Astronomist

Thank you for your replies, I have already checked the grub screws and bolts on the adapter plate, the flex is definitely in the actual tube walls. as far as i am aware at least one SGL member has experienced this problem on their Bresser 10"; (it may have been @Vroobel but i cannot find the thread) i think they were imaging so I'm not too sure how much weight there was on the focuser. I will contact Bresser and see what they have to say about it. Btw my scope goes out of warranty in a few weeks, the 'couple of months' refers to how long I've had the UWAN. Hopefully Bresser replies quick!

after using my 10" Bresser Dob with a very heavy 28mm UWAN for a couple of months, I've noticed that the weight of the eyepiece/focuser causes flexure in the walls of the OTA, resulting in the focuser tube not running parallel to the optical axis. This is not a problem with lighter EPs, but with the 28mm the entire focuser can sag by as much as 5mm. Does anyone have any advice on how to stiffen the OTA around the focuser? ( preferably without drilling ) Thanks Astronomist

Unfortunately they do this in the UK as well, anyone would think the population was scared of the dark... Anyhow, welcome to SGL! 😀

Impressive pictures, when you say manual tracking are you just nudging the scope as you would for visual?

Astro Essentials magnetic handle arrived from FLO today!

very interesting @Paz, i never knew that was why those coatings where used, I think they need it as the aperture is 58.5mm at around f4.1 with no internal stops, even with weird coatings it is a little colourful at the edges. I have measured the exit pupil to be 6mm, so magnification is around 10x.

It seems these cheap manufacturers just make it all up as they go along, i cant see Leica or Zeiss doing that.

I can only assume it must be true field, since 8o AFOV would as you say be like looking through a pinhole. I suppose this is another pair of rip off binos like mine. In any case 60x mag at 35mm aperture would be very dim, blurry and impossible to hand hold. <edit> I fount these on eBay that seem to be the same as the aforementioned ones but advertising a much more realistic 8x21

it has 20mm eye lenses, so the area in mm of each of them is 314mm squared...

Thanks for your replies, so the numbers are most likely blatant lies then. Interesting you should mention the coatings @Peter Drew, I was only just thinking they might make good ERFs...

A few months ago I got a pair of 60mm tasco binoculars for free at a car boot sale, the seller told me they were 'seeing double' and I could have them if I could fix them. I just got around to recollimating them a few days ago, and they are actually surprisingly good for what they are. However, on the back they say '90x60'. If my understanding is correct this should mean 60mm aperture and 90x magnification, which they are not. please could someone help shed light on this

Personally I just love these: https://reginato.it/telescopes.htm and if you look at the pricing the 20" model is apparently only 13 euros (excluding VAT) 😆

The only eyepiece I really missed after selling it was my 26mm televue smoothside plossl, which I sold a few years ago during a ep clear-out. Having said that, I don't think I would buy another one; It wouldn't really ever get used now that I have a 28mm UWAN and an addiction to 82 degree AFOV.

Impressive first post! it looks very well made and thought out, and reminds me that I really must get a 3d printer someday.

wow that is quite something, but surely the car's suspension would cause vibration issues when observing with a scope that big on it?

Some mad billionaire I suppose. . .

As I understood from the commentary the starship was supposed to separate some time prior to the start of the tumbling, but failed to do so. presumably the staging mechanism had a problem or something.

I was confused when I first used my 16mm UWAN that the focal length seemed to be dramatically less than 16mm. It took me several minutes to realise that there was in fact a Barlow in the focuser. 🤦‍♂️

happens to the best of us

can't really tell from the picture, but this may well be the sort of phone adapter that is meant to go over an eyepiece.

if you have the aluminium tripod you could also fill the legs with concrete, makes a rather unstable tripod very stable also see this thread on CN, but beware some of these ideas (especially the ones involving concrete) if you still want to be able to pick up your tripod. https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/117633-stiffening-an-aluminum-tripod/

not sure if this is within your budget, but one of these looks like an ideal beginner scope: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/ursa-major-102mm-tabletop-dobsonian-telescope.html

Generally, very small reflectors seem to be of poor quality, and as sunshine says the secondary obstruction can only be made so small, I would pass on that and get the refractor, unless you are prepared to look elsewhere, in which case I would highly recommend a look around on our sponsors website, First light optics

Nice, at some point I will have to drag myself out of bed early to have a look, unfortunately my sky isn't as dark as yours though, and its going to be cold....

Ok, I have looked at heavens above, I cannot find anything bright passing in that direction at around that time. I was wondering, is it possible for a satellite to appear far brighter than predicted, the aforementioned NOS satellites move slowly enough that I might have mistaken them for being stationary, but were forecast to appear quite dim. other than that I think I will have to settle for them being flares. thanks Astronomist