> Since 5-figure mounts can't do this I was skeptical also. I
> have checked out the page and the longest exposure is for 5
> minutes and that through a short FL refractor. Where is this
> 30 minute long FL exposure hidden?

Jeez, what is this, the Spanish Inquisition?

I don't ever recall claiming I put up any images with that exposure length.
In fact, the image there was done in altaz mode and shows detectable field
rotation.

As I said earlier, I set the crosshairs of my Orion 9mm illiminated-reticle
eyepiece on my target star. (I've done this more than once, using both Rigel
and Procyon) I went inside. I watched 20 minutes of Space: Above and
Beyond (a great show, IHMO); er - for the sake of completeness, this was
while I was using Procyon.

My watch is a Breitling Chronospace, it can certainly distinguish an interval
of 20 minutes with relative accuracy. I came back outside. Rigel was still
within one half of its apparent disk on the crosshairs. That was the
Northwest crosshair intersection, BTW. The Orion EP uses the dual bifiliar
(quadfilar?) crosshair layout. So, either someone went and guided my scope
while I wasn't there, or it did it itself. Personally, I don't think it was
the neighbor's cat, but we do have a beaver pond nearby. Oh yes, I did focus
the scope; the star image was showing nice diffraction rings, and the stellar
disk had an apparent diameter of a bit less than the central box made by
the crosshairs.

Ready for some more unbelievable claims? I can sync on a star near dec 0
and then slew to Polaris and find it within 3 or 4 apparent stellar diameters
using the very same 9mm eyepiece. The last star I tried this with was Alphard,
last Friday night.

Have I left anything out? I'll check with the beaver tonight and see if
he's the culprit.

Disclaimer: of course, I don't know what the scope did while I wasn't watching.
It may very well have a periodic error of 30 degrees or more. Maybe I just
happened to catch it at the right time. In fact, maybe I was actually asleep
on a beach in the Pacific or something, and it was all a dream. After all,
we all know what absolute, unreliable, junk Meade scopes are.

______________________________
| Bill Ezell |
| http://www.duckpond.mv.com |
------------------------------

The box said 'Win95, NT, or better', so I used Linux

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: RE: [M]: LX200 Dec Rebuild- Performance Results 3 Months Later, Robert Preston
Next message: Re: [M]: Archives and Pages -Reply, CLIFFORD PETERSON
Next message in thread: RE: [M]: Parking software for LX200, Fansler, David
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: Parking software for LX200, Gene Horr