Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.


All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Think I'll leave it alone for now until I work out of I have a problem that needs solving.
  3. The sky the day BEFORE the new scope arrives. Hoping for more of the same tomorrow.
  4. CQ350, very very interesting. I'm guessing it will sit somewhere in between the CEM60 and EQ8 price range considering it's capacity.
  5. That all sounds very strange, all I do is scroll to zero position on the handset, press and it wanders off in RA / Dec to where it thinks zero is and stops, only goes in one direction, no returning, I then use the hand control to get the spirit level level and loosen the clutches and rotate manually to zero position, weights down, scope up north and that's it then star align. First star alignment is off in mine as well but usually just on the edge of the FOV of a 26mm eyepiece with 110 f/7 refractor. Dave
  6. That's bad. Alot worse than mine in fact. Mine I could just live with mine but using a OSC camera makes them appear worse due to colour smudging
  7. So I've been stargazing for a few years and bought Astromaster 130eq a couple of years ago, though I've started seriously using it only for a few months. I've been enjoying it for a while but the finderscope makes it really hard to point the telescope at fainter objects. I've been wanting to upgrade it but the finderscope mount seems to be different than the ones I like require AND I DO NOT WANT TO DRILL HOLES IN THE TUBE. I checked the support page of celestron, they seem to suggest getting an optical finderscope with a base slightly curved so as to fit on the optical tube and attaching it using both sided tapes. I really like this one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Meade-White-6x30mm-Crosshair-Telescope-Viewfinder-w-Tall-Bracket-New-Old-Stock-/332930951379 I will be glad if anybody tells me if the above mentioned strategy will work and also if the finderscope is good. Note that I live in a quite light polluted area. Also I'm new to the forum. Hope I'll be able to learn loads from you guys and contribute to the community Clear skies
  8. Bits & pieces. Baader T2 prism body (I allready had the nosepoece and focusing eyepiece holder) USB cable amd cigarette plug USB adapter to power the Quark. Bolts for the Skymax 180 rings and dovetail so that everything now fits properly
  9. That looks pretty horrendous David, is it identical in a short exposure ? Dave
  10. How do Skywatcher manage to keep producing these drool worthy gems, I am hard pressed to think of any product that has been a Lemon... Alan
  11. We haven't been able to obtain info other than what is printed in their catalogue. To be fair to Synta/Sky-Watcher, if the mount is still in development then their reluctance to release info is understandable. It certainly does feel that way Steve
  12. I wish they'd bring out a reducer for the Esprit range. I know there are other options but they look tricky to get right.
  13. Alan Re-reading your post, should I still have a link from DC- on the relay board to one of the GRD connections on the VM110? Thanks Peter
  14. That CQ350 looks interesting. Got any detailed specs? Looks like it's a spring loaded worm now? I think the gap will prove to provide a way to do through the mount cabling easier. The mount market is heating up it seems.
  15. Hugh and Alan Many thanks for the fault finding in the circuit so quickly. Below I have redrawn, using my overly-complex layout as I have it on the computer as an image. I've drawn in a connection from the battery 12V- to DC- on the Relay Board. I've removed the DC- on the Relay Board to GND on the VM110 and also the 560 ohm resistor. I've changed the wiring for the NO and NC on relays one and two, in compliance with Hugh's board, putting them on the opposite side of the diode from where I had them placed before. I also reversed the battery symbol. I drew in but then removed an extra connection from the 7ah battery 12V- to NO1 and NC2 as they seem already to be connected to 12V-. Are those the GND connections that you think I need or are we talking about a separate ground line, e.g. to the metal plate that forms the housing of the Pulsar/Rigel system? If so should the GND on the VM110 also be connected to that point? For the moment I've left in the double pole switch to the 7Ah battery because otherwise there would seem not to be any 'off' position. In my diagrams I've shown the 12V charging socket which needs to remain live for the solar panel to maintenance charge the 7Ah battery. Would it not be better to isolate the two rotation circuits when not in use with a switch? Concerning the Raspberry Pi to VM110 connection, that is via a USB to USB micro cable. Not sure how I check grounding of that, that USB micro socket is the normal power in to the Raspberry Pi and I've not spotted any other GRD connection point on it. Thanks, Peter
  16. Actually, I got the Bortle scale wrong- I should have written 5/6!
  17. laudropb


    Hello and a warm welcome to the SGL.
  18. I would watch the weight carefully. I have a 15" truss Dob that is all oak with a full thickness Nova mirror that is very good indeed. However, the mirror box is 65 pounds which is just a bit too much for my back to deal with most of the time. I'm thinking about getting a 12" or 14" aluminum truss Dob with a tapered mirror to cut down on weight so I'll use it more often. If I had a dry place outdoors to store the 15" assembled, I could add wheelbarrow handles to it to wheel it out. Perhaps if I get a place in New Mexico when I retire, that might be an option. I don't know about Australia, but used premium Dobs come up all the time on Astromart and Cloudy Nights classifieds for good prices. The mechanics and finish are also much better than on mass produced Dobs from the Far East. I've also never heard of issues with their integrated goto systems when so equipped.
  19. I agree SCT have the same strength when fitting cameras. Would also love to know if changing focus position alters the performance, I can get focus with the DSLR screwed directly onto the built in M42 threads or still have plenty of adjustment to get focus with an additional 2 inch extension tube. My gut feel is that it must be beneficial to have the main mirror as far back as possible so presenting the smallest light cone to the secondary but I could be completely wrong. Alan
  20. Interesting design difference between the CQ350 and the CEM60 (which I assume is in pretty much the same target market), with the former having a gap in the RA axis. I wonder why they chose that design? James
  21. Honestly don't believe a word it says. Have spent a good while trying to adjust tilt using cc'd inspector before giving up on it and getting a better result in minutes doing it by visual inspection.
  22. Today
  23. Pretty sure SCTs are in the same category. One thing I haven't been able to get a definitive answer on is whether or not extending focus further back on Maks adds spherical aberration to the image as it does with SCTs. Does anyone know if moving focus far off of the design focus point for Maks adds aberrations to the image?
  24. Ok, yes, indeed as mathematical concept we can have something like bounded set with infinite number of elements. This is fairly simple to see - let's take simple case of set of real numbers between 0 and 1. This set is bounded - there is upper limit and lower limit and there is a number which is greater than distance between any two set members - like 2, if we define distance to be difference of two numbers. We can "apply" such a model to hypothetical universe, but we can easily see that such universe is "unphysical" - density is infinite, all "elements of reality" have only one property - value and there is infinite number of elements of reality that are in principle - "unknowable". Spatial extent of any element is infinitesimally small - or 0, and by "unknowable" I mean that there is a bunch of numbers - irrational numbers that can't be specified - one would need infinite amount of information to exactly specify them (infinite number of digits to be written down - which can only be done in infinite amount of time). This is interesting game to play actually - we can observe another set of numbers that has similar premise but different properties - let's take only rational numbers in range of 0 to 1. This set is also bounded, there are infinite number of elements, there is no lower limit on how "close" two numbers can be, density is infinite, however this sort of set is "sparse". We know this by virtue that on real line between 0 and 1 we have real numbers. Now if we split real numbers into two subsets - rational and irrational and remove irrational numbers - there must be some sort of "hole" left in that place and there is some sparseness in the set - and yet again - density is infinite and set elements are infinitesimally close Mind bending stuff really
  25. I remember you saying you were a Terry Pratchett fan. The journey will seem shorter if you're laughing a lot. Let's hope fellow travellers have a sense of humour.
  26. Impressive solar halo on show right now in W. Yorkshire.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.