Gwlad all over this morning
I can finally take this black armband off my leek..
Now, good question Michael. Well that image is resampled 4 times and the ~50-pixel blob is a 10-12 pixel blob on the original image, which seems bit large,especially as an online calculator tells me I should be getting 0.63 arc seconds per pixel which would make Uranus 6 pixels across.
Here's the original data, stacked and RGB aligned with no processing other than that:

Now I was using an iR filter (OK I forgot to remove it) that would be duplicating the one built into the camera that only fits between the barrel and lens of the Barlow. This extra length increases the power of the barlow towards x3.
So time for some back of an envelope plate solving 
This is Uranus and the only nearby star as per an unused frame where the exposure is too high:

The star turns out to be HIPP551, with a magnitude of 8.65, and was 5' 6" away at the time the image was taken. Counting the pixels from the centre of each object to the edges of the frame I can find out how far apart they are horizontally and vertically. A bit of trig gives the actual distance between them in pixels as 703.
That makes the plate scale 0.435 arc-seconds per pixel, so Uranus should be 8.5 pixels across.
Perhaps if we play with the tone curve a bit to get rid of flare until it's 8 pixels across…

So repeating that on an original stack (with x2 resampling) then giving another x2 we get:

So which featureless blue-green blob is the best or most honest image of Uranus? I don't know.
I'll take a break then respond to Peter (and ignore John 
Neil