting with a kid's bow and arrow? No, you would use the best, most powerful bow for the job, most likely a compound bow. You would not likely be happy or effective with anything less. So why are these little home celestial photographers happy with their kid's toys? Wilbur Hubbard |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans and a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question: "Where's the beef?" You obviously miss the entire point of the exercise. It has nothing to do with the quality of the pictures. It's entirely a matter of being able to show and tell how expensive your toys are. Are some grown-up people really that immature? Wilbur Hubbard |
35s5 Heart of Gold
If you are planning to do astrophotography, then you should
not buy an expensive scope until you *really* know what you want. Most people give up because they started with the wrong scope(Long focal length and high F ratio). I'm on my third scope, second mount, and third camera - and all in only three years. Donal, long before you probably entered this hobby I already owned vintage scopes, such as the RV-6 and Dynamax. Living in NYC as a kid and astrophotography wasn't in the cards. In the late 60's I used the RV-6 visually. I buy for visual work mainly and always have. A million people do those shots and they generally look the same, unless they are from huge mirror systems. But I love to look and it's already a ton of fun for Thomas. I needed a scope that set-up in 5 minutes and could show objects easily without frustrating an impatient group of kids. So far the GPS motor driven scopes are amazing. I never bought the wrong scope because I started very young and knew the systems early on. There is no better scope for my current application for example; not at any price. For shooting I'd be using a proper refractor of course and I've been toying with the idea of adding such a scope soon. R. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Sep 3, 1:42 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "jeff" wrote in message . .. Donal wrote: I'm astonished at how little light pollution you have. I thought that you lived near NY???? Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently. http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get more on it if the sky ever clears. Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However, here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective. http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays were so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we photographed the screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for publication. Each little red dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused by a "grazing incidence mirror system." Magic! This picture was one of the first we got of a nearby galaxy showing individual x-ray sources, so it caused quite a stir. More on the pic: http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560 and instrument: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html I just don't get it. Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep space photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos available from Hubble alone? You could look at them your entire life and not see them all. Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste of time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array telescopes taking photographs is a joke. But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their inferior little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as well. Actually, you have a point, which is why I don't waste too much effort on that type of shooting. I prefer artistic portraits such as this, http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p908572751-5.jpg And I do mess around with macro, as in this shot where you can see me reflected in the larger eyes.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it! R. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans and a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question: "Where's the beef?" You obviously miss the entire point of the exercise. It has nothing to do with the quality of the pictures. It's entirely a matter of being able to show and tell how expensive your toys are. Are some grown-up people really that immature? Wilbur Hubbard Never mind. Stupid question. Bobsprit just posted about his expensive scopes. Wilbur Hubbard |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 3 Sep, 18:42, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "jeff" wrote in message . .. and instrument: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html I just don't get it. Hi Wilbur, I like you. So, I will help you to avoid the extreme embarrassement that you must feel after displaying the enormous ignorance which your post exposed. Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep space photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos available from Hubble alone? Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not alone. You could look at them your entire life and not see them all. Only if your internet connection was extremely slow. If you only viewed 10 images a day, then you could view the Hubble's output in a year. I bet that you look at more than 10 images a day. Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste of time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array telescopes taking photographs is a joke. Well, here you display the sort of ignorance that makes me feel embarrassed on your behalf. I took this photo in just 90 minutes with a 4" telescope. http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener...nal/sh2101.htm The Hubble could not have done this in 90 minutes. Can you figure out why? But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their inferior little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as well. Have a look at this photo:- http://www.rdelsol.com/Nebula/IC1805_Everest.html Isn't it clear that your comments are tiny, inferior and a joke as well. What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans and a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question: "Where's the beef?" Actually, you are missing the point that amateurs are using the very latest technology. You do not understand that technology in optics has made enormous advances in recent years. My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. I hope that you have found my post useful. I don't want you to look so stupid again. Regards Donal -- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 3 Sep, 18:18, jeff wrote:
Donal wrote: I'm astonished at how little light pollution you have. I thought that you lived near NY???? Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently. http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get more on it if the sky ever clears. Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However, here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective. http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays were so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we photographed the screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for publication. Each little red dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused by a "grazing incidence mirror system." Magic! This picture was one of the first we got of a nearby galaxy showing individual x-ray sources, so it caused quite a stir. More on the pic:http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560 and instrument:http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html I wasn't aware that x-ray imaging had been done so long ago. I knew that the US x-ray imagers were very narrow field and high resolution. It must have been wonderful to see those images coming in live. I really envy you. Regards Donal -- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
wrote in message ... On 3 Sep, 18:42, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "jeff" wrote in message . .. and instrument: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html I just don't get it. Hi Wilbur, I like you. So, I will help you to avoid the extreme embarrassement that you must feel after displaying the enormous ignorance which your post exposed. Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep space photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos available from Hubble alone? Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not alone. When my dentist points that lens-looking think at my mouth and it buzzes it directs the x-rays just where they need to go. It might not be a GLASS lense but there's got to be a lense of some sort in there. You could look at them your entire life and not see them all. Only if your internet connection was extremely slow. If you only viewed 10 images a day, then you could view the Hubble's output in a year. I bet that you look at more than 10 images a day. Nekkid females - hundreds of photos of them a day. But that's what cameras are REALLY for. Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste of time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array telescopes taking photographs is a joke. Well, here you display the sort of ignorance that makes me feel embarrassed on your behalf. I took this photo in just 90 minutes with a 4" telescope. http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener...nal/sh2101.htm Uh, huh! So what's the big deal. I can look at the sky on a clear night with my 7X50 binoculars and see all of that crap I want to see. The Hubble could not have done this in 90 minutes. Can you figure out why? That's easy to answer. The Hubble has a very small field of view. My marine binocs have are 7x50 and the Hubble is probably 7 million by 500 which makes the picture it takes only a little speck in the sky. I ain't that dumb to not know the obvious. But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their inferior little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as well. Have a look at this photo:- http://www.rdelsol.com/Nebula/IC1805_Everest.html I've seen stuff like that and the horse's head nebula from Hubble and it's much better. I still say why bother with tiny little lenses? What do you get. You get a bigger slice of the pie with very little real resolution. A poor compromise in my opinion. Isn't it clear that your comments are tiny, inferior and a joke as well. Probably only to people who waste their time with tiny little technology and are defensive about it. What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans and a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question: "Where's the beef?" Actually, you are missing the point that amateurs are using the very latest technology. You do not understand that technology in optics has made enormous advances in recent years. My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Nonsense. It's the size of the lense that determines the amount of light it gathers. The amount of light it gathers determines how far out it can see. It just can't collect enough light to see the dim stuff like Hubble can and does. So when you use the little lenses you become a Mr. Magoo. You only see stuff that's right in front of your nose magnified a couple or four times. Seems to me I can look at the heavens on a clear night and just imagine things are bigger and brighter and I can do as well with my imagination than people can do taking snapshots with their tiny little lenses. I hope that you have found my post useful. I don't want you to look so stupid again. Thanks for your concern but you failed to sway my mind. But if you enjoy futzing around with inferior little things then knock yourself out. It's no skin off my teeth. Wilbur Hubbard |
35s5 Heart of Gold
http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it! Now that's impressive! Who's the bug? |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"jlrogers±³©" wrote in message ... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it! Now that's impressive! Who's the bug? That's not a 'bug' it's an arachnid. (spider) I feel sorry for it. Booby probably blinded it with that flash. Pretty hard for the poor thing to catch bugs when it's half blind. Wilbur Hubbard |
35s5 Heart of Gold
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not alone. When my dentist points that lens-looking think at my mouth and it buzzes it directs the x-rays just where they need to go. It might not be a GLASS lense but there's got to be a lense of some sort in there. No, that type of x-ray picture doesn't use a lens. Think about it. Here's a hint: if the thing the dentist points at you bounces around during the exposure, it doesn't affect the picture. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
Actually, you are missing the point that amateurs are using the very latest technology. You do not understand that technology in optics has made enormous advances in recent years. My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. I hope that you have found my post useful. I don't want you to look so stupid again. Regards Donal No, Donal, they are not. I can assure you that even the most expensive optical systems geared to the high end amateur does not represent state of the art in optical design or execution. True, a new high end refractor will be better than older models, but again they are still amateur instruments. The most expensive scope I've owned was a Celestron 14 on a custom built pier, but it was still a toy. R. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
wrote:
On 3 Sep, 18:18, jeff wrote: Donal wrote: I'm astonished at how little light pollution you have. I thought that you lived near NY???? Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently. http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get more on it if the sky ever clears. Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However, here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective. http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays were so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we photographed the screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for publication. Each little red dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused by a "grazing incidence mirror system." Magic! This picture was one of the first we got of a nearby galaxy showing individual x-ray sources, so it caused quite a stir. More on the pic:http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560 and instrument:http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html I wasn't aware that x-ray imaging had been done so long ago. I knew that the US x-ray imagers were very narrow field and high resolution. It must have been wonderful to see those images coming in live. I really envy you. It was a real rush, starting with being about 3 miles from the midnight launch of the spacecraft! I didn't quite get to see data in real time, although the control center did. With the exception of a few very strong sources, the raw data didn't yield much of an image - each photon had to be adjusted for the pointing of the spacecraft based on star trackers (the aspect solution) and then accumulated over time. We did get "quicklook" data flown in overnight, and since the scope was 100 times more powerful than the early crude instruments, almost every observation produced a major result. I was fascinated by the "photon counting" nature of the instrument, so my strongest memory was a Deep Survey of an empty field for several weeks. As the photons were put on the screen, 2 and then 3 fell at the same point. A scientist punched his HP-45 for a minute and said, "That's going to be the furthest object ever observed." My boss, Dr. Riccardo Giacconi, received the Nobel Prize for the work. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ni-lecture.pdf Dr. Giacconni, and many others from the team, went on to be the early team on Hubble. I did some consulting for Hubble in the '80s before launch, but with the delay after the Challenger disaster, I ended up at Lotus/IBM. This thread reminds me of a reunion party in August '87. The Perseids were active so after midnight about 30 astronomers were out on the lawn looking up. I had a couple of 7x50's and started pointing people towards various objects in view. It turned out that of the entire crowd, only one grad student and myself knew anything of the visible sky. In fact, I don't think any of the famous astronomers could find Polaris! |
35s5 Heart of Gold
My
4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than 20 years. I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads. R. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Sep 3, 6:11 pm, "jlrogers±³©" wrote:
http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it! Now that's impressive! Who's the bug? Jumping spider shot with a Nikon D300 and a reversed 24mm lens. The spider is about the size of a rice grain. Here's a bit more of my work.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p954096487-5.jpg http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p597837560-5.jpg http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p52643971-5.jpg I like this shot of the moon as I pulled it off with a Nikon D80 and a fairly average 70-300mm zoom lens... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p1072386785-4.jpg R. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"Capt. Rob" wrote in message ... On Sep 3, 6:11 pm, "jlrogers±³©" wrote: http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it! Now that's impressive! Who's the bug? Jumping spider shot with a Nikon D300 and a reversed 24mm lens. The spider is about the size of a rice grain. Here's a bit more of my work.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p954096487-5.jpg http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p597837560-5.jpg http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p52643971-5.jpg I like this shot of the moon as I pulled it off with a Nikon D80 and a fairly average 70-300mm zoom lens... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p1072386785-4.jpg R. You do have eyes. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 07:11:26 -0500, "jlrogers±³©"
wrote: "Capt. Rob" wrote in message ... On Sep 3, 6:11 pm, "jlrogers±³©" wrote: http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it! Now that's impressive! Who's the bug? Jumping spider shot with a Nikon D300 and a reversed 24mm lens. The spider is about the size of a rice grain. Here's a bit more of my work.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p954096487-5.jpg http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p597837560-5.jpg http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p52643971-5.jpg Not impressed! The lighting on the poor child dramatically distorts her face The woman has multiple highlights in her eyes....and blackheads on her nose .... ughhhh And the leaf...well the leaf is just an uninspiring leaf. I've seen very much better from you!! OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 07:11:26 -0500, "jlrogers±³©"
wrote: "Capt. Rob" wrote in message ... On Sep 3, 6:11 pm, "jlrogers±³©" wrote: http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it! Now that's impressive! Who's the bug? Jumping spider shot with a Nikon D300 and a reversed 24mm lens. The spider is about the size of a rice grain. Here's a bit more of my work.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p954096487-5.jpg http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p597837560-5.jpg http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p52643971-5.jpg Not impressed! The lighting on the poor child dramatically distorts her face The woman has multiple highlights in her eyes....and blackheads on her nose .... ughhhh And the leaf...well the leaf is just an uninspiring leaf. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"jeff" wrote in message ... Wilbur Hubbard wrote: Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not alone. Tell these guys: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/38/10A/042 http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7289597/claims.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9679582 60 http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/...ch/xray_lenses http://www.ifg-adlershof.de/linsen.htm When my dentist points that lens-looking think at my mouth and it buzzes it directs the x-rays just where they need to go. It might not be a GLASS lense but there's got to be a lense of some sort in there. No, that type of x-ray picture doesn't use a lens. Think about it. Here's a hint: if the thing the dentist points at you bounces around during the exposure, it doesn't affect the picture. Not so. The xray machine is the source of illumination and the xray plate is a stationary receiver and not attached to the machine. IIf the plate moves during the exposure, the picture is fuzzy, just like a camera. Once again, Wilbur is correct. If the x-ray did not have a "lens", why is it aimed at all? Here's a lens part number for a GE dental xray machine: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4063732AATtXgz |
35s5 Heart of Gold
redbeard wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message ... Wilbur Hubbard wrote: Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not alone. Tell these guys: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/38/10A/042 http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7289597/claims.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9679582 60 http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/...ch/xray_lenses http://www.ifg-adlershof.de/linsen.htm When my dentist points that lens-looking think at my mouth and it buzzes it directs the x-rays just where they need to go. It might not be a GLASS lense but there's got to be a lense of some sort in there. No, that type of x-ray picture doesn't use a lens. Think about it. Here's a hint: if the thing the dentist points at you bounces around during the exposure, it doesn't affect the picture. Not so. The xray machine is the source of illumination and the xray plate is a stationary receiver and not attached to the machine. IIf the plate moves during the exposure, the picture is fuzzy, just like a camera. Once again, Wilbur is correct. If the x-ray did not have a "lens", why is it aimed at all? Here's a lens part number for a GE dental xray machine: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4063732AATtXgz Not so. If you move your head (or the x-ray machine head) but hold the little photographic plate firmly against your teeth, the exposure will be fine. The tube simply creates an un-focused, though somewhat columinated, blast of x-rays. The sharp image is the result of the detector plate being close to the teeth. (Actually the x-rays are created in the head, the tube is there prevent too much scatter and to keep the target a safe distance from the source.) |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 4 Sep, 01:03, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
Actually, you are missing the point that amateurs are using the very latest technology. You do not understand that technology in optics has made enormous advances in recent years. My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. I hope that you have found my post useful. I don't want you to look so stupid again. No, Donal, they are not. I can assure you that even the most expensive optical systems geared to the high end amateur does not represent state of the art in optical design or execution. True, a new high end refractor will be better than older models, but again they are still amateur instruments. The most expensive scope I've owned was a Celestron 14 on a custom built pier, but it was still a toy. You are absolutely correct! It is indeed a toy. You need to re-collimate the instrument every time that you adjust the focus!!!! Why don't you compare the Celestron with a RCOS? You obviously have extremely good taste in boats and hi-fi. Why do you not understand the world of high quality optics? Regards Donal --- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than 20 years. I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads. Ahhhh..... You can't afford a Tak? I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Regards donal -- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than 20 years. I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads. Wrong!! I've taken some photographs! My coments are based on personal experience. Your comments are based on personal ignorance. Before you argue this point, perhaps you will tell us more about your photo of M31. You pretended that you took it from your back yard. I live about the same distance from London as you do from NY. Do you want me to show the same thing from here? Regards Donal --- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT), said: I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Jeez, Donal, that was a low blow. You're hitting them both where it hurts. He's hitting them in their ast? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT), said: I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Jeez, Donal, that was a low blow. You're hitting them both where it hurts. He's hitting them in their ast? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Always the homosexual references! -- Gregory Hall |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Regards donal Aston Martins are horrendously expensive in Oz..... OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"jeff" wrote in message . .. redbeard wrote: "jeff" wrote in message ... Wilbur Hubbard wrote: Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not alone. Tell these guys: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/38/10A/042 http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7289597/claims.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9679582 60 http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/...ch/xray_lenses http://www.ifg-adlershof.de/linsen.htm When my dentist points that lens-looking think at my mouth and it buzzes it directs the x-rays just where they need to go. It might not be a GLASS lense but there's got to be a lense of some sort in there. No, that type of x-ray picture doesn't use a lens. Think about it. Here's a hint: if the thing the dentist points at you bounces around during the exposure, it doesn't affect the picture. Not so. The xray machine is the source of illumination and the xray plate is a stationary receiver and not attached to the machine. IIf the plate moves during the exposure, the picture is fuzzy, just like a camera. Once again, Wilbur is correct. If the x-ray did not have a "lens", why is it aimed at all? Here's a lens part number for a GE dental xray machine: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4063732AATtXgz Not so. If you move your head (or the x-ray machine head) but hold the little photographic plate firmly against your teeth, the exposure will be fine. The tube simply creates an un-focused, though somewhat columinated, blast of x-rays. The sharp image is the result of the detector plate being close to the teeth. (Actually the x-rays are created in the head, the tube is there prevent too much scatter and to keep the target a safe distance from the source.) You're right. I was thinking of xrays of broken arms, etc. In dentistry the plate is held motionless relative to the teeth. Here's an actual x ray of my head: http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploa...mpson_xray.jpg |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Sep 4, 6:07 pm, wrote:
On 4 Sep, 01:03, "Capt. Rob" wrote: Actually, you are missing the point that amateurs are using the very latest technology. You do not understand that technology in optics has made enormous advances in recent years. My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. I hope that you have found my post useful. I don't want you to look so stupid again. No, Donal, they are not. I can assure you that even the most expensive optical systems geared to the high end amateur does not represent state of the art in optical design or execution. True, a new high end refractor will be better than older models, but again they are still amateur instruments. The most expensive scope I've owned was a Celestron 14 on a custom built pier, but it was still a toy. You are absolutely correct! It is indeed a toy. You need to re-collimate the instrument every time that you adjust the focus!!!! Why don't you compare the Celestron with a RCOS? You obviously have extremely good taste in boats and hi-fi. Why do you not understand the world of high quality optics? Regards Donal --- I've looked through some expensive stuff, Donal. Have you ever compared a new C8 with a Tak 7 inch refractor costing 12K? I have. You might be surprised how well the C8 compares. Oh, and there's the little item of actually using the scope. By the time you set up a RCOS CF tube I'd have acquired and viewed a hundred objects. You have a lot to learn. The best scope is the one that's used the most. That's why I own two GPS GOTO scopes instead of a big dob for now. You have a long way to go if you don't get that and need to name drop pricey scope builders, Donal. R. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Sep 4, 6:13 pm, wrote:
On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote: My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than 20 years. I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads. Ahhhh..... You can't afford a Tak? I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Regards donal -- I could buy a Tak tomorrow, but it would be inferior to my CPC scope since it would be tougher to setup and would get less use. I'm planning on a GT-R, which is better than an Aston Martin. R. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Sep 4, 6:30 pm, wrote:
On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote: My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than 20 years. I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads. Wrong!! I've taken some photographs! My coments are based on personal experience. Your comments are based on personal ignorance. Donal, you must be crazy. I've looked through a William Optics Triplet 110mm APO vs. an old Cave Astrola 8. The bigger mirrors easily out- resolved the APO of course. It's not like they couldn't make great mirrors in the 70's and 80's, you numb-nut! Transmission coatings have improved things a bit and love small beautiful refractors, but don't be crazy. When it comes to scopes, SIZE MATTERS. Before you argue this point, perhaps you will tell us more about your photo of M31. You pretended that you took it from your back yard. I live about the same distance from London as you do from NY. Do you want me to show the same thing from here? Donal, why not just throw an egg into the air and let it land on your face? I'm in Kent Cliffs, quite high up. I get very little sky glow here and on a good fall night I can get a pretty dark sky. The shot was taken from my front deck using the CPC-800 with NO WEDGE, which meant I had to keep the exposure down to about a minute with a 90mm lens on a D300, which in turn was piggybacked on the scope. Without a wedge you get field rotation if you use longer exposures. I have a wedge, but it's still packed up in the original box. Settings on the D300 were ISO 1000 at F/4.5. R |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 5 Sep, 01:10, OzOne wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Regards donal Aston Martins are horrendously expensive in Oz..... Of course. But, they are worth every penny. Quality doesn't come cheap. Power, Beauty, Soul ...... Other cars are just plain ugly by comparison. If you drive a Lambo, Bently or a Porsche you will be treated like a football player. If you drive an Evo, then you will probably be treated like a football player's wife. You get treated with respect when you drive an Aston. You would like it. Regards Donal -- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 5 Sep, 02:08, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
On Sep 4, 6:07 pm, wrote: I've looked through some expensive stuff, Donal. Have you ever compared a new C8 with a Tak 7 inch refractor costing 12K? I have. You might be surprised how well the C8 compares. Oh, and there's the little item of actually using the scope. By the time you set up a RCOS CF tube I'd have acquired and viewed a hundred objects. You have a lot to learn. The best scope is the one that's used the most. That's why I own two GPS GOTO scopes instead of a big dob for now. You have a long way to go if you don't get that and need to name drop pricey scope builders, Donal. Well, that really takes the biscuit!!! Bobsprit accuses *me* of name dropping!!!! What Hi-Fi do you have? What home cinema system? What camera? What car? What telescope? Bob, your telescope is like your car. It is mass produced mediocre tat that is made for the recently affluent working class man. These things are desinged for *new* money. People who come from a decent background wouldn't be seen in possession of such rubbish. You *know* that if I wanted to name drop, then I would have highlighted my camera instead of the telescope. If you don't know that this is true, then you don't know anything about astrophotography. So, which car are you going to buy? It won't give you any more street credibility than the Pearson 30 did. Take a test drive in a DB9, and you will realise that the cars that you have been looking at are just piles of crap. regards Donal -- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 5 Sep, 02:12, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
On Sep 4, 6:13 pm, wrote: On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote: My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than 20 years. I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads. Ahhhh..... You can't afford a Tak? I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Regards donal -- I could buy a Tak tomorrow, but it would be inferior to my CPC scope since it would be tougher to setup and would get less use. I'm planning on a GT-R, which is better than an Aston Martin. The GT-R is FASTER than the DB9. If you think that means that it is better then you are not really qualified to own an Aston. After all, Aston relies on the fact that footballers' wives do not drive their cars to maintain their reputation. An Aston is about Power, Soul and Beauty. If all you want is Power, then you should buy the GT-R. It would suit you better. Regards Donal -- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 4 Sep, 23:24, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT), said: I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Jeez, Donal, that was a low blow. You're hitting them both where it hurts. We need to stimulate a bit of discussion here. They are both discussing rubbish cars. I'm surprised at Oz, because I thought that he had some taste in these matters. I'm not surprised that Bob is looking at these second rate supercars. It fits his modis operandi. Regards Donal -- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:44:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
We need to stimulate a bit of discussion here. They are both discussing rubbish cars. I'm surprised at Oz, because I thought that he had some taste in these matters. I'm not surprised that Bob is looking at these second rate supercars. It fits his modis operandi. Regards Donal Donal, even my Evo 9 would run rings around the Aston on anything but the M1. Have a look at this purpose built pocket rocket and you will be impressed I'm sure..drive one and you'll be astounded. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:45:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On 5 Sep, 01:10, OzOne wrote: On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Regards donal Aston Martins are horrendously expensive in Oz..... Of course. But, they are worth every penny. Quality doesn't come cheap. Power, Beauty, Soul ...... You left off Reliability.....Understandably I don't regard $300,000 + tax and on roads as being value for money Other cars are just plain ugly by comparison. Oh they are beautiful.... If you drive a Lambo, Bently or a Porsche you will be treated like a football player. Oh wonderful.....? If you drive an Evo, then you will probably be treated like a football player's wife. Actually you'll hardly be noticed.... You get treated with respect when you drive an Aston. You would like it. Nope sorry....no deal. Regards Donal OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
35s5 Heart of Gold
So, which car are you going to buy? It won't give you any more
street credibility than the Pearson 30 did. Take a test drive in a DB9, and you will realise that the cars that you have been looking at are just piles of crap. Well, it's been a long time since I said the following, but Donal's lame comments are deserving.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The Aston Martin? Donal thinks it's got "soul" because James Bond drove one???? Do you know that a Evo X is a better driving machine? Do you know that it handles better and has a FAR more sophisticated suspension and drive train system? Do you know that Evo's are one of the definitive driving machines of the last decade in Europe and the US? Do you know what a "tuner's car" is and the Aston Martin is NOT a tuner's car? Let's teach Donal something about street credibility, which he seems to think has something to do with me driving alone on my winding roads: The DB9 simply says "I wanted the most expensive car", not the best driving machine. It can't compare in ANY way to the best handling cars of which the Evo X is universally agreed on as a member. As for the GT-R, good lord, Donal! Stop talking already. You can't cram any more feet in. A GT-R is a supercar well beyond anything a DB9 can muster. You probably don't even understand that a driving enthusiast doesn't want a Aston Martin over a Evo X or GT-R, two cars with superior handling and feedback. Enjoy! R. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 6 Sep, 00:32, OzOne wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:44:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote: We need to stimulate a bit of discussion here. They are both discussing rubbish cars. I'm surprised at Oz, because I thought that he had some taste in these matters. I'm not surprised that Bob is looking at these second rate supercars. It fits his modis operandi. Regards Donal Donal, even my Evo 9 would run rings around the Aston on anything but the M1. Have a look at this purpose built pocket rocket and you will be impressed I'm sure..drive one and you'll be astounded. It might run rings around a DB9 in terms of speed. But, in terms of class??? I knew that Bob wouldn't understand, but I thought that you would. Let's put it this way. Imagine that we both turn up at the casino in Monaco. Which car will get a parking space at the front of the Casino? You know the answer! Your Evo will be directed towards the rear of the building. The Aston will get a space beside the main entrance. Speed isn't everything. Some places still appreciate pure class. Your Evo has power. The DB9 has Power, **Beauty** and **Soul**. If you can ignore the beauty and soul, then an Evo is suitable for you. However, I challenge you to take a test drive in an Aston and not realise that all those other so-called supercars are nothing but heaps of crap. Regards Donal -- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Sep 5, 7:32 pm, OzOne wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:44:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote: We need to stimulate a bit of discussion here. They are both discussing rubbish cars. I'm surprised at Oz, because I thought that he had some taste in these matters. I'm not surprised that Bob is looking at these second rate supercars. It fits his modis operandi. Regards Donal Donal, even my Evo 9 would run rings around the Aston on anything but the M1. Have a look at this purpose built pocket rocket and you will be impressed I'm sure..drive one and you'll be astounded. Don't bother, Ozzy. Donal has been well trained by his boob tube. He hears a brand name and makes assumptions. I seriously doubt he could understand or appreciate what the Evo X SST transmission can do or what active yaw control does...two features found on only race cars and the Bugati. He'd never understand why the Evo has those restrictive seats, or why drive modes are there. Of course the Evo is a world class sports car, but as my friends love to remind me, it's also a specialty car aimed at a specific group of drivers. Most would prefer a BMW 135i or 335xi for example, two great cars that are close in cost. And if Donal is so ignorant to not know that the new GT-R, a car far more rare than Aston Martins, sits at the pinnacle of what driving is all about, then what's the point of trying to teach him? R. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com