Photos of 4/8/24 solar eclipse

[Charles Link]

 

[Charles Link]

The above are two photos of today's eclipse in Chicago. I projected the image from my medium power telescope of the eclipsed sun onto a screen. In the first picture about one third of the sun is blocked by the moon, and about two-thirds in the second picture. We had clear skies in Chicago today that made for very good viewing. We had about 94% of the sun blocked at the peak.

 

[DennisN]

View attachment 343033View attachment 343034

Very nice photos!
And I think I recognize that nice little scope, actually. It's a cool and very compact design.
I've been looking at that model when browsing telecopes to buy on the internet.

But I don't quite remember which brand and model it is.

 

[Charles Link]

Very nice photos!
And I think I recognize that nice little scope, actually. It's a cool and very compact design.
I've been looking at that model when browsing telecopes to buy on the internet.

But I don't quite remember which brand and model it is.

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

 

[dlgoff]

I took some photos with my little Cannon "point and shoot", but it was just too bright, so I deleted them. But at least I got to see it. About 80% to 90% coverage here at my place in Kansas.

 

[collinsmark]

Very nice photos!
And I think I recognize that nice little scope, actually. It's a cool and very compact design.
I've been looking at that model when browsing telecopes to buy on the internet.

But I don't quite remember which brand and model it is.

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

Ah, yes, the Edmund Scientific Astroscan. It was a big hit in its day.

Built with the underlying philosophies of "Keep it simple, stupid (KISS)" and "The best telescope is the one that gets used," the Astroscan was a great success.

• It was inexpensive -- it's price on par with a rickety "Christmas scope*,
• its shorter focal length (f = 445 mm) and fast optics (f/4.2, aperture of 105 mm) made the scope far more user friendly with a nice, bright view. The Astroscan's 105 mm aperture was huge compared to the ~60 mm aperture of most "Christmas scopes*" of the day. Yet the wide field (shorter focal length) made it easy to find celestial objects in the night sky.

Setup was a cinch. Just plop the thing on a [stable, solid] table and away you go. For its time, it really was a great telescope for beginners, and maybe as a grab-and-go scope for more advanced users.

It's biggest downside is that you couldn't realistically upgrade to higher quality eyepieces. If for no other reason, the higher quality eyepiece's weight alone would cause the whole thing to slump/slide forward under its own weight. Also, I don't think the eyepeices conformed to standard barrel size, so you might not be able to find a 3rd-party eyepiece that fit.

Keep in mind the Astroscan was introduced before "GoTo" telescope's existed. Once the price of electronics became affordable, and the GoTo electronics became commonplace, the Astroscan faded into obscurity.

For what it's worth, I never did own an Edmund Scientific Astroscan, although I did consider saving up for one when I was a teenager. It never quite worked out though.

==============
*(A "Christmas scope," is a term for a poor quality telescope marketed on misleading specs that the buyer probably doesn't understand [e.g., "200x magnification!"], and ends up giving a poor user experience filled with frustration. The Astroscan was meant to be the opposite of that, but at about the same price. The term "Christmas scope" comes from the idea that the person actually buying the holiday present knows little to nothing about astronomy, and is more easily manipulated.)

Edit: I just found an Ed Ting video on the Edmund Scientific Astroscan. He gives a lot more detail on its function and history than I gave:

 

[Charles Link]

Very interesting @collinsmark :-) I've had my telescope for 30+ years now, and I've seen the rings of Saturn with it, along with 4 of the moons of Jupiter. In December 2020, I saw both in the same field of view. I've also seen a star pass behind the rings of Saturn, (about 25 years ago), and about ten years ago, I saw the occultation of Venus projected on a screen (like the above eclipse), as Venus passed between earth and the sun. I have also gotten a very good look at the moon numerous times, where craters are much more visible, and even structures= hills/mountains at the edge of the moon, where it isn't a perfect circle. It's really everything I could ask for in a telescope. I have two eyepieces for it=a x17 that I used for the eclipse, and a x50 to view things like the rings of Saturn and the moons of Jupiter. :-)

 

[JT Smith]

A friend asked another friend if she'd taken the time to see the eclipse. She replied, "Why would I do that?" Anything short of of totality and you kind of have to use your imagination to make it at all exciting.

I took a few minutes out of my day to get a snapshot of the eclipse. I just used a pair of mini binoculars and a sheet of printer paper taped to a piece of cardboard. It was a little fuzzy because I was too lazy to mount the binoculars on a tripod. I took a lot more care for the last Venus and Mercury transits. But despite being hand held it was good enough to see the essential fact: a piece of the sun was missing. Could even make out a sunspot.