From: "Dwight K. Elvey" 
To: atm{at}shore.net
Reply-To: "Dwight K. Elvey" 



>X-Server-Uuid: 1b77f47c-118c-11d5-bbc5-0002a5132c3d
>X-Sender: masuch{at}mail.cia.com.au
>Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:00:54 +1100
>To: "Chuck Dethloff" , atm{at}shore.net
>From: "Mark Suchting" 
>Subject: RE: ATM RE: Bino Scope
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Report-Errors-to: mikell{at}optonline.net
>X-WSS-ID: 1219418C1149989-01-02
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>At 09:13 AM 23/12/2002 -0800, Chuck Dethloff wrote:
>
>>I have never owned a binoscope, but can attest that on a few occasions I
>>definitely have seen an effect in the quality of higher power planetary
>>images when folks were standing in front of my Dobsonians at star parties.
>>After asking them to please move the image improved in these instances. No
>>imagination needed to see the difference either.
>>
>>So, while this may not be a problem most of the time for low to moderate
>>power viewing (I accept the real world evidence offered from Clive, Marty
>>and others), I don't think that one can say it could never be a problem.
>
>Chuck
>
>I don't believe anyone is saying potential heat plumes do not exist or have
>an effect.  And I'd add that my 8" binocular had 14" long
hoods past the
>focuser.   At the same time I think with a true binocular instrument that
>the best detail seen in either eye at any instant is used to build up a
>more stable image. My planetary views were always more detailed with two
>eyes than one, so my real world  experience is that there may be some loss
>in some circumstances as well as some gain again viewing with two different
>light paths.
>
>This thread has bogged down in a criticism of a particular style of
>binocular with a  focus on optimal planetary observing. Don't you guys ever
>have heat of rooftops, concrete slabs, driveways etc to contend with ?  We
>don't live in a perfect world. Perhaps with the level of light pollution in
>the Northern Hemisphere , you have to concentrate much more on looking at
>the Planets,  but I know it wouldn't account for more than 2% of my
>observing time.  It probably needs to be reiterated that a large binocular
>telescope excels best for Deep Sky observing and probably not worth the
>effort if you are focused mainly on  planetary observing.
>
>~Mark Suchting

 Ok, you are right, nebulas, clusters and some galaxies are
much better than chasing planets at high mag, for binos. In most cases, the
viewing site will out weigh any effects from the person.
 The effect is real but for most viewing it isn't a serious issue,
as you say.
Dwight

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP