I ran into same problem with the 14.5" early on and thought I had the wrong star, even checked it three or two times. Finally, a few days later checked its separation and discovered it was far to close to try. Jack, don't worry about waiting until the separation is wide enough. You canreport the telescope didn't separate, notch, elongate or whatever. The fact that a telescope didn't split the double is an observation! Clear skies, aj Jack Jones wrote: Silly me, working on my SAC 110 Best doubles last week, which lists Porrima as 5" (piece of cake, but dated 1990), I finally tried 100x/inch with my 80mmin only wavy Airy disks and thought I must be looking at the wrong star. I checked the column in my Tirion/Skiff Bright Star Atlas, and went well no wonder, it's listed 1.8" (2000) with a footnote about its rapid motion. GuessI won't get that award til 2100, a little more time than I wanted to invest. Jack I took advantage of a lull between tourist groups this evening (May 25/26) to check on gamma Vir in the Lowell Clark. I was helped by the Clark 'friend' John DeDecker of the Lowell tour staff. With an approaching deformation zone or weak trough, the seeing was about 1".5, mainly expressed in the smaller apertures as very jumpy Airy discs. We viewed at several smallapertures down to the minimum of the iris, which is 15cm = 6-inches. Theeyepiece was a 22mm Panoptic, which with the long focal length of the refractor (9776mm) gives nominally 445x. In the smallest aperture, gamma Vir was merely elongated in what's termed a 'breadloaf'. With better seeing I would expect it to appear as a figure-8 at the separation that was mentioned in the recent 'amastro' post. At 20cm/8-inches the Airy discs were just touching as expected. By the time we worked up to 30cm/12-inches, the image blur was too washed out to see much of anything. \Brian -- See message headerfor info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list. -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list.