Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Posted by Roy Hughes at 16:56 on 2011 May 28
Unfortunatly IE 9 won’t run on Windows XP. Looks like I’m going to have to make some room on my hard drive and download Firefox!Roy
Posted by Gary Poyner at 12:13 on 2011 May 28
Although I don’t use IE, I did download the new version (IE 9) and couldn’treproduce Roy’s problem. IE 9 did seem to wrap the text in the chat box, andfitted the screen nicely.Gary
Posted by Callum Potter at 21:19 on 2011 May 27
Roy sent me some screenshots offline, and I was able to determine the problem is at least partly due to IE which was not wrapping the text of a long url in the Chat Box. Firefox and Chrome both wrapped the text so that it did not affect the page width. To solve it i deleted the chat post (sorry Paul).If anyone wants to post long url’s in the chat, then it might be better to use a tinyurl.Thanks, Callum
Posted by Paul A Brierley at 06:26 on 2011 May 27
It’s not the Orion one, but RVO sell there own branded observing chair. And they have them in stock.http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/rvo-new-observing-chair_d1261.html
Posted by Gary Hendrick at 21:57 on 2011 May 26
Thx for your reply, Callum. I did look at them at the suggestion of the USA site. I looked at Telescope House too and found nothing on their lists either. I think I will have to call them and ask them to import it for me. They should make the effort as I plan to spend £1k on scope and equipment. I got some plans for a chair from the internet (attatched), but I’m dangerous with a saw Lol
Posted by Callum Potter at 17:35 on 2011 May 26
You could try Kieron at SCS Astro – they are an Orion dealer…. not in his website list of Orion products though….Callum
Posted by Paul A Brierley at 06:54 on 2011 May 25
Thank you for the link Graham.Seeing Pluto, has given me some encouragement. David.I hope to begin using my D40 later when the night’s return. I have done some experimental test shot’s, through my WO ZS66 and filter wheel, and they are encouraging. I will try M3/M13 and M57 together with some sky portraits. And see how this camera performs.I was very surprised how well my recent Lunar image turned out.Thank you everybody for you’re help…
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 00:11 on 2011 May 23
After a considerable delay, the BBC have at last responded to my last set of comments. While it is gratifying that they have apparently taken on board some of what I was saying, the response isn’t that encouraging in several key areas. I have thus sent back another fairly voluminous set of comments – we will see what that elicits!I’ve attached their response and my reply below (both in Word97 format). [file name=BBC_Response2.doc size=37376]/images_old/fbfiles/files/BBC_Response2.doc[/file] [file name=BBC_Complaint2.doc size=78336]/images_old/fbfiles/files/BBC_Complaint2.doc[/file]
Posted by Duncan Bryson at 17:27 on 2011 May 21
Hello David & CallumWhat I was thinking of was useful astronomical facts (Maybe "To Wow and amaze your friends") with things like distances to the 10 nearest stars and the most up-to date information on exoplanets etc.Duncan
Posted by Callum Potter at 16:00 on 2011 May 20
Hello Duncan,I was waiting for a bit more support for the idea from other posters to the forum.As David mentioned, if you could explain a little more about the sort of thing that might be included, that could be a help.Regards, Callum
Posted by Marlyn Smith at 13:56 on 2011 May 20
You can view more images on the Solar Section web pageswww.britastro.org/~solar/index.phpHere’s some more recent images received hot off the press!
Above prominences 20110519 0833 UT by Dave Tyler
Above AR1216 imaged in H-alpha by Martin Mobberley 20110519 at 0847 UT
Above prominences imaged by Martin Mobberly 20110520 0828 UT
Dave Tyler has merged two images above; the solar limb has been merged with an image of the lunar limb. Take a moment to consider the scale of the lunar limb and then look at the crater away from the limb several hundred km wide. Now look at the size of the that solar prominence some 93,000,000 miles further away and you get some idea of the scale!Solar image taken 20110513 at 0916 UTPosted by David Arditti at 02:12 on 2011 May 18
I don’t quite see what purpose such a category would have. Surely the "interesting facts" would be better put in the astronomical sections to which they relate. What kind of facts do you have in mind?David
Posted by Duncan Bryson at 18:08 on 2011 May 17
Hi CallumCould you add another category for useful facts?Duncan Bryson
Posted by M C Butcher at 10:27 on 2011 May 17
Graham,Many thanks for the introduction to your website. I shall give it a try and let you know how it goes. Of necessity it will be a long term project. Unfortunately I suspect that your final comment will probably be only too true. Fingers crossed!Martin
Posted by M C Butcher at 10:11 on 2011 May 17
Andrea,Once again many thanks. I shall have to give it a try and see how it goes. If I achieve a result of which I am proud then I’ll let you know, otherwise I will have failed. Very many thanks for your help.Martin
Posted by Andrea Tasselli at 18:37 on 2011 May 16
Graham,The problem is not that of the projection but rather of the optical distortions the lens may have.Reg’sAndrea T.
Posted by Graham Relf at 18:24 on 2011 May 16
I have discussed some of the maths involved in aligning images when the camera was not pointing in a fixed direction – hereThe algorithm is built into my own image processor, GRIP, which you can download from my site (from the link above). This is non-commercial software I wrote (and continue to develop) for making my own astrophotos. I’d be interested to know whether it helps in making analemmas.(I think your main problem though is going to be getting regular cloud-free days.)
Posted by Andrea Tasselli at 17:34 on 2011 May 16
Hello Martin,Well, the problem that I see is if that you use a widefield lens or worse still a semi-fisheye, you’ll introduce certainly some degree of distortions in the field geometrical linearity (those can be of all sorts, barrel, pincushion, cylindrical…). By coarse repositioning the camera each time you’ll run the risk of that the actual position of the sun (assuming it being a near point-like object at that focal length) will be misplaced because of geometrical distortions with respect to the "real" position in the sky (according to the analemma). Now, you might be able to correct it by various software ( I think PS does it) but not really sure whether the reference points you’ll need to have in each shot will be enough to sort this out. Maybe it is nit-picking but better be safe than sorry, as they say! This is worsened (by a lot!) if you intend to use white-light filters, since in that case the correction needed must be extrapolated from other shots as you won’t have any references in each sun shot and I don’t kwow of any program that would allow you to do it (short of doing a lot of heavy mathematics and write the program yourself).Naturally it may be that all this sort of issues are not really of much of significance to you, i.e. you won’t mind if the analemma will come out with a bit of geometrical distortion and maybe some slight offset from the actual position in the sky. I just thought it was worth mentioning…Hope it answers your questions.Andrea T.
Posted by Marlyn Smith at 13:54 on 2011 May 16
RobinIf you still require these original CD Roms, I have them. They contain the programmes broadcast on 6th November 2005 and 2nd April 2006.I can send them to you free of charge. E-mail me via the BAA website solar section page with your full name and postal address and I’ll get them in the post to you.Lynsolar[at]britastro.org
