John

3 hours ago, ukskies said:

..What's the focal length of that one please?

Thanks.

The focal length is 1600mm so its an F/5.3. I wanted something that would not need a coma corrector. 

51 minutes ago, fiestazetecmk2 said:

....Just remember Size does  matter!! why buy something you can't manage. Just to  sit in the corner .!!!

Very sensible point !!!

I had a Meade Lightbridge 12 inch and that weighed around 80 lbs. It was a decent scope (when I'd modded it) but just too heavy to be easy to setup so it did not get used much. My Orion Optics 12 inch weighs over 20lbs less so gets used all the time.

3 hours ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

Hi John, I am guessing but is that sliding counter weight on a rail at the back end?

I noticed something similar on #johninderby Skywatcher but couldn’t see it clearly.

If it is then a very neat and elegant solution. Beats hanging a small dumbbell weight off the back end which I have seen in a few pictures of the past.

Marv

Its a magnetic kitchen knife rack fastened to the tube. I have two weights (old counterweights) of different weights and 2 points on the rack where I can put them so that gives me enough variations to handle all my eyepieces including the "monsters"

With Skywatcher and (maybe) Bresser have steel tubes so you can put magnetic weights directly onto them. Orion Optics use aluminum tubes (which is why they are lighter).

 I've owned dobs made by GSO 8 inch, Meade 12 inch (actually another GSO made one), Skywatcher (8 and 10 inch) and Orion Optics (10 and 12 inch). They all worked pretty well out of the box except the Meade that needed more fettling to get it satisfying to use. All dobs seem to benefit from a little tweaking here and there to get the best from them though.

The worst thing about the MDF bases is that they are heavy. My current Orion Optics 12 inch dob has a base made by a fellow SGL'er from quality plywood but to a similar pattern that Orion Optics use for their mounts. It's worked wonderfully since the day it was delivered.

2 minutes ago, itsbrittanyhere said:

Usa I’m guessing?

The Celestron importer for the UK is David Hinds Ltd:

https://www.celestron.co.uk/

They, liasing with your vendor, should be quite capable of sorting this sort of issue out. Celestron scopes are not even made in the USA any more - they are made by Synta in China who also make Skywatcher scopes.

I can't see how sending your scope to the USA will do any good, plus you may well get stung for import duty when it comes back !

4 minutes ago, itsbrittanyhere said:

Sending it back to Celestron. They said they’d repair. Hope it doesn’t get damaged in transit because they have me removing all protection except some foam. Kinda crazy. I also really don’t like that it’s only 6 months old and I have to ship it somewhere to risk damage and not just be sent a new one. But I guess it’s better than no fix.

Is that Celestron in the UK ?

I would try and pack the scope as closely as possible to how it was delivered.

39 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Hi John,

The baader barlow 2.25x I have is made up of 3 parts, the lenses being in the bottom two parts, the top section having a T2 thread I believe. The bottom of the two bottom parts won't unscrew from the "middle" part of the three, (it was like that when I bought it on SGL from another member): the top of the middle part is threaded and is the part that screws into the eyepiece barrel. Hope that makes sense? So, are you saying that without the T2 top component the bottom two sections only deliver 1.3x magnification?

Thanks,

Dave

Hi Dave,

On my Baader 2.25x barlow (the Q-Turret type) the bottom most part unscrews and that contains the lens element. That unit can then be screwed directly into the filter threads on the bottom of a 1.25" eyepiece barrel and in that mode you get 1.3x. This only works with eyepieces that do not have optical elements within their 1.25" barells though so orthos, plossls etc, etc.

The Baader 2.25x gives 1.3x amplification when the optical element is threaded directly into an eyepiece barrel.

Some clear sky here and there now so I have got a view of the moon after all and it is a lovely sight !

130mm triplet refractor is the scope of choice - now I have a really good mount for it as well

Nice pic Paul !

I will post something in the mounts section as well but I'm so chuffed with this setup that I had to post some pics here

Yesterday I picked up a T-Rex alt-azimuth mount from @GavStar / Gavin. This evening there are a few clear patches so I could not resist putting my 130mm TMB/LZOS triplet onto the mount and gving it a spin.

I'm really pleased with the results so far. Very solid indeed. No counterweights needed. Smooth as butter movement around both axis. Instant control of tension on both axis. Slow motion cables give very precise movement with no shake or judder despite the long moment arm of this optical tube. Best mount I've had this scope on by a long way. Those Russian optics can really show their quality now. 375x on the Moon without any problem at all.

Terrific !!!!!!

Thanks Gavin - The T-Rex is a winner with me

If I had to make do with just owning one scope, an Orion Optics 8 inch F/6 with their top quality optics inside and on a good alt-azimuth mount would be a strong contender for that scope. Powerful, portable and versatile

Lovely !

Just clouds here though

Long refractors tend to need a taller tripod to avoid that stooping to view high objects. The shorter SCT or Mak-Cassegrain tubes reduce that need.

48 minutes ago, PlanetGazer said:

Currently Looking at the ones you mentioned here,

 

 

also found these much cheaper ones:

https://www.365astronomy.com/32mm-SWA-Super-Wide-Angle-Eyepiece-70-degree-2-inch.html

 

definitely they would not match the quality of the above, but how much is the compromise?

I've used some of those low cost super wide eyepieces. They are fine at F/8, F/10 etc but show edge astigmatism when the focal ratio is faster. At F/4.7 I reckon "seagull" shaped stars would be quite dominant in the outer 50% of the field of view. So the compromise is large in my opinion - you might as well not have a wide field of view if a large part of it is not reasonably sharp.

Producing a well corrected wide field eyepiece that shows good quality star images at faster focal ratios is quite difficult to do so this is reflected in the costs.

10 minutes ago, Buzzard75 said:

They don't have the info overlay on them, but yes, that is the FOV in the eyepiece viewer. You get a slightly larger frame on your mobile device without the overlay.

 

What I was interest in was the appearance of the galaxies visually when viewed with the Evscope. Were they as bright and detailed visually or were they different from the images.

Thanks.

Is that how they appear when you viewed through the scope under those conditions ?

You might be right with your diagnosis. I think the device that changes the view from the camera to the eyepiece port is called the flip mirror. If you bought the scope from new it should be still under warranty ?

People certainly do take their big scopes out to dark skies.

There is a group on here that take their dobs off to somewhere dark in Wales quite regularly and we have an annual forum star party where the skies can get quite dark. There are pictures of these events in this thread and quite a few of other dobsonians to give you an idea of what is available, if you are keen

Nice restoration job Mike

I enjoyed my Vixen GP DX while I had it

They look elegant but are also very strong indeed !

Nice observations and pics Stu

I agree that the presentation of features does change as the hours pass. Some features have a really short "window" of clear definition.

24 minutes ago, paulastro said:

mikeDnight said:

The seeing conditions on the night were very good, so it might be expected the 120ED would at least keep up with the smaller Tak, but they were worlds apart, with the equatorial and temperate belts, that were packed with detail, almost jumping out in 3D.

 

Really Mike?  Were you wearing your 3-D viewing spectacles at the time?  🤣    Of course it is possible that the seeing was enough to favour the Tak a bit over the larger aperture 120ED on the night, though I'm sure you'll say it wasn't 😊.

Of course, the Tak is the better optical quality,, but it does depend what you're using it for.  For planetary the 100 DC you have is hugely suitable, as it's smaller aperture means that the image is less dazzling at any particular magnification so the detail is not swamped as it can be in larger apertures.   I'm well aware how good the Taks are for planetary, I remember when we shared that memorable view of Jupiter with my DL.

For some people though, as an all-round telescope larger apertures can be better than smaller Taks.  For my eyes a four inch scope just wouldn' t do it as my only scope if deep-sky objects were the target.  This is the reason I reluctantly sold my four inch refractor to buy a 120ED came up at a great price,  

It would be great if you could join us at Kelling this year, your Tak will show far more detail on deep sky than it will at home, though not as much as my 120ED of course 😃.

I've compared my Skywatcher ED120 to my Tak FC-100DL quite a few times over the past 3 years. The Tak is completely colour free wheras the ED120 shows a touch of purple around the brightest stars but otherwise I feel that the Skywatcher is not shown up at all by the Tak. Or by my LZOS 130 triplet for that matter. This does not mean that I can't see any differences between these scopes but the ED120 optically holds up really well. It produces a cracking star test and I've used it at magnifications over 300x quite often. A few weeks ago I was at an outreach event and had the task of showing the vistitors Neptune. The ED120 provided a well defined disk on the distant planet at 280x. If I'd been observing on my own I could have used more.

I thought buying the Tak and the LZOS would mean curtains for the Skywatcher but it's not turned out that way by any means.

I'm glad that the scope is working for you but I do emphasise what has been said above re: sun filters that screw onto the eyepiece. The only safe sun filter is one that covers the whole of the front end of the scope. The screw in ones are very unsafe and should be destroyed. Unfortunately a few turn up on e.bay from time to time

Otherwise, I hope you get a lot of enjoyment from the scope

Nice scope though the Tak TSA 102 might be it has two disadvantages that I can see with regards to Grumpy Martian's quandary:

1. It is out of production.

2. It actually weighs more than his Vixen ED115S (according to the published specs) this might not help with his injured ribs.

One of the Tak FC-100 F/7.4's would offer much of the performance of the TSA 102 with the advantages of being more compact and lighter than the Vixen he currently has. And they are still in production.

4 hours ago, johninderby said:

When you say the holes don’t align is it because the flange doesn’t fit into the tube all the way? 🤔

Have had to sand the inside of the tube to remove excess paint before in order to get the flange to fit all the way into the tube.

The black dual speed ones can be a tight fit I agree. I assume that is because they are machined to tighter tolerances than the stock focusers.

53 minutes ago, Piero said:

 

I thought you already used a RACI finder with your dobson. 

Nice finder!

At the moment I have an Antares VS60 with no illuminated field.

Thanks !

I have a non-illuminated RACI on there at the moment. I tried an illuminated one on someone elses scope and rather liked it so when this one came up for sale I went for it and my ED120 now gets promoted from a 6x30 RACI to the older 9x50 that the dob was using. My scopes seem to have a "pecking order"

@fozzybear and others: The first computer I worked with was in 1984, this Cifer 9000 Unix machine with a massive 10 megabyte hard disk and 5 1/4 in floppy drive: