I realize we have all been occupied with the shuttle today, but here is something to get your mind away a bit. I arrived at the drag strip southeast of St. George at around 7:30pm January 31st. I was the first of our group to arrive, and it was cloudy. At about 8:45, the clouds had thinned to only high thin cirriform, so I set up the 12-1/2 inch dob to look at the planets. I first looked at Jupiter and noticed that in spite of the high tin clouds, the image was really very good. I was using a 16mm Nagler. One of Jupiters moons was just starting a transit, and a second was emerging from a transit. The emerging moon was seen very clearly as a white orb sitting next to its shadow. The edge of the shadow was very crisp, so I increased the magnification to 263 using a 9 mm Nagler. The image was still crisp. I next chose Saturn to observe. I left the 9 mm in the scope and found the planet. Saturn was even better than Jupiter for sharpness. Cassinis Division was clearly visible all the way around the ring, as was Enkes Minima, and the Crepe Ring. There was also excellent detail on the planet surface. I replaced the 9 mm with the 4.8 Nagler, giving a magnification of 495. The image started to become a bit more fuzzy, but there was even more visible than with the 9 mm. This time I could clearly see the Crepe Ring and Enkes Minima. Enkes Division was on the verge of visibility, and would pop into an out of view. I had brought along a couple of Meade Research Grade Orthoscopic eyepieces for comparison. I placed the 10.5 mm into the focuser and was rewarded with a much sharper image of Saturn than I had had with the 9 mm Nagler. I then put the 10.5 into a 2.4X Barlow and put that combination into the focuser. This gave a magnification of about 542X, or 43 power per inch. The image held together extremely well. I was able to see Enkes Division much more clearly, although the seeing was still being limited by the atmosphere. I also saw spokes, or darkening in the C Ring just outside of the Crepe Ring. The planet itself was a very well defined ball with atmospheric banding at the equator and pole clearly visible. Although this was not the best view I have had of Saturn, it was among the top three of four. Time was passing and I had to leave to meet the rest of the group who were approaching, but didnt know how to get to the site. Upon returning, I found the seeing not as good as at first, but still very good. Once more I turned the scope to Jupiter. I began using the 10.5 mm eyepiece without the Barlow. The scope was operating at 226X. The shadow was clearly visible on the surface of the planet, but the moon itself was not evident. The detail I had seen earlier in the atmosphere of Jupiter had degraded. Back to Saturn with the 16.8 mm ortho and the Barlow giving a magnification of 339. Enkes Minima was still clearly visible, as was the Crepe Ring, but no hint of Enkes Division. The features in the C ring were also less obvious. We compared the view of the 9mm Nagler and the 10.5 mm ortho, and found the ortho by far gave the best view. Now it was time to test the filter I had brought along. It is an 80A medium blue. On Jupiter at 226 power (ortho 10.5mm), I could see that the GRS had rotated into view. I could see detail in the GRS itself, and a faint pinkish color was evident. The equatorial bands also had some detail visible in their edges and some noise was visible in the bands themselves. There was a light grey streak visible above the GRS. I put the filter into the 1.25 adapter (the filter is a 2 filter) and looked again. The definition at the edge of the bands disappeared, and the bands became dark smudges with almost nothing visible in them. The detail in the GRS was also gone. I increased the magnification to 339 the 16.8 and the Barlow. The filter would no longer allow the eyepiece to slip into the scope far enough to achieve focus. I removed the filter and compared the view with and without the filter by placing the filter in front of the eyepiece manually. Once again, the filter revealed no new detail, and destroyed much of the fine detail that was visible without the filter. I did see one instance of improvement with the filter. That was through Dave Dunns 8 under very low power. I would guess that it was about 125 to 150. Some of the gross detail was more visible under these conditions, but there was no hope of seeing fine detail. Much of that fine detail was also not visible at the lower power. My conclusion: The filter MAY have had a positive effect on the low power image, but at the higher magnifications, it clearly degraded the image. The image had more color AND more detail without the filter. These observations were substantiated by others present, but Ill let them speak for themselves. Overall, I would rate the seeing at 9/10. I could focus stars to tiny points, but they would break up on a regular basis into larger blurs. It was an excellent night, rating in the tope three or four that I have had. I cant help but wonder how the 10 or the 8 refractor would have performed. Brent __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com