Mountaineerfan's Blog

Do I really need to post this lesson on why you don't mess with lightning?Do I really have to point out how lucky all 91 of these people are?

Sun Aug 3, 6:44 PM ET

Yahoo! News/AP

unknown writer

OSLO, Norway - A lightning bolt struck 91 auto racing fans at a racetrack in Norway Sunday, and 45 people were taken to hospital with minor burns, police said.

"No one was seriously injured," police officer Hans Eng told the Associated Press. "But some of them will stay in the hospital for observation."

The lightning hit a hill where spectators at the rallycross were sitting. Rallycross is a form of sprint-style automobile racing on a closed circuit.

The race, a national championship, was called off after the incident.

Eng said 16 ambulances and three medical helicopters were brought to the scene at Flisa, about eight kilometers from the Swedish border.

The injured fans were taken to four different hospitals.

"I've never seen anything like it; spectators fell off their seats," a witness, Roar Bringaker, was quoted as saying on the Web site of Norwegian paper Verdens Gang. "People got scared and ran. It was chaotic."

Even Wiger, another spectator, went to the racetrack with his 14-year-old son and some friends.

"It was a raining and suddenly the lightning hit the stand," he was quoted as saying to the Norwegian News Agency NTB. "We all tried to get down from the hill. Many screamed and cried. The situation was dramatic. I've never experienced anything similar."

The thunderstorm knocked out telephone service in the area, police said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080803/ap_on_sp_au_ra
_ne/norway_lightning_4

Here is an excellent article by former astronaut Walter Cunningham on how NASA has gotten caught up in the politics of "global warming".I find especially interesting the parts about political hack and Soros fist puppet James Hansen.Don't get me started.....again.If you've paid any attention on this site at all you've seen me nail this barely has been/wanna be "scientist" on everything from his 1971 predictions about the coming ice age to his taking of bribes from left wing fund raiser George Soros and The Heinz Foundation in exchange for lying about being censored by the Bush administration.

Anyways,this is a great article which shows that not everyone at NASA is intimidated by this creep and his Al Gorian friends at the IPCC.

from Launch magazine

Written by Walter Cunningham

NASA has played a key role in one of the greatest periods of scientific progress in history. It is uniquely positioned to collect the most comprehensive data on our biosphere.

For example, recently generated NASA data enabled scientists to finally understand the Gulf Stream warming mechanism and its effect on European weather. Such data will allow us to improve our models, resulting in better seasonal forecasts.

NASA’s Aqua satellite is showing that water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, works to offset the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2). This information, contrary to the assumption used in all the warming models, is ignored by global warming alarmists.

Climate understanding and critical decision making require comprehensive data about our planet’s land, sea, and atmosphere. Without an adequate satellite system to provide such data, policy efforts and monitoring international environmental agreements are doomed to failure. Our satellite monitoring capability is being crippled by interagency wrangling and federal budget issues. As much as a third of our satellites need replacing in the next couple of years.

NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.

There are excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the Sun and the Earth’s temperature, while scientists cannot find a relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption, and global temperatures. But global warming is an issue no longer being decided in the scientific arena.

Saying the Earth is warming is to state the obvious. Since the end of the ice age, the Earth’s temperature has increased approximately 16 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet. That is certain and measurable evidence of warming, but it is not evidence of AGW—human-caused warming.

We can track the temperature of the Earth back for millennia. Knowing the temperature of the Earth, past or present, is a matter of collecting data, analyzing it, and coming up with the best answer to account for the data. Collecting such data on a global basis is a NASA forte.

I believe in global climate change, but there is no way that humans can influence the temperature of our planet to any measurable degree with the tools currently at their disposal. Any human contribution to global temperature change is lost in the noise of terrestrial and cosmic factors.

Our beautiful home planet has been warming and cooling for the last 4.8 billion years. Most recently, it has been warming—be it ever so slightly—but there is nothing unusual about it! The changes and rates of change in the Earth’s temperature, just since the Industrial Revolution, have occurred many times in our climatic history. While climate scientists generally agree that the Earth’s temperature is always changing, not many of them would say that humans are responsible for those changes.

None of this is to say there are not legitimate reasons to restrict emissions of any number of chemicals into the atmosphere. We should just not fool ourselves into thinking we will change the temperature of the Earth by doing so.

In a December 2007 Senate report, 400 prominent scientists signed a letter pointing out that climate change was a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Their ranks included experts in climatology, geology, oceanography, biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, economics, chemistry, mathematics, environmental sciences, engineering, physics, and paleo-climatology. Their message: When changes are gradual, man has an almost infinite ability to adapt and evolve.

The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Historically, temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels, and there have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times what they are now, periods characterized not by warming but by glaciation. You might have to go back half a million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you only have to go back to the Medieval Warming Period, from the 10th to the 14th Century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of these events were caused by variations in CO2 levels.

Even though CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of “greenhouse gases,” alarmists have made it the whipping boy for global warming (probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other principal constituents, H2O, CH4, and N2O). Since human activity does contribute a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, they blame us for global warming.

Other inconvenient facts ignored by the activists: Carbon dioxide is a nonpolluting gas, essential for plant photosynthesis. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere produce bigger harvests.

In spite of warnings of severe consequences from rising seas, droughts, severe weather, species extinction, and other disasters, the U.S. has not been stampeded into going along with the recommendations of the UN Panel on Climate Change—so far. Even though evidence supports the American position, we have begun to show signs of caving in to the alarmists.

With scientific evidence going out of style, emotional arguments and anecdotal data are ruling the day. The media subjects us to one frightening image of environmental nightmare after another, linking each to global warming. Journalists and activist scientists use hurricanes, wildfires, and starving polar bears to appeal to our emotions, not to our reason. They are far more concerned with anecdotal observations, such as the frozen sea ice inside the Arctic Circle, than they are with understanding why it is happening and how frequently it has occurred in the past.

After warnings that 2007 would be the hottest year on record and a record year for hurricanes, what we experienced was the coolest year since 2001 and, by some measures, the most benign hurricane season in the Northern Hemisphere in three decades.

Even though recent changes in our atmosphere are all within the bounds of the Earth’s natural variability, a growing number of people are willing to throw away trillions of dollars on fruitless solutions. Why do we allow emotional appeals and anecdotal data to shape our conclusions and influence our expenditures with the science and technology we have available at our fingertips?

The situation is complex, but the sad state of scientific literacy in America today is partially to blame for belief in AGW. When a 2006 National Science Foundation survey found 25 percent of Americans not knowing the Earth revolves around the Sun, you know that science education is at a new low and society is vulnerable to the emotional appeal of AGW. And don’t underestimate the role of politics and political correctness.

The public debate should focus on the real cause of global temperature change and whether we can do anything about it. Is global warming a natural inevitability, or is it AGW—human caused?

The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war; a war between true believers in human-caused global warming and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed. “True believers” are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.

It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one of the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him.

Warming in the upper atmosphere should occur before any surface warming effect, but NASA’s own data show that has not been happening. Global temperature readings—accurate to 0.1 degree Celsius—are gathered by orbiting satellites. Interestingly, in the 18 years those satellites have been recording global temperatures, they have actually shown a slight decrease in average temperatures.

Hansen is currently calling for a reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 10 percent and a moratorium on coal-fired power plants, while claiming the Bush administration is censoring him. Other so-called scientists are saying the world must bring carbon emissions to near zero to keep temperatures from rising.

In today’s politically correct environment, many are reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom; when they do, they are frequently ignored. When NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, Hansen’s boss and a distinguished scientist in his own right, attempted to draw a distinction between Hansen’s personal and political views and the science conducted by his agency, he was soon forced to back off.

It is the true believers who, when they have no facts on their side, try to silence their critics. When former NASA mathematician Ferenc Miskolczi pointed out that “greenhouse warming” may be mathematically impossible, NASA would not allow him to publish his work. Miskolczi dared to question the simplifying assumption in the warming model that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. He pointed out that when you use the correct thickness—about 65 miles—the greenhouse effect disappears! Ergo: no AGW. Miskolczi resigned in disgust and published his proof in the peerreviewed Hungarian journal Weather.

For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric CO2 has continued to accumulate—up about 4 percent in the last 10 years—the global mean temperature has remained flat. That should raise obvious questions about CO2 being the cause of climate change.

Instead, AGW enthusiasts are embracing more regulation, greater government spending, and higher taxes in a futile attempt to control what is beyond our control—the Earth’s temperature. One of their political objectives, unstated of course, is the transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations or, as the social engineers put it, from the North to the South, which may be their real agenda.

At the Bali Conference on Climate Change in December 2007, the poor nations insisted that the costs of technology to limit emissions and other impacts of climate change on their countries be paid by the rich nations. Most anticipated a windfall of money flowing into their countries to develop technology or purchase carbon credits. In this scenario, selling allotments for CO2 emissions would provide a temporary boost to their own cash flow, while severely limiting the economic development of those countries purchasing the carbon credits.

In the face of overwhelming evidence for natural temperature variation, proponents of AGW are resorting to a precautionary argument: “We must do something just in case we are responsible, because the consequences are too terrible if we are to blame and do nothing.” They hope to stampede government entities into committing huge amounts of money before their fraud is completely exposed—before science and truth save the day.

Politicians think they can reverse global warming by stabilizing CO2 emissions with a cockamamie scheme of “cap and trade.” A government entity would sell CO2 allocations to those industries producing it. The trillions of dollars in new taxes and devastation to the economy would be justified by claiming it will lower the temperature of the Earth. This rationalization is dependent on two assumptions: (1) that CO2 is responsible for the cause of changes in the Earth’s temperature, and (2) a warmer Earth would be bad for humanity.

The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that. That is why some studies claim CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global warming.

Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on the seasonal and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good case can be made that a warmer average temperature would be even more beneficial for humans.

For a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars a cap-and-trade system would eventually cost the United States, we could pay for development of clean coal, oil-shale recovery systems, and nuclear power, and have enough left over to pay for exploration of our solar system.

By law, NASA cannot involve itself in politics, but it can surely champion the role of science to inform politicians. With so many uninformed and misguided politicians ignoring the available science, NASA should fill the void. NASA is synonymous with science. Allowing our priorities to drift away from hard science is tantamount to embracing decadence. NASA will surely suffer; and politicizing science is killing it.

I do see hopeful signs that some true believers are beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let’s hope that NASA can focus the global warming discussion back on scientific evidence before we perpetrate an economic disaster on ourselves.

Editor’s note: At LAUNCH, we certainly recognize that global warming is a very controversial subject with honest, well-reasoned opinions on both sides. In fact, in this issue, Apollo 14’s Edgar Mitchell shares his own concerns as part of a wide-ranging interview beginning on page 60.

http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-
Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html

While on the subject of so called "global warming" I may as well share this one from this weekend's Washington Post.Can you believe it?An objective look at climate change from The Post.I'm now expecting a very cold winter with a lot of very deep snow.

We're stuck on the notion that climate change is the culprit every time a natural disaster strikes. But that's just muddying the waters.

Sunday, August 3, 2008; Page B01

We're heading into the heart of hurricane season, and any day now, a storm will barrel toward the United States, inspiring all the TV weather reporters to find a beach where they can lash themselves to a palm tree. We can be certain of two things: First, we'll be told that the wind is blowing very hard and the surf is up. Second, some expert will tell us that this storm might be a harbinger of global warming.

Somewhere along the line, global warming became the explanation for everything. Right-thinking people are not supposed to discuss any meteorological or geophysical event -- a hurricane, a wildfire, a heat wave, a drought, a flood, a blizzard, a tornado, a lightning strike, an unfamiliar breeze, a strange tingling on the neck -- without immediately invoking the climate crisis. It causes earthquakes, plagues and backyard gardening disappointments. Weird fungus on your tomato plants? Classic sign of global warming.

You are permitted to note, as a parenthetical, that no single weather calamity can be ascribed with absolute certainty (roll your eyes here to signal the exasperating fussiness of scientists) to what humans are doing to the atmosphere. But your tone will make it clear that this is just legalese, like the fine-print warnings on the flip side of a Lipitor ad.

Some people are impatient with even a token amount of equivocation. A science writer for Newsweek recently flat-out declared that this year's floods in the Midwest were the result of climate change, and in the process, she derided the wishy-washy climatologists who couldn't quite bring themselves to reach that conclusion (they "trip over themselves to absolve global warming").

Well, gosh, I dunno. Equivocation isn't a sign of cognitive weakness. Uncertainty is intrinsic to the scientific process, and sometimes you have to have the courage to stand up and say, "Maybe."

Seems to me that it's inherently impossible to prove a causal connection between climate and weather -- they're just two different things. Moreover, the evidence for man-made climate change is solid enough that it doesn't need to be bolstered by iffy claims. Rigorous science is the best weapon for persuading the public that this is a real problem that requires bold action. "Weather alarmism" gives ammunition to global-warming deniers. They're happy to fight on that turf, since they can say that a year with relatively few hurricanes (or a cold snap when you don't expect it) proves that global warming is a myth. As science writer John Tierney put it in the New York Times earlier this year, weather alarmism "leaves climate politics at the mercy of the weather."

There's an ancillary issue here: Global warming threatens to suck all the oxygen out of any discussion of the environment. We wind up giving too little attention to habitat destruction, overfishing, invasive species tagging along with global trade and so on. You don't need a climate model to detect that big oil spill in the Mississippi. That "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico -- an oxygen-starved region the size of Massachusetts -- isn't caused by global warming, but by all that fertilizer spread on Midwest cornfields.

Some folks may actually get the notion that the planet will be safe if we all just start driving Priuses. But even if we cured ourselves of our addiction to fossil fuels and stabilized the planet's climate, we'd still have an environmental crisis on our hands. Our fundamental problem is that -- now it's my chance to sound hysterical -- humans are a species out of control. We've been hellbent on wrecking our environment pretty much since the day we figured out how to make fire.

T his caused that: It would be nice if climate and weather were that simple.

But "one can only speak rationally about odds," Kerry Emanuel, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied hurricanes and climate change, told me last week. "Global warming increases the probabilities of floods and strong hurricanes, and that is all that you can say."

Emanuel's research shows that in the past 25 years, there's been an uptick in the number of strong storms, though not necessarily in the number of hurricanes overall. Climate models show that a 1-degree Celsius rise in sea-surface temperatures should intensify top winds by about 5 percent, which corresponds to a 15 percent increase in destructive power. The tropical Atlantic sea surface has warmed by 0.6 degrees Celsius in the past half-century.

At my request, Emanuel ran a computer program to see how much extra energy Hurricane Katrina had because of increases in sea-surface temperature. His conclusion: Katrina's winds were about 2 percent stronger in the Gulf, and not significantly stronger at landfall. Maybe climate change was a factor in generating such a storm, or in the amount of moisture it carried, but the catastrophe that Katrina caused in New Orleans can more plausibly be attributed to civil engineers who built inadequate levees, city planning that let neighborhoods materialize below sea level and Bush administration officials who didn't do such a heckuva job.

Let's go back to those Iowa floods. Humans surely contributed to the calamity: Farmland in the Midwest has been plumbed with drainage pipes; streams have been straightened; most of the state's wetlands have been engineered out of existence; land set aside for conservation is being put back into corn production to meet the demands of the ethanol boom. This is a landscape that's practically begging to have 500-year floods every decade.

Was climate change a factor in the floods? Maybe. A recent report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that heavier downpours are more likely in a warming world. Thomas Karl, a NOAA scientist, says that there has been a measurable increase in water vapor over parts of the United States and more precipitation in the Midwest.

But tree-ring data indicate that the state has gone through a cycle of increasing and decreasing rainfall for hundreds of years. The downpours this year weren't that unusual, according to Harry J. Hillaker Jr., the Iowa state meteorologist. "The intensity has not really been excessive on a short-term scale," he said. "We're not seeing three-inch-an-hour rainfall amounts."

This will be a wet year (as was last year), but Iowa may not set a rainfall record. The wettest year on record was 1993. The second wettest: 1881. The third wettest: 1902.

Iowa is an awkward place to talk about global warming, because the state has actually been a bit cooler in the summer than it was in the first half of the 20th century. Hillaker says the widespread shift to annual plants (corn and soybeans) and away from perennial grasses has altered the climate. The 10 hottest summers in Iowa have been, in order, 1936, 1934, 1901, 1988, 1983, 1931, 1921, 1955, 1933 and 1913. Talk about extreme weather: One day in 1936, Iowa set a state record with a high temperature of 117 degrees. And no one blamed it on global warming.

Rest assured, we may find ways to ruin the planet even before the worst effects of global warming kick in. The thing that gets you in the end is rarely the thing you're paying attention to.

The basic problem is that there are so many of us now. Four centuries ago, there were about 500 million people on Earth. Today there are that many, plus 6 billion. We're rapidly heading toward 9 billion. Conservatives say that we just need to focus on maintaining free markets and let everything sort itself out through the miracle of the invisible hand. But the political tide is turning against unfettered free markets and toward greater regulation. Climate-change policy is part of that: Somehow we've got to embed environmental effects into the cost of energy sources, consumer goods and so on. The market approach by itself has let us down.

Viewed broadly, it appears that humans are environment-destroying creatures by nature. The notion of the prelapsarian era in which we lived in perfect harmony with nature has been effectively shattered by such scientists as Jared Diamond, the author of "Collapse," and Tim Flannery, who wrote "The Future Eaters." If everything gets simplified and reduced to a global-warming narrative, we'll be unable to see the trees for the forest.

Consider the June issue of Scientific American, where you'll find a photograph of a parched lake, the mud baked into the kind of desiccated tiles that scream "drought." The caption says: "Climate shift to unprecedentedly dry weather, along with diversion of water for irrigation, has converted this former reservoir in China's Minqin County into desert."

Um . . . "this former reservoir?" Look closely, and you can see concrete walls in the background. This is not a natural place: It's a manufactured landscape. Here's a wild guess: This part of China is an environmental disaster that has very little to do with climate change and very much to do with high population and intensifying agriculture.

Last week, we saw reports of more wildfires in California. Sure as night follows day, people will lay some of the blame on climate change. But there's also the minor matter of people building homes in wildfire-susceptible forests, overgrown with vegetation due to decades of fire suppression. That's like pitching a tent on the railroad tracks.

The message that needs to be communicated to these people is: "Your problem is not global warming. Your problem is that you're nuts."

You should definitely worry about global warming. But you don't need to worry about global warming when your house is on fire.

Joel Achenbach is a reporter on The Post's national staff and blogs at washingtonpost.com/achenblog.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
le/2008/08/01/AR2008080103014.html?hpid=opinionsbox1a>

I know this story is a couple of months old but I'm posting it now as a counter point to Sue's post titled "Hugh Chunk Snaps Off Storied Arctic Ice Shelf ".

for The National Post

by Lorne Gunter

January 07, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/sto
ry.html?id=1987d3e5-0c53-46fb-a01a-74bb49718c8e&k=97665

Now let's wrap up with a quick guide to stuff y'all might wanna read or check out on the net regarding binocs:

On-line Binocular Tutorials

Some web guides to binocs and binocular astronomy:

Night Sky Info's guide to binoculars: http://www.nightskyinfo.com/binoculars/

Bigbinoculars.com is the sales division of Oberwerks.Cool website to check out even if yer just curious.Here is ther Q&A page:

http://bigbinoculars.com/faq.htm

One man's list of bino visible night sky objects: http://www.lightandmatter.com/binosky/binosky.html<
/a>

Here's a pretty good page on binocular astronomy with some other projects too: http://www.astronomyinyourhands.com/activities/jewel
softhesky.html

Another "how they work" page: http://www.chuckhawks.com/binocular_basics.htm

Here is the cool site of a British astro equipment dealer named Monk Optics.Here is their binocs tutorial:http://www.monkoptics.co.uk/aboutbinoculars
.html

Here is the Wiki article on binocs.I know some people bust on Wiki because they say it can't be trusted due to the fact that anyone can write an article.The way I see it you should always cross reference anything.Also,if you see something inaccurate on Wiki you have the option of disputing it which is why I always check the "Discussion" page too.Overall I've found it to be very accurate considering it's potential not to be.Anyways,here's the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binoculars

Here is an article from Sky & Telescope magzine on binocs for astronomy: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/howto/howtoequipment/
3389576.html?imw=Y If you're just getting started in astronomy consider a subscription to this rag.

Here are a couple of very good tutorials from a company called Opticsplanet: http://www.opticsplanet.net/how-to-buy-binoculars.ht
ml#ch01

Here is another from them specifically regarding astronomy binocs: http://www.opticsplanet.net/binastro.html

Here is an absolute ton of binocular reviews: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/section.php?sectionid=21
&/index.html

A whole bunch more reviews here: http://www.cloudynights.com/category.php?category_id
=48&pr=2 

Binocular and Astronomy Books

Now for some informative books on the subject of binos and binocular astronomy:

Binoculars and All Purpose Telescopes written by Dr. Henry Paul in 1980.Published by American Photographic Book Publishing.This book,despite being from 1980,is still one of the best I've ever seen.I landed this many moons ago at the Harrisonburg Book Fair for about a buck.You can find this one on Amazon.This book goes into quite a bit of technical details about binocs but not so much that it can't be understood by the layman.Hell,even I can understand it so what does that tell ya?Great chapters on checking optics alone make it worth whatever you pay.

Touring the Universe Through Binoculars:A Complete Astronomer's Guidebook by Philip Harrington.This is a great book from 1990.Our local library had this one and I read it a couple of times and highly recommend it.

Binocular Highlights:99 Celestial Sights for Binocular Users from Gary Seronik and Sky & Telescope Magazine.This is a small format book with spiral binding(to fold flat)and coated pages to protect them from moisture.This book has many rave reviews and is on my own wishlist.

Stargazing with Binoculars by Robin Scagell and David Frydman.A brand spanking new book with no reviews yet.Looks promising though.

Binocular Stargazing by Michael Reynolds.Another one on my list with great reviews.

The New Astronomer by Carol Stott.This is one of those DK books from the Brits.It just so happens I'm reading this one right now.What can I say?I love the layout of these books.

The Backyard Astronomer's Guide by Terence Dickinson 2nd Edition from 2002.I had the priviledge of reading the 1st edition of this book from `91 and am reading the 2nd edition now.This is the end all book of beginning backyard amateur astronomy if you don't count the next one on the list.Pretty much everything you wanna know about any facet from eyeballs to eyepieces and everything else.This book is a bit pricey( around $35) and I would also recommend waiting until September when the 3rd edition is due out.

NightWatch:A Practical Guide to Viewing the Universe also by Terence Dickinson,from 2004 this is the 4th edition and is updated through 2018.While I haven't had a chance to read this book yet it is on my list of "must have" books.This book has almost a hundred five star reviews on Amazon which is why I wanna read it and why I'm including it here.This book supposedly comes with some excellent star charts which are easily readable by red light and is spiral bound to lay flat.

Concise Atlas of the Stars by Surge Brunier and Akira Fujii.This is supposed to be an awesome star chart book.It has actual night sky photos of each constellation with a transparent overlay showing the constellations and star names.Spiral bound to lay flat.

Astronomy Magazines:

Anyone new to astronomy could really benefit from a subscription to these two rags:

The first is Sky and Telescope and their wed addy is here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/

The second is Astronomy Magazine and they can be found here: http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx

Binocular Dealers:

Now for some online binocular dealers.These are the most reputable ones I know of.This first one is the only one I have personal experience with and,so far,they've treated me well on top of getting rave reviews from many,many others:

http://www.binoculars.com/ or http://www.telescopes.com/ these are both owned by the same people and are pretty much the same dealer.They both belong to Netshops.com.

Both of the following netsites are both the same also.They are both the sales division of Oberwerks: http://www.bigbinoculars.com/ and http://www.giantbinoculars.com/ Yes,they do sell other brands like Fujinon.These people are binocular freaks.Personally these are the folks I'll probably be dealing with from now on.Here is the Oberwerks home page: http://www.oberwerk.com/products/default.htm>

I've also heard very good things about these people: http://www.astronomics.com/main/Telescopes_and_Teles
cope_Accessories.asp/catalog_name/Astronomics/category_
name/Home/Page/1

If you live in the Northern Va.,D.C. or Maryland area you might wanna drop in on these next folks.The company is called Company 7 and they're located in Montpelier/Laurel,Md.Their phone number is (301) 953-2000 and their web addy is: http://www.company7.com/home.html  This company not only does astronomy equipment sales but also does service and even full restoration work.In addition they also design and build professional/military scopes/cameras/optics.It's worth hanging around their wesite for a while because there's tons of info on astronomy products that you won't find anywhere else,including the manufacturer's own sites.

Binocular Forums:

Here are a few bino and/or general astronomy message boards you can and should join if you're interested in learning more about binoculars,astronomy or both.

Here is just about the best forum site which goes by the name Cloudy Nights.Not only that but there's tons of info and reviews here: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.ph
p?Cat=  

here is the reviews page: http://www.cloudynights.com/index.php

If you go over to Yahoo.com and sign up as a user there are dozens of astronomy and even astronomy equipment groups you can join.Visit all of their homepages and look for the ones with the most posts per month.The most active groups are usually the best and most informative.Also,if you're wise,you'll already be over at Yahoo anyways using the search engine.It can be a valuable tool to both beginner and pro.Also,for another good source of astronomy info first try going to Yahoo.com.Next look to the left hand column and click on the "More Yahoo! Services" link.A menu will open from the left.Choose the link named "Directory" then,again in the left column,choose "Astronomy" which is under "Science".Tons of links there and you don't have to be a member to use them,just the forums.

Fun Stuff and Just Because It's There:

Feel cocky?Here's the article I mentioned about collimating your own binocs.Don't say I didn't warn ya: http://rchamon.iies.es/collimation_methods/sun_image
s_method.htm

Here's a neat page on how to hand hold binoculars for max comfort: http://www.astunit.com/tonkinsastro/binoculars/binho
ld.htm

Last but not least,here is that neat method for finding your own dark adjusted,diolated pupil diameter in this cool review of the book Astronomy Hacks.It's on page 25: http://tinyurl.com/6og52d  Don't poke yer eye out because I'm not writing a "how to chose a telescope" article just for you and your one eye.

Let me wrap up by saying that I was gonna include some info on different mounts for binoculars but thought I would include it in my next article on Giant binos instead.The main reason being that it really does apply more to them.Look for it.`Till then!

Now are y'all ready to turn all of that jibberish into a working plan geared towards shopping for a good pair of astronomy binocs?Most of the following will assume you're either in an actual storefront examining different models personally or that you've just recieved a set in the mail.Most of it will also seem a bit redundant but that's o.k. because some of these points can't be expressed too loudly or too often.It will also give me a chance to cover a few points that I haven't mentioned yet.Let's just tackle this by first summing up what makes a great pair of astronomy binocs in terms of features.

1)You need to take a good guess,following the above criteria,of your approximate maximum dark viewing pupil diameter or just try the allen wrench method I link to below.For me I figure mine is around 6 mm given my age and all.It may be wider because I have always had great night vision.If you really wanna go whole hog you can have this checked by an eye doctor.If you're having them checked anyways,then.......

2)Next you need to figure which combo of main objective aperature and magnification will give you the approximate exit pupil diameter.It's o.k if the figures aren't exact although a tad bit narrower a beam coming from the binocs than your pupil diameter would be preferable to one wider than.Like I said before my ideal is around 6 mm so some binocs,like 8X56's with it's 7mm exit diameter,might be a bit large.Given that I might opt for something like a pair of 10X60's or 12X60's with a bit smaller an exit pupil diameter and more magnification to boot.In addition,with the same main objective diameter,a higher magnification will also help in planetary and lunar observations.

3)Once you figure out which size and "strength" binocs you wanna own then you need to start looking at other qualities.The one I'd start with is what kind of prisms do they employee.Like I said earlier you wanna avoid the BK-7's and go with the BaK-4's,period! While this info should be clearly marked somewhere on a product there is a way you can tell the difference if not.While holding the unit at arm's length point them towards a bright area.Now look at the eyepieces.The image you see will be perfectly round if they are BaK-4's.However,if they are 7's the image will most likely have a square or diamond shape.This odd shape can also be cause by undersized prisms which is als something to avoid.During daytime viewing,when the pupil is contracted,this might not be apparent while casually observing but at night,with the more expanded pupil,it would be.

4)Next you wanna examine the degree of coatings and their quality.Check the explanation above for definitions.Frankly,full broadband multi-coated is the only way to go.Remember that sometimes simply coated or multi-coated optics can create false colors.Once again you can pay a little to have it now or wait and pay more later and enjoy your purchase much more.Also remember to stay far,far away from anything "Ruby" coated.One quick test you can do to tell wether binos might have quality coatings is to hold the units at arms length and look into the main objectives.At most you should be able to see a faded outline of yourself with total darkness of the face.No detail should be visible whatsoever because if it is then it means the lenses are throwing light back at you intead of letting it pass through.Still,just to be sure,read the official product description.

5)Stay away from fixed focus binocs.Go with either central focus or independant focus.Ditto for zoom binocs.

6)One of the most important things to try and figure out about a new pair of binos is wether or not they are properly collimated,or in other word,wether both barrels are in perfect alignment with each other and wether or not the internal optics are properly aligned.When you first pick up a pair of binos raise them to your eyes and spread them open and closed.Everything should be nice and tight with no looseness or rattling whatsoever.If there is any then pass.This is also a good time to check the interpupilary distance or how well the eyepieces line up with the width of your eyes.Upon looking through both barrels so to speak you should see one single unsplit circle and none of the movie and TV double circle,"Mickey Mouse ears".If you can't pull this off then you may need a narrower pair.
Next try looking through both sides seperately at a small and/or distant object.It should appear as a single sharp,crystal clear image.If there is any double imaging whatsoever then pass on them.Another sure sign of out of whack binos are,upon spending a few minutes looking through them,they give you a feeling of seasickness or dizziness.The best time to check all of this is at night on a well defined pinpoint star.Since many chain stores and mall vendors won't think too keen of you borrowing binocs to try out at night then a good alternative might be hitting an astro dealers show or a star party near you.Even if there are no vendors there might at least be people to talk to and who will let you try out their stuff.Always be sure of a vendor's return policy either live or online just in case you recieve a defective unit.
Collimation problems are the number one reason for binocular returns and unhappy customers.As I stated earlier some models are adjustable(prisms)by the buyer but most are not.Either way don't count on it.Hell,the first time they come to you a pair of binos should be properly aligned IMO even if you do expect them to go out of whack later.

7)If you wear glasses or just have small pupils don't foget to pay attention to eye relief.Does the amount of relief allow you to wear glasses and still get a clear,unsplit,singular picture?Remember too that if your glasses are just for near or far sightedness you may be able to remove them.However,if you're astigmatic then you'll probably need them.For the curious amongst us people who are astigmatic have partially blurred vision due to a mis-shapen cornea.Also,if you have small pupils do you find yourself having to hold the binocs far away from your eyes in order to get a decent picture?Some shopping around will yield binocs of various eye relief distances.As a general rule with the same main objective diameter lower magnification will generally yield more eye relief.Let's use Oberwerks brand 56mm units as an example.This series is available in either 8X or 11X magnification.While the 8X provide 24mm worth of eye relief the 11X's only provide 19mm.

8)Pay attention to the amount of FOV you have.More FOV will give you those rich field sky views that are so pleasant with binocs.Remember that higher magnifications with any given aperature will yield less FOV but will put you closer to what you're viewing.It's all personal choice of course.

9)Make sure you check for waterproofing.IMO this is a major point.You can get away with just waterproof rated but you should really splurge for the Nitrogen purged option as they also resist fogging.Like I said before it's a matter of pay now or pay later.If you're all like "well I don't have much dough and I really want a pair of binocs now" then take my advice and just stick to naked eye observing for a bit longer while you save some extra moolah.Trust me,you won't regret it.This applies to all areas of excellent vs. marginal in the choosing of quality optics for any purpose.

10)Speaking of fogging,one thing you can do to help aleviate it from happening is to keep your binocs at the same temperature as they will be used in.For instance I leave mine out on my enclosed back porch which is pretty much the same temp as the outdoors at least to within a few degrees.

11)One other thing to watch for in a pair of binocs is what's known as Chromatic abberation which causes a viewed object to appear to have green or purple edges.While they say this isn't a big deal with astronomy binocs,I'll be dambed if I'd want it.It can also result in fuzzy and/or poorly focused images.Chromatic abberation is usually the result of either bad optics which transfer different color of light through them at differnt angles(like a prism)and is usually solved by the use of compound mirrors or lenses.It can also be caused by a short focal length which is remedied by simply using a longer scope.

12)When examining binocs with a wide FOV you might notice some blurriness,or distortion,near the outer edges of the image.This is normal just so it isn't too severe.

13)On any binocs with more magnification than 10X or more aperature than 50mm consider a good tripod.In fact for anything larger,and therefore heavier,than 50mm it's pretty much a given that you'll need one so count on it now.Ditto for anything over 10X because remember that magification magnifies everything including the shakes.I've heard a lot of talk about how hand holdable 60mm's are vs. 70mm's and what not but it's all just wasted words to me.Not to brag but I have fairly large shoulders and I can attest that even 10X50's are hard enough to hold.Even if you can hold them steady it won't be for long.Look for a link in the bibliography to a web page on how to hold binocs.

Notice that I haven't said anything about lightweight binocs?This is because,to me,that is a low priority.Sure there are lightweight models but personally I wouldn't consider them if it meant sacrificing anything else.If you can find all of the other attributes you desire in a pair of lightweights then by all means have at it.Otherise get a tripod.Hell,get one anyways because it'll enhance your viewing regardless.

14)If you're shopping for binocs in person don't forget to look them over well.Most of all don't forget to check both the lenses and eyepieces for scratches or worn off coating.You will know it when you see it,believe me.

15)Once you purchase a nice set of binocs be sure to get a good cleaning kit made specifically for binocs and telescopes.Cleaning kits and cleaning solution refills can be found at any optics/camera or eyeglass dealers.Here is a tutorial from THE world's formost optics expert and holder of the world's most patents(including those Craftmatic adjustable beds),Dr.Nagler: http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=143 

16)Even if you're shopping live still walk away from your first instinct.Wait a bit.Write down your observations then go online and research what you fancy.Especially be sure to read those reviews.Do plenty of Yahoo and Google searches for your exact model(s).I will include a bunch of links at the end of this of good dealers,several of which allow customers to leave reviews of products they've bought.Let me say again...READ THOSE REVIEWS! Also,don't be afraid to join an astronomy and/or binoculars forum or two and ask lots of questions.I'll link to some in the bibliography.

17)While I'm at it I may as well mention a couple of neat accessories you will surely want to aquire if you're gonna get serious about binocular astronomy observation.The first thing you may wanna nab up on is a good star atlas or at least a good source of sky charts.Many of the books and magazines I mention below are good sources.The magazines have usually both a monthly skychart within their pages as well as having them for sale on their website.
Another handy dandy little item you might want to consider will be a red flashlight which is just what it sounds like,a flashlight which emits a red light instead of white.The purpose behind this trick is to keep you from losing your nightvision while reading star charts.Good ones can be found in all of the same places as telescopes.

Well y'all there it is,my own version of what you need to know to get the best out of your next pair of binoculars.Hopefully they'll be for stargazing.I'm sorry if you were expecting more of a guide to what to look for or a "how to observe" guide.That subject could and would cover way more than even the subject of chosing binocs.Also,there are a bunch of other books and stuff out there that focus more closely on that subject,some of the best which I cover in the bibliography.
One thing I will do is try and provide regular observation reports regarding what I'm able to see.Truth is that I'm sorta getting into astronomy a bit more seriously now than I have been in a while and this way you all can learn along with me.Like I said earlier I just landed myself a set of huge,honkin' fat glasses and they are super cool.I plan on using them a lot to say the least.Don't forget that I'll not only be doing a review of them next but a whole rant about those huge,overblown,bulky,impractical,way too heavy to be practical but way too cool for school binocs that fall into the catagory of Giants.Look for it very soon.If you have any questions then please feel free to ask and I'll help any way I can.
Before I go you're probably wondering what I've decided to do regarding my own search for a good pair of general purpose,but mostly astronomy,binoculars.Well,I think that what I'm gonna do is go with a set of Oberwerks 10X60mm from the Mariner series.I would have really liked to have gone with the 12X60's but unfortunately they're not waterproof.Here is an example of what I meant about waterproofing adding to the cost.Both series of binocs are fully broadband multi-coated and use BaK-4 prisms and are about the same size,quality and complexity.However the waterproof and nitrogen purged Mariner series cost almost twice as much.Besides the fact that they're waterproof I like the 60mm main objectives too.They're just the right balance of size and weight for both daytime terrestrial and night sky hand-held viewing.
On top of that I have been doing a lot of research into Oberwerks over the last few months and I must say I'm impressed.Right off the bat everyone who's ever dealt with them has had nothing but great things to say.Also,unlike many companies the show is run by a very small group of total bino nuts.One of these is a fellow named Kevin Busarow who is personally in charge of quality control as well as being the owner.This does not mean he oversees a team of people but rather that he himself checks every bino that leaves the warehouse for maximum optical quality and collimation allignment.Every unit,bar none from the lowly 8x40's to the massive 150mm Fujinons.Now THAT'S personal service.On top of that if you are actually willing to travel to their showroom in Ohio Kevin will personally spend as much time as needed with you showing you whatever binocular/tripod/head combinations you want until you're satisfied.Then,like I said,he will fine tune your new binos to within a millimeter of their lives.Also,if you later find any optical abnormality or even just something you're not happy with they will fix it for free.Heck,there was even this one fellow in Wisconsin who carried his brand new Oberwerks out on a sub-zero night and found the focusing mechanism starting to stiffen.Well,apparently Kevin had his out too because before this fellow could call and complain Kevin was on the phone warning him of a potential future problem.Imagine being called by a manufacturer to warn you about a potential problem with something you bought.Simply put,if you're an Oberwerks customer you WILL be 100% happy with your purchase,period!
Another thing about Oberwerk binos is that they are incredibly well made to start with.Check their sales sites,which I've linked below,and check the News & Events,the Info & Support and the About Us sections for some very cool vids.Especially check out the "Why So Heavy" video for a quick lesson in why their stuff is top quality.Since they are my new fave manufacturer and also one I hope to deal with in the near future they are the only actual manufacturer I'm gonna link to.Frankly there are way too many bino makers to include them all anyhow.Like I said,read those reviews and ask those questions.

Well,here is is y'all.Pretty much anything you'd wanna know about chosing a set of binocs.I have to break this into four parts due to it being 16 pages long.Every other day I'll post a new segment.

Back when I was a kid I used to love filling my summer days by picking up my machette and heading out into the woods to make paths to places I'd never been before.Over this hill,beyond this stretch of wood,to the top of this mountain or that.I loved to explore.I had plenty of help too via my many cousins.Not suprising though as a great deal of people love exploring places they've never been and things they've never seen before.I know I still do.I reckon this is one of the main reasons I'm such an astronomy buff is because I'm constantly wondering what's out there.
Every time new images are returned from some distant world by one of our latest mega cool hi-tech wonderbots it seems just as thrilling now as it did when I was sitting in front of the tube back in 1976 seeing,for the first time,the first pictures ever returned from the Martian surface courtesy of the Viking Landers.That was awesome wasn't it?
Well, stuff like that is all fine and dandy but very few of us have access to the kind of jack it takes to build us a rocketship capable of hunting down other worlds.I might add though that I do indeed know a whole bunch of crazy guys and gals who are trying very hard to do just that while on a budget.Anyhow,despite our empty wallets we all still have a desire to explore for ourselves.Like many endevors we have a desire to do it for ourselves and to not be simply satisfied with someone else having all of the fun,after all this isn't New Jersey.So what to do?
Now is the part where optics come in.I,myself,have always been a champion of fine optics.Wether it be a set of binoculars or even a nice telescope fine optics help bridge the gap between there and here wherever either may be.Looking out into the distance and saying to oneself "I wonder what's over there" all one has to do is peek into the eyepiece and suddenly you've arrived.
Now if you're a regular reader here on the Fox Weather blog you may recall that I have stated my desire as of late to land a new pair of astronomy oriented binoculars.Let me state for the record that I am indeed still in the market for a good set of all around astro binos even though I just recently purchased a set of giant sized 100 mm binocs.Look for a review of them soon after this is posted.We won't discuss them much here because they are a whole different beast.
So,wether you're new to astronomy or even an old hand at it binoculars have a place in your optics arsenal for several reasons.First off is that they provide a good "grab-n-go" visual aid.In other words something that can be carried anywhere at a moments notice with little weight,size and hassle.The are very good for doing a quick survey of the night sky to evaluate your "seeing" ability in prep for whipping out the larger optics.You may not be able to get the kind of up close images that you will with a telescope you might still be suprised though at how much detail comes forth in places where you just saw none with the naked eye.
Binoculars also offer several other characteristics which are available in no other viewing aid.One of these is that they offer a right side up non-inverted picture.Telescopes do not do that as they are either upside down or mirror image reversed or both.Another pleasantry offered by binocs,and which happens to be my fave plus point,is that binocs give you a realistic 3D view of the sky.Sort of like ViewMaster view if you will.This is due to the fact that you are taking in two seperate images just as nature intended.Overall it's much more like being there in person than a single image telescope can duplicate.
Now you may remember my commenting to Skyguy a couple of months ago having my eyes on,figuratively speaking,a pair of Leupold 10X50's.Well,I decided to give it a bit of time and to keep looking.Nothing against them or anything but just not wanting to do things in haste.I even found a set of Celestron 8X56's which I liked a lot which may actually be better suited for astronomy.What would make them better?Well,y'all I'm afraid that explaining that is gonna mean having to sit through another one of my science lessons again.Since I've gotta think about all of this stuff I may as well drag y'all along with me so sit back and soak up a lesson in binocular speak as I share with you what I know about them and especially how it relates to my search for a good pair of astronomy binoculars.Sure I could just post some links to some on-line guides and all and say "good luck!" but for the reasons I spoke of above I've decided to engage in this labor of love.First we're gonna do though is cover some "quick" lessons regarding the terms and definitions used in the world of binoculars and optics.
Now before we do anything let me try to give you a truely nutshell explanation of how and why binocs work the way they do.As you'll soon see it's one of those true scenarios where a picture really is worth a thousand words.Not having any pics of my own to illustrate the point I don't wanna have to lift someone elses from the net.Yeah,I know you're all saying "since when the hell do YOU care about that?" Well never mind that just rest assured I'll post some links to some good illustrations you can use to follow along.
Alright,let's see how much we can cram into that nutshell.Follow along while I try to fit a bulldozer into an outhouse.Binoculars,for all practical purposes,are really just two mini-telescopes joined together with a hinge.Light enters through the front lenses,or objectives as they're also called,where it is flipped upside down much the same way as the lens(not the cornea)in your eye does.The inverted light beam then travels down the tube of the binocs where it then enters one of two differnt types of prisms.Prisms are angular shaped chunks of glass which serve a couple of useful purposes.First they take the inverted image from the binoc lenses and switch it back to upright.They also allow the use of large and/or widely spread main objectives while still allowing the eyepieces to stay fairly close together for comfortable viewing.The two types of binocular prisms you will run into are either Porro prisms or Roof prisms.
Just so I can get them out of the way sooner I will cover roof-prisms first.Roof prisms are what you usually find in small,compact binocs.They are aranged inside of the optical tube in an in-line fashion thus the usual straight tubed shape of most compacts.While their simple layout does make them a bit more rugged than Porro prism binocs they do have some faults.First they have what are known as "silvered" surfaces.Second,their design causes what's known as a "phase shift" due to the light beam being split and then realigned.Both of these drawbacks combine to reduce the amount of light transmitted through a set of roof prism binocs as compared to a set of Porro prism units with all other things being equal.A set of roof prisms can be seen here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/A
bbe-koenig-prism.png
The second type we'll cover is also the type we'll be championing for our purposes and they are the Porro prism design.The Porro style prisms sacrifice only one thing and I'll get to that in a second.For the most part they fit our need because their layout allows the use of big main lenses while still keeping the eyepieces close together.Ever wonder why most binocs have that unusual "kink" in them?Well,it's because of the shape of the Porro prism design/layout which can be seen here: http://www.nightskyinfo.com/binoculars/binoculars_di
agram.gif
The only real problem with Porro prisms is that they are a bit fussy about being perfectly aligned.As you can guess they are a bit easier to knock out of alignment.This alignment is called "collimation" and is important for proper,comfortable viewing.When collimation is out of whack,at a minimum you will probably notice a double,or split,image.Sometimes it may not even be noticable but will manifest itself in eye fatigue,dizziness or a slight headache.
Some binocs can be re-adjusted via screws on the casing of the binocs(usually under the rubber coating) or via eccentric rings in the main objective caps while some need to be sent to a technician.The eccentric ring style actually shifts the main objective and not the prisms.Frankly,I've never even seen a pair of binocs with this type adjustments.I'll try to provide a source for additional info on collimation adjustment by the consumer later.Just for note,collimation can also get thrown off when the two individual "telescopes" are out of alignment with each other.
Now the next thing you'll need to know about prisms concerns what they're made of.For the most part prisms are made of two types of glass,BK-7 borosilicate flint glass or BaK-4 barium crown glass.We can uncomplicate this subject real quick like by just cutting to the chase and saying that the Bak-4's are what you want.....period! No arguements,no debate,just Bak-4's.While Bk-7's may have been nice at one time they no longer hold a candle to the 4's.Yeah,some will say that "if this is just right" or "if you're viewing under such and such conditions,then..." but just ignore it and opt for the Bak-4's because they're light years ahead in every way.The most simple explanation as to why is that they just flat out transmitt an image better in both quantity and quality.Plus,Bk-7's have a tendancy to carry less light out near the edges of the image resulting in a picture that is sharp and bright in the center and dull near the outside.Fewer and fewer binocs are coming from the factory with the 7's these days anyhow.The binocs I just bought are a good example being as how the factory just started using the 4's in their construction less than a year ago.
Continuing to travel onward through our binocs the next thing we come to is the eyepieces and our way out if we're a beam of light.This is the spot where an image gets maginified.Other that that there's not really a lot to say as this device is usually fixed and forgotten so to speak.However,that is not always the case when it comes to the subject of focusing our image.I think now would be a good time to "focus" on focusing.
Generally there are three different types of focusing mechanisms on binocs.These include fixed focus,a central mounted focus mechanism and what's known as independant focus.Once again we will take out the trash first by coving fixed focus first.What these do is comprimise by setting the focus permenantly on a spot somewhere between their minimum viewing distance to infinity and hoping everything works out.Usually it doesn't.In a word they're junk and should be avoided.
The next type of focus is the most common and that is the central focus.Those are the ones with the lever or the wheel on top.This type has a mechanical device which moves the eyepices in and out.Their number one advantage is being able to focus them quickly for other viewing besides astronomy.They usually have another feature which is called a dioptic adjuster.This is basically a right side eyepiece which adjusts free of central focusing mechanism.The way it works is simple.First you close your right eye and proceed to focus your binocs while looking through only the left side.Once the left side is in focus you close your left eye and proceed to,while looking through the right side only,rotate the right side eyepiece until it too is in focus.Once that is done you then open both eyes and you should see a perfectly focused image.
The third type of focusing system used is one which is employed on a set of binos I've recently aquired and that is the independant focusing system.This system uses a seperately focusing eyepiece on each side of the binocs.One major advantage of this style is that it is quite durable due to having fewer moving parts than a central focus system.This system also allows for quite a bit of fine tuning of each eye seperately.As you can probably guess though it is a bit slow due to it only being practical on tripod mounted binocs.For the purposes of astronomical viewing a good tripod will figure in anyways so it's not a big deal.
This also seems like an appropriate place to cover what are known as zoom binoculars.In fact I can cover them with one word......junk! or at least for astronomy purposes.They are all junk no matter who they're made by.In fact since there are exceptions to every rule it seems like there would be one to this one.There is...sorta.The reason they are all junk is that while variable magnification zoom binocs may be a good idea the level of precision and quality of workmanship involved in the proper construction would be astronomical.Seriously astronomical.Most zoom binoculars tend to go out of collimation and have a blurred or double image at the higher magnifications.Another downside is their incredibly narrow field of view even in large aperature units.While I have seen many a good review of zoom binocs they are almost exclusively from terrestrial(ground) viewers and even