@Dave In Vermont 46% of the poles are in already after 16 minutes and Roy Moore is leading 52% The democrats wants to win that one to accuse Trump of sexual misconduct.

 

@Dave In Vermont congratulations

 

It looks like the UHC-E does pass them, but my concern is it passes a good deal more that may lessen the contrast of the comet sufficiently to pose a distraction. But that's just a guess, mind you.

What I'd like to see is another outfit - like Astronomik or Baader or some nice & small start-up - start making an exclusive SWAN-Filter. One that does just what the now-deceased Lumicon one did.

R.I.P. Lumicon!

evaD the Grim.

And Neb? Doug Jones just won Alabama! By a thread albeit - No Moore is No More! It was a pleasure to see people jumping up & down with signs reading 'NO MOORE' - which is a phrase I've been putting out there for months! YAY!! Now for the other child-molester we've got!

Jail to the Chief!

 

Well, the UHC-E isn't a dedicated Swan filter but I thought it did OK with Comet C/2015 V2 (Johnson). It made it look green anyway and it wasn't so easy to make out without the filter. It's good with apertures under 130mm or thereabouts.

 

Well good!! If it works for you, it should work for anyone!

I'd buy the UHC-E, but I can't find a dealer in the US that will honor my free-points on my credit-card. So I can't afford to merrily buy one just to test it against a filter I know works.

Ah well! But for now at least - we can safely say the UHC-E will work. At least until someone does independent test of the Lumicon R.I.P. Comet-Filter in current production.

 

There doesn't seem like there are many comet filters on the market.

 

Nope. The Lumicon R.I.P. has the market. Such is why I hope someone else will pick up the torch and make them!

 

I suppose it depends on whether they are in demand. I've been experimenting further with eyepieces that can reduce well on a small Mak. The 15mm Revelation (GSO) SuperView works well, so I thought I'd try the 20mm version. Unfortunately it vignettes hideously and is akin to squinting down a Smarties tube.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smarties




The eyeguard and drawtube work really well on this Celestron 40mm Plossl though. I can now finally put this into anything with a compression ring.

 

@Mak the Night I hope you keep a Calc tab with all these tests you do with many eyepieces for the vignetting and the performance with the reducer. It's an exhaustive study!

@Dave In Vermont I knew you would be happy for the success of Doug Jones and the state going from red to blue. I am not a fan of sexual harrassement or these sexual harrasement accusations without much evidences, hopefully it's going to be reformed first. Very nasty stuff has it is right now. (I don't say it's not true in the case of Moore, we will know one day if the evidences manifest themselves)

Some democrats might get the same medecine some day too.

 

Yeah, I am a bit surprised at why some EP's do well with a reducer and some don't. Basically any eyepiece up to 25mm with a 45° FOV or under seems to work.



It's when you get to 50° and over it gets complicated. The 20mm Revelation/GSO 68° SuperView (housing shown above) vignettes badly with a reducer while the 15mm SuperView works spectacularly well with no visible vignetting at all. The 19mm TeleVue Panoptic does very well with only a hint of vignetting.



I decided to cannibalise the SuperView's drawtube and eyeguard for the 40mm Celestron Plossl supplied with my Celestron SCT.

 

Hey Neb -

I've located the transcripts from both CN and SGL (DLM), and they total about 60MB! So I can't post them here as A-C has a max. of 2MB. I'd suggest you send me a PM with your highest-load email in it. If you gave it to me before - I likely shredded it. I do that for security reasons - both yours' & mine. So fear not, I won't foreward my spam at'cha!

Lumicon R.I.P.

R & D

​

 

@Dave In Vermont bah that's OK I believe you in what you say even if I don't read the transcript. The good news is, I saved money, I was about to buy a lumicon filter like 1.x years ago but could not get any. At the local store, there was "a problem with Lumicon"

But have you ever tried Google Drive ?

 

This should help us


Let's pray

 

Okay. It would have been a PITA (pain-in-the-a**) to email all these screenshots. They often need extensive tinkering to get them to be readable after going through the servers.

I've heard of Google Drive, but I know basically nothing about it. What's it all about?

Now this is for you, Mak:

Cartes du Ciel has released a beta of CdC, Version 4.1. I've downloaded same and about to go install it and play. Has a new screen-version, too. Here's a link about the different version:

https://www.ap-i.net/skychart/en/news/a_new_look_for_skychart

And here's the beta of 4.1

https://sourceforge.net/projects/skychart/files/0-beta/

It's through SourceForge, so should be safe. But I'll scan these anyways, of course.

Off to play!

<POIT!>

 

CDC always have a beta program. I wait until they iron the bugs out and only download the finished CDC version. Unless you're a beta tester, which is why they release betas. They will test the beta for years even before it becomes a release candidate. This is why CDC is stable and binaries like Stellarium, which are 'improved' with feature creep every five minutes are a buggy mess from the twilight zone.

 

First 'beta' I've seen in CdC. But I tried it - and you're as right about CdC 'beta's' as you are wrong about Stella! LOL!

But t'was the 1st. 'beta' I've run on CdC. And it promptly exploded in my face! Yuk! No wonder it takes them 15 years to put a new release together!

As for Stellarium, they get better & better! Excellent stuff! And they've never given me a single problem. The 'Changelog' I always read shows what they've done and what to be looking out for - so you know what might start spitting-up bad bytes. And these people are, at present, perfectionists. Maybe thet were messing-up awhile back - but not anymore!

So stop picking on my girlfriend! Stella's alright in MY book! (No! Stella! Put down that Soldering-Gun! No! Don't fry Mak's motherboard! Stella!!!....)

 

CDC has got better over the years and new features actually improve it. It has had bugs though, I think the present release is the most bug free I've ran in many years. New releases are around every three years or so.

Don't get me wrong, I love Stellarium. It certainly had problems on Windows when they changed to the new rendering engine several years ago though, and I wasn't the only one to notice this. The principle bug was it resetting the Windows BIOS clock every time it was launched. I'm running Stellarium 0.12.4 on Ubuntu and I'm happy with it. Patrick Chevalley has the right idea with CDC and tries to iron all the bugs out before a major release.

I blame Google Chrome for instigating these software rapid release cycles in an attempt to appear cutting edge and state of the art. I remember a time when binaries were only upgraded when they needed it.

 

Я рад слышать, что вы как Stellarium. Мне нравится CdC. Мне они нравятся, CdC, Stellarium, TheSkyX, SkyTools и т. Д. Я использую большинство из них. Но помилуйте меня на некоторое время - у меня есть набор писем на русском языке для чтения и перевода.

До последнего времени -

Распутин

PS - Я пробовал Google Chrome. Ненавидел это!

 

Have fun with your Russian translating. Google Chrome не так уж плох, возможно, LOL!

 

AFAIK the beta version has been on CDC's page for years.