Re: Jupiter

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T, Oct 23, 2009.

  1. On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:43:38 +1000, Troy Piggins <>
    wrote:

    >The astrophotography has been keeping me occupied lately. This
    >is my first attempt at planetary imaging. Lots to learn, I know.
    >Don't see much astrophotography here so thought I'd share.
    >
    >Taken with a 8" f/10 scope with a 2.5x powermate (like a
    >teleconvertor) giving it an equivalent focal length of around
    >5000mm. Camera was a DBK21 CCD camera.
    >
    >The dark spot is the shadow of one of the moons, and you can just
    >make out the Great Red Spot at the top.
    >
    >http://piggo.com/~troy/photos/2009/2009_10_23/Jupiter091023_1.jpg
    >
    >All up I'm pretty happy with it. Suspect the scope needs some
    >tweaking of the collimation which should give a sharper image.
    >Will have to try that next time, haven't done it before.


    Much depends too on "seeing" conditions. The atmospheric stability. Most
    times you just have to wait and hope for the best days. The very same
    perfectly collimated optics can provide a draw-dropping 3D-looking view of
    Saturn one day, and an irregular mushy blob the next. Look into the
    sharpening techniques that web-cam astrophotographers use, by combining
    details from many many frames to virtually look through the turbulent
    atmosphere, capturing and combining those bits of each image that are
    stable and sharp.

    You might also try stopping down the aperture of your telescope during bad
    seeing conditions. A larger aperture means that your telescope is trying to
    image through larger lower-frequency areas of atmospheric turbulence. If
    the turbulence that night is mostly of the lower-frequency variety it will
    help to filter it out. I keep a 6" mask handy for those times to put on my
    16" scope. Apodizing masks also cure things on some days for planetary
    imaging.
    Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T, Oct 23, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:21:39 +1000, Troy Piggins <>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >How does one stop down the aperture of a fixed aperture scope?
    >The bare scope is f/10. With the 2.5x powermate it becomes an
    >equivalent f/25. I haven't heard of people using those masks
    >you're referring to. I'll look into it. Thanks.


    A simple round hole cut into some opaque plastic, cardboard, or thin
    aluminum sheeting will suffice. Placed over the opening of your telescope.
    For a refractor this is easy (no central obstruction). Just place it
    concentric with the optical axis.

    For a reflector the choice is not so easy. The secondary mirror's size is
    optimized for the light path and f/ratio.

    Larger reflector telescopes can use an aperture mask offset to one side, so
    as to use an unobstructed region of the mirror between the outside diameter
    of the primary and the outside diameter of the secondary, and situated
    between the spider-vanes. Consider too the number of spider-vanes you have.
    If 4 vanes you will have to cut your mask smaller so its diameter fits
    within an open quadrant between any two spider-vanes.

    The huge plus of this for planetary imaging is that now you have an
    obstruction-free telescope. Of reduced aperture but for bright subjects and
    due to "seeing" problems this can be a huge plus too. Many people buy 12"
    or larger reflectors with the intent to only use it as a stopped-down
    off-axis planetary imager. (8"-10" telescopes too, but you then start to
    lose resolution due to primary size alone when stopped-down off-axis.)
    There is a huge cost-savings in buying pre-fabricated easy to make
    manufactured telescopes much greater than the size needed, as opposed to
    buying or building an off-axis (asymmetric) reflecting telescope design
    (see below), or prohibitively expensive refractor of those diameters which
    is now fraught with CA problems.

    With the aperture offset you are no longer plagued with diffraction from
    secondary mirror and its spider supports. Since this is a reflector, you
    now have a telescope that is free of all chromatic-aberration, making it
    much better than a refractor of the same size (large and astronomically
    expensive refractors bought with planetary imaging in mind). Special
    asymmetric reflector telescopes are designed this way, but grinding and
    figuring the offset curvatures are extremely difficult and many ingenious
    methods were tried and found to try to circumvent this fabrication problem.
    One of the more ingenious is to grind an achromat corrective lens for use
    with a standard parabolic mirror set at an angle. This achromat ground to
    the proper figure by using a creative method found for the home telescope
    builder, but then you introduce CA problems. Often, to simplify things,
    they'll just buy a much larger pre-figured mirror and then cut it up into 2
    or 3 smaller offset-telescope primaries. (I don't think I could bring
    myself to do that, even though I have the means. It would be like cutting a
    favorite child into 2's or 3's.)

    By using an offset aperture mask on a large telescope you now have the best
    of 3 worlds. An exceptional planetary imager (the same as a prohibitively
    expensive asymmetric reflector telescope), no CA problems as exists in all
    refractors, and when the mask is removed you now have a very very nice
    deep-sky light-bucket.

    Aside: This is precisely why I chose the size telescope I now have (16"
    dia.). The 16" also not chosen arbitrarily due to costs nor other issues.
    When researching I found that due to even the most pristine seeing
    conditions (unless I am on a mountain-peak), that without adaptive optics
    the resolution of this size telescope is the same as that of Mt. Palomar's
    200" telescope. The weakest link now being caused by the atmosphere itself.
    There was no appreciable gain in resolution by buying larger. Light-grasp
    yes, resolution no. (Keep in mind too, this was before image-stacking
    became popularized to increase resolution. And since I was going to
    primarily use it for visual astronomy this didn't enter into my
    decision-making equations. Then, nor now.)

    Another plus to an offset mask is that you can rotate the aperture-mask to
    find a "sweet spot" of your mirror where the figure is the most pristine.
    This can greatly improve on its 1/8th to 1/20th wavelength of light
    tolerance across its whole surface.

    For smaller telescopes you can try an aperture reducing mask placed
    concentric with the axis of the telescope, but then the smaller you stop
    down the aperture the more that diffraction becomes an issue due to the
    larger percentage of central obstruction vs. the useful light path.

    Experiment.
    Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T, Oct 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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 piss poor attempt of yours to try to
    look like you knew something. Trolls never do.
    Outing Trolls, Oct 24, 2009
    #3
  4. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Noons Guest

    Troy Piggins wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 7:21 AM:
    > * Damn 35 F Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning Today wrote :
    >> * Troy Piggins wrote :
    >>
    >> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 11 lines snipped |=---]
    >>> http://piggo.com/~troy/photos/2009/2009_10_23/Jupiter091023_1.jpg



    Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland,
    eh? :)
    Sometimes I wish I could retire in a place like Maree or Oodnadatta and enjoy
    clear, cloudless skyes all year round. I do recall reading a newspaper in the
    campsite by starlight alone, no moon! Beer (Red Back) ain't half bad over there
    either... ;)


    > Yes, this image was stacked from around 2500 frames of an avi
    > file using Registax. Suspect that's the technique you're
    > referring to.


    Did you get that size image from the 8" scope and sensor alone or did you add a
    converter and/or digital resize?

    I'm toying around with the idea of a 8" or 10" dobsonian, want to get a feel for
    what's possible and what's needed. Kids have been bugging me to get back into
    this stuff...
    Noons, Oct 24, 2009
    #4
  5. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Noons Guest

    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 piss poor attempt of yours to try to
    > look like you knew something. Trolls never do.
    >


    What an idiot...
    Noons, Oct 24, 2009
    #5
  6. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Noons Guest

    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.
    Noons, Oct 24, 2009
    #6
  7. 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 piss 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.
    Look! Another Troll!, Oct 24, 2009
    #7
  8. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Eric Stevens Guest

    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 piss 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_the_gray/3487169197/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
    Eric Stevens, Oct 25, 2009
    #8
  9. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Eric Stevens Guest

    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 piss 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/3338/3487169197_b193aa1704_b.jpg as the
    URL in my previous post.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Oct 25, 2009
    #9
  10. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Noons Guest

    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 piss 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)
    Noons, Oct 25, 2009
    #10
  11. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Noons Guest

    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?
    Noons, Oct 25, 2009
    #11
  12. 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!, Oct 25, 2009
    #12
  13. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Bob Larter Guest

    Noons wrote:
    > 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 piss 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)


    <makes popcorn>

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Oct 25, 2009
    #13
  14. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Noons Guest

    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.
    Noons, Oct 25, 2009
    #14
  15. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Noons Guest

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

    >
    > <makes popcorn>
    >


    it's wasted...
    Noons, Oct 25, 2009
    #15
  16. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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
    Ray Fischer, Oct 25, 2009
    #16
  17. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:09:33 +1100, Noons <>
    wrote:

    >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?


    Jeez!

    You were the one who mentioned Oodnadata.

    I thought I was coming to your aid.

    Who needs enemies with friends like you?



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Oct 25, 2009
    #17
  18. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Twibil Guest

    On Oct 24, 9:28 pm, Bob Larter <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > <makes popcorn>


    Melts butter and breaks out salt while gazing at Jupe through his 13
    incher.

    I've got no dog in this fight as I usually observe from 8,000'+, but
    heck: it's free entertainment and worth every penny.
    Twibil, Oct 25, 2009
    #18
  19. Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T

    Noons Guest

    Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 7:39 PM:


    > Hence why Siding Springs Observatory is a very good location - it is in
    > a very lightly populated area so there is little light pollution. It's


    and of course according to the florida troll, "badly" placed because it is inland.


    > Get out into the outback of Australia, and the stars twinkle much less
    > than they do in coastal areas. The twinkling of course is related to the
    > amount of atmospheric disturbance.


    Doug: this idiot lives in florida, usa. He's got no clue what he's talking
    about when it comes to outback Australia: he doesn't even know where that is.
    Don't forget his is the country where beauty queen contestants don't know which
    continent Paris is in.
    Don't waste your time reasoning with a troll, not worth it.

    > <snip crap from a troll who knows nothing about what he is talking about>


    Bingo!
    Noons, Oct 25, 2009
    #19
  20. On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:44:43 +1100, Noons <> wrote:

    >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!
    >


    bwahahah right back atcha ... you know nothing of geology as well, I see.
    There's a very good reason that people in FL have only built large
    structures in certain locations. Even then, some eventually fall into
    sink-holes.

    **** are you ever an idiot.

    >
    >> 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.


    Ahh..., the childish comments from a troll trying to save face after just
    having been proved to be the ignorant fool that he is.

    Warms my heart to see this admission from you, it does.
    Outing Ignorant Trolls Is FUN!, Oct 25, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Giselle
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    479
    FYI-Geek101
    Mar 31, 2005
  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Got my Jupiter 21m 200mm f/4 lens

    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,581
    Sheldon
    Jan 20, 2005
  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Jupiter 200mm 21m f4 lens photographs

    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,011
    Siddhartha Jain
    Jan 25, 2005
  4. °Andy°

    Jupiter!

    °Andy°, Oct 8, 2003, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    409
    Gary Fisher
    Oct 10, 2003
  5. Rich

    Re: Jupiter

    Rich, Oct 23, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    403
    Damn 35 F. Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning T
    Oct 24, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page