AstralFields

On 05/05/2024 at 23:52, Buford7 said:

@AstralFieldsThe issue with feet distance is that only bottom of the board is 490mm, once you cut out the 20° angle it is now less than 490 where the Dob feet need to rest. 
 

I though about building Vogels larger one as well, or just widening the base of the 10” plan to fit my Dob better—just not sure how modifying the template affects balance, tracking time etc. 

I think the bigger platform will be better in all regards. 10cm is a very minor difference and I wouldn't worry about it at all. If anything it should improve the balance of the whole thing.

I have the same feet distance on my 8" and I had a width of 500mm and it fit very nicely.. So you can basically settle on a width between 490mm and 600mm and take it from there.

The 10" DOB should be fine with the plans

Groundboard feet are 465mm apart.. the width of the platform is 490mm.. all good and the feet land at the corners. 

You are probably missing something.

If you are unsure, just build the 12" version by Reiner on his site. Iam building three of them. They are over 600mm wide.

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

Looks close to a Hyperion design.

Bingo .. it looks exactly like a Hyperion 17mm. (compared to the Angel Eyes 14mm) Thanks for the identifying it exactly. I didn't manage to find it.

Of course, the Hyperion is double the price of the Angel Eyes so I feel pretty happy about the purchase.

5 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Nice report.

While the upper, positive, image forming part of the eyepiece may be quite similar to the Panoptic design, the fact that it has a negative, Smyth lens section down in the insertion barrel makes this a negative/positive design more along the lines of the 6mm and 9mm Redlines, just with much better SAEP control.

Based on your image of the bottom of the eyepiece, I'm pretty sure it has 7 or 8 elements just like the others in the line.  The 6 elements claim is probably just a typo.

Generally, eyepiece lines like the Radian, Delos, Delite, Pentax XW, Pentax XL, Baader Hyperion, Baader Morpheus, and many others with constant eye relief and field of view across focal lengths generally have similar, if not identical, upper image forming sections.  Only the lower and intermediate lens sections vary from focal length to focal length.  This rule of thumb tends to break down at 17mm and above in many eyepiece lines.  Even the upper section gets some redesign work done on it to get to lower powers.

Study these Pentax XL and XW lens diagrams to see what I mean:

Thanks! This is very informative

The time when China was copying only simple aspherics and simple Konig designs like the 'red lines' appears to be over. The one I got is a new item (as far as I know) in the AngelEyes line of eyepieces. I prefer AngelEyes as it seems to me they are a brand that know what they are doing, without all the pomp and marketing of SVBony. One thing is always guaranteed with them, you get what you pay for. A 30$ eyepiece is better than a 12$ Plossl.. simple.. and their 87$ is far better than the 30$ eyepiece. This was also the reason I bought it. My thinking was that if a 'budget' brand like Angel Eyes is suddenly selling an 83$ eyepiece, it is not going to be bad and it will have a lot of glass. I was right. Keep in mind, this is with a 20% EU Tax.. You may get it cheaper from AliExpress in another country.

Before I go to the eyepiece, let's get a couple of things on budget China pieces settled down.

I will admit, I've always been a fan of budget friendly eyepieces sourced from China and so far I have not been disappointed, even after spending a full night testing out Morpheus, Explore Scientific, APMs in much better telescopes than mine. Reason is simple, my 8" f/6 is very forgiving and not that bright (making any errors not as easy to see). I think every discussion about an eyepiece should start with the focal ratio and type of telescope it was tested with, otherwise it is a waste of time.

I've noticed there is a huge, and I mean huge difference on how these eyepieces perform depending on the focal ratio of the telescope. The 40mm 2" Kellner is nice to use in my 8" .. in the 12" f/5 it just completely breaks apart 50% out of the field. Something similar, though not as radical happens with the 'red lines' as well.

The whole reason I went in the beginning for the 8" f/6 instead of the 10" f/4.7 was so that I can focus on actual observing and learning instead of spending a ton of money on eyepieces. Also I had no idea what eyepiece to get exactly, why and what focal length. This relatively safe strategy worked really well with f/6 and pretty much all the stuff I got was used at some point. Although I do have two friends, not one but two, who use the 'red lines' and Kellners in their f/4.7. They told me they have simply gotten used to it and are not in a rush to upgrade. Interesting. No coma correction as well.

But then once I got to a 12" f/5 everything pretty much fell apart. One the focal ratio is faster and second the telescope is brighter.. so there are more aberrations and there are easier to see. This necessitated that  I get some better eyepieces. I knew this going into the 12" , maybe I was hoping it wouldn't be so bad, but it was , so I went shopping. I am glad my first scope was not a 10" f/4.7. I would've been lost without the experience I gained with the 8" and my budget stuff.

First choice was simple, the SkyRover 30mm UFF (APM 30 UFF clone). A lot has been said about this one already, I've read a lot about it over the last year or two and it was first on my list. I will say only this, it is a total spoiler. Comparing any other eyepiece to this one makes the other eyepiece look lousy. With this being said, I have not been able to compare the Angel Eyes 14mm to anything else premium in my telescope.

I am also using it without a Coma Corrector in a 12" f/5, so this is something to count with. I don't know how much of the stuff around the edges is Coma and how much other aberrations. I wish I could compare it to something a lot better and more expensive.

I am comparing it directly with the SVBony 'red lines' 15mm that go for about 30$ and my SVBony Zoom 7-21mm. So we are talking a price difference of about 63$. 

The eyepiece line has a 7mm , 14mm and 22mm. I don't feel the need for a 22m as the 30mm UFF is just amazing and covers anything low power I want. The 7mm on the other hand is just too much high power. I am not a big planetary guy and for DSOs this seems a bit too much. Maybe in the future, we shall see.

But the 14mm was the clear winner I wanted because that is what I use 50% of the time. An exit pupil of about 2.5-3.0. In the 12" f/5 this is an exit pupil of 2.8mm. Very bright, sharp, lots of resolution, nice and comfortable. 

The 'red lines' and the 2" Kellners I've used with my 8", for all their shortcomings in an f/5, have had a very nice, comfortable eye relief and have spoiled me in this regard. 

This was the reason I went with this one instead of their other premiums, a 16mm 82 degree for 85$ but a 10-12mm eye relief instead of 19mm. I am very curious to see how these perform but 16mm is a tiny bit too low for me, I wish they had a 12mm in that range. Also that 82 degree without a CC is not going to go well.

It has a very comfortable eye relief of 19mm. The image is super crisp, bright and sharp. On par with a simple Plossl. In comparison my favorite 15mm 'red line' was 'softer' even directly in the center, nevermind the edges. I also feel the color of the stars is different.

The correction around the edges is pretty good, except for the last 5 degrees or so. I believe the majority of what is happening there is Coma. It does look like Coma but without a coma corrector I can't say for sure.

The AFOV is more like 66-67 degrees. I am comparing it directly with the 30mm UFF which they say has 70 degrees. So in this regard either Angel Eyes is lying about their 70 degrees , or the 30mm UFF has 73 degrees instead of 70. Anyway , I wish it was the same as the 30mm UFF but 66-67 is very nice nonetheless, especially with the vast majority of the field being very nice and sharp. 

The field is flat to my eyes as far as I can tell. Focusing on a star anywhere in the field focuses the whole field. So the claim of Flat Field is true. To be honest I was not as bothered by the other errors in my other eyepieces as the lack of focus across the field. I'd rather live with shredded stars than blurry stars. Some observations of the Moon at low horizon didn't show any obvious kidney beaning. The 'red lines' are pretty touchy in this area, especially the 6,9mm.

The field stop is sharp and easily seen. I am not a fan of vignetted field stops like the SuperView 30mm or my 'red lines' 6mm and 9mm. I love the clear crisp black line. 

Several discussions on Barlows made me do some testing for an entire hour. I took this eyepiece and tried it with a 1.5x Barlow screwed at the bottom or a 2x Barlow. I compared it with my fixed 'red lines' and there was no contest whatsoever. The image was brighter, sharper, more whiter stars, simply better in each and every way. Would a fixed eyepiece from the same line 7mm be better than a Barlowed 2x 14mm? Don't know. I was using a simple Celestron Omni 2x 2 element barlow. I would be curious to compare but I don't think the results would be worth the extra 83$ for the 7mm. I just don't see how it would be radically better.

So the math is simple here, instead of buying a 6mm , 9mm and 15mm 'red line' it is a LOT better to get their 14mm and an Omni 2x Barlow, basically for the same price. I am not regretting my 'red lines' as that was a valuable learning experience and they were pretty good in my f/6, but the choice here is simple. At the time I bought them this 14mm didn't even exist or at least I didn't see it back then.

The eyepiece is pretty heavy for a 1.25" and for an AngelEyes eyepiece , comes at 300 grams and sits very nicely in the focuser with the rest of the body being at 2". This is the only downside when Barlowing 2x, it feels a bit weird in the focuser. But this is just a cosmetic issue.

Under closer inspection of their design, this appears to be a Panoptic Design with a 'barlow like' lens at the bottom before the focal plane. The 14mm has 6 elements in 4 groups. The 7mm and 22mm have 8 elements in 5 groups. I am very curious to know why the 7mm and 22mm require more elements and more groups? What makes these mid-powers so special and not requiring as much as glass? I noticed this also in the 'red lines' that the 15mm is the smallest and simplest.

The bottom line is that this is some of the best 83$ I have invested into an eyepiece so far, maybe second best to the 179$ of the SkyRover 30mm, that thing is just amazing even for that money, maybe worth easily double that.

Some impressions.

M13 looked amazing , M92 as well and at a Bortle 4 location it showed really nice dust lines (finally) in M51 as it was right above at 90 degrees. It was so good and outperformed my other stuff (even with a Barlow) by so much that I am selling everything and keeping only the SVBony Zoom 7-21mm , this 14mm one and the 30mm UFF + my Barlow 2x,3x. Minimalism at its best. Over time I may go for some planetary eyepiece, like their 4mm 82 degree looks interesting. Need to get some field experience with my Zoom on what is the best high power focal length for my new 12". Once I figure out where I spend most of my time, I can get a fixed one.

7 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

If it's anything like my 12" StellaLyra (GSO), the optics should be great.

I too use the 30mm UFF - one of the best eyepieces made. In comparison the Superview 30mm is pants.

I don't have any problems focusing. I only photograph the moon using a x4 Powermate though.

Yeah , it is the same telescope. Using the 4x Powermate shifts your focus outwards. I managed to resolve the backfocus issues but it could've been done smarter like Sky-Watcher does it. They provide 50mm extensions and once removed, you get an extra 50mm backfocus.

I've had an 8" Sky-Watcher 200p for about 2 years. While it was the best beginner telescope I could've possibly pick, I started thinking about an upgrade sometime in the future but I decided to wait until I would complete the full Messier catalog. My thinking was along the lines that until I get the whole catalog completed, I wouldn't know if I still would want to stick with this hobby and invest more money into it. Also I just felt I should somehow 'deserve' a bigger telescope. Another reason was that the 8" is an f/6 telescope and while my budget eyepieces worked reasonably well there, I was afraid that in the brighter f/5 they would look pretty lousy, so there was not only the investment into a new telescope but into new eyepieces as well.  And yes , I was right about that part, the budget stuff is simply not suitable for telescopes under f/6. They should ideally be used at f/8.

At the same time I discovered a nice APM 30mm UFF clone from Aliexpress for about 180$, which is a great deal as well as a Panoptic 14mm clone for like 83$. I bought both of them and they are just amazing in the 12" f/5, which is great as these two focal lenghts are used in my observations for like 90% of the time, the rest is done with my SVBony Zoom 7-21mm which is a great performer in the new scope as well. So basically I will be selling most of my budget stuff along with the 8" during this year. 

On to the scope itself. It arrived in two big boxes, the guy in the van warned me that this is some heavy stuff. I've been worried about the weight of this thing from the moment I clicked the order button. The whole thing cost me 1020$ , although I could've saved 30$ had I used my local currency. Had no idea they accepted it in the neighboring country. Very good price anyway as locally they go for 1100 to 1200$.

Why did I choose the GSO and not my beloved Sky-Watcher? Well.. Sky-Watcher apparently is not that great after all. Sure the mirror is superb with Pyrex and all of that but the rest is nothing to write home about.

GSO Mirror is BK7 - so a bit worse on the thermal side of things but it comes with a fan at the bottom pre-installed.. so no biggie. Also I store it in my cellar which is not that bad temperature difference wise to the outside. And I also am more of a DSO than planetary guy.. so there is that.

Focuser - Hands down the GSO is two leagues better than Sky-Watcher. It also has dual speed.

The adapters of the GSO are a LOT better with compression rings allowing for a tighter more accurate fit. So good that my Cheshire and Laser collimator finally agree. I could not get them to agree in the Sky-Watcher due to lousy adapters.

GSO - A big downside is the absolute lack of backfocus... Most stuff focuses quite closer to the secondary mirror even when there is a lot of focus travel to use, never-mind there is also a 35mm extension for 2" which doesn't get any use. Raising the primary to the maximum the screws allow alleviated a bit the problem but it was so bad that I barely got focus after raising the primary in my 3x Barlow. Sky-Watcher is so much better here and it provides the possibility to focus and attach a DSLR. That is not possible with the GSO if I ever wanted to get one. The only way I got my security/astro 4K cam to focus was to put the whole thing into the 2" extender... well at least I got it to work.

Finder - the finder is a regular straight view 40mm finder. After unboxing it and checking it out I put it back in the box. I hate optical finders as I find a laser and RDF combo so much better and so much lighter. With a 19kg OTA, every gram I can save counts. 

Eyepieces - The GSO here wins hands down. Sky-Watcher cheaps you out with a 10mm and 25mm Plossl (a.k.a are you freaking kidding me??). GSO is extremely gracious that it gives you a 30mm SuperView Erfle which normally goes for like 70$ to 100$. Not a bad value at all. I will probably sell it as I have the far superior 30mm UFF now. It also gives you a 9mm Plossl which I will also sell as the eye relief on those things is abysmal.

The bearings Alt / Azimuth are also better, the GSO comes with a lazy susan type. Maybe the Sky-Watcher 300p also has it, not sure. But I can say that the motions of the 12" are a lot better than my 8", both Alt and Azimuth. Another big plus for the GSO.

Also the GSO is a lot cheaper than Sky-Watcher... so really, GSO all the way in my book.

Collimation was totally messed up from the factory, the secondary was like 15mm off vertically. I don't think they care at all. Doesn't matter, I am pretty good with collimation so I got it spot on.

Transporting the thing was not as bad as I had feared, especially after I installed some wheels and carrying straps. It basically made no noticeable difference to my observation preparation, drive and setup.. like maybe an extra 5 minutes out of the one hour it takes me to prepare, pack, drive and unpack at the destination. The weight is perfectly fine once you have a good way to strap that thing. I use two carrying straps and one extra to put over my shoulder. My son is 20kg and I carry him all the time.. so it is not the weight itself but more about figuring out a way to properly attach that weight and distribute to the body. The base is basically the same weight as the Sky-Watcher, so no difference there at all.

The first night observing was a real blast.

M51 - We all saw the dust lines pretty clearly that night as it was at 90 degrees up in the sky on a clear night

M104 - Looked amazing and showed clear structure.

Leo Triplet - Fit nicely in the 30mm UFF and they looked very clear, bright with easily recognizable structure.

The Ring Nebula was also amazing as was the Cat's Eye.

Checked also M13 and M92 and again, very very nice in the 14mm panoptic clone.

The Beehive Cluster in the sharp edge to edge 30mm UFF was out of this world, simply great to look at.

Going through the Virgo cluster with the 30mm UFF yielded a ton of NGC galaxies, easily visible with direct vision and actually confusing us from identifying the Messier galaxies we were looking for. A big step-up from the 8" where only the brightest galaxies are easily visible.

I also got to compare the Kellner 32mm eyepiece to the SuperView Erfle 30mm and the APM UFF 30mm clone. It really showed nicely why the first one costs 45$ , the second 100$ and the third 180$. I will be making a video focused on this and why there is such a difference. 

That is about all for now, I will be making a proper detailed review half a year down the road once I've gotten some field experience with the scope under various conditions and done some imaging.

3 hours ago, bosun21 said:

Looking forward to the actual review of the 12".

Me too! Right now working on an unboxing / overview video which I will put out in a week or so, but the detailed review will be few months from now, to ensure I get some experience/feelings by using the telescope over a range of targets. 

3 minutes ago, LukeTheNuke said:

Enjoy! Those little wheels on the dob base look neat!

I love them. When I decided to buy the 12" , I bought and got the wheels first  . I am never dragging another DOB base without these on it , especially not a 12" Base

Yes I know ...  sorry Central Europe.. it is cloudy, raining and even snowing 😄. At least I had ample time to put together and now to collimate. 

For those who may be interested to check on how it went

11 minutes ago, wesdon1 said:

@AstralFields Is that an 8" or a 10" incher mate? 

I must agree that bigger is normally better, particularly for visual astro! 

The 8" is in the background yes .. and they say , always upgrade at least a magnitude higher

I always say, get an 8" and get most of the Messier catalog done with that telescope. Do some Solar System observing and imaging and then you will know if you should get a bigger scope.

Been there done that.. and I know now! Bigger it is!

So what is it??

15 hours ago, PeterStudz said:

@AstralFields Good to know that it all works. For a hand controller as long as you have some bits of wire you don’t even need to spend any money. Some people have separated the motor from the box (with circuit board & switches), joining the two with long wires. You can see the two separated in the Teleskop version - the motor at one end and the box with the electronics and switches at the other.

I thought of having a hand controller, but personally I haven’t found it to be a problem. I have a little volt meter across the motor terminals on my version. All I do is make sure it’s set to the correct number (for me 2.35 - 2.37 volts) at the beginning when I have to bend down anyway and keep it there. I rarely need to fiddle with it and often don’t touch the potentiometer for several sessions in a row.

Although the good thing about making your own is that you can personalise things to your taste/requirements!

The thing about the controller.. I already have one laying around here, got it back last year where I built my own planetary motor out of Lego (long story) .. so it is just a matter of rewiring it to the platform. I did settle down on a constant speed towards the end of the observation but it just felt like I could use some minor micro tuning of the speed back and forth.

Mission Accomplished.

As they say, pictures speak louder than words. This is M3 with a more or less OK alignment. I don't have a proper DSO camera so this was with my cellphone through a 15mm eyepiece on my 8" DOB .. 80x magnification.

the Aluminum segments that you find in most plans are definitely not needed. Wood is a lot easier to deal with and lined with a bit of door tightening rubber it runs extremely smooth.. no jerky motions of the objects whatsoever even at 800x. There is some drift at this power, but it is smooth and mostly to not exact alignment/speed setting. I captured all of this on video of the Moon and will be compiling it into a nice 10-15 minute video of how I made the platform from start to finish with the key lessons learned.

The price tag is really small for this one, given the performance I am getting. Next time I am doing it with Plywood.

When you break it down , there are just few parts:

Plywood - about 30$

EQ 2 Motor - 37$ from Aliexpress with shipping

Wheels and pre-cut iron rod 0.8mm - 10cm long - about 10-15$

Some spherically curved bolts - 2$

Regular wood screws - 1-2$

optional:

Li-Ion rechargeable 9V batteries - about 8$ (which I bought)

A hand-held controller for the speed of the motor - they go for about 2$. I will make one as it was very frustrating having the fine tune the speed by going back and forth from the eyepiece to the motor.

All in all , a nice price tag of around 80$. A new one (albeit prettier) sells for about 500$ here with the same motor and same performance.. I may make a couple of these for a 12" DOB and sell them for 250$ each. Already two people expressed interest. It is far below my hourly wage when I count the time I need but it is fun and always nice helping out an astro buddy :).

The biggest advantage of building one your own is you get to simply make it fit your telescope exactly and you understand how it works. Also you can cut the segments exactly for your needs. By the looks of it, this one should be OK for the 12" as well , which I already have on the way.

It provides tracking for about 90 minutes, which is great and so comfortable that I found myself forgetting to reset the telescope after an hour of observation.

Almost there. There have definitely been some lessons learned along the way. 

1) Don't use any drill adapters to cut wood. The damn thing broke 80% along the way and I am having to cut the rest manually. Just get a small hand held wood cutter. I probably will for my 12" DOB version.

2) Use plywood. The type of wood I am using is not the ideal, the top board broke in two so I had to patch it up. It will likely add a bit of bounciness to the system but shouldn't be too drastic. I can always replace it later on with plywood.

3) Don't store your only 9V battery in a box full of metal parts. Few days later - voltage ZERO. Just when I was going to turn on the platform for the very first time.

4) Aluminum is a tough nut. Not all Aluminums are alike. I was going to use a 3mm bar to cover the segments but that thing was tough to cut. I even gave up of putting it under the pivot. I am just going to hollow out a small hole in the wood. So I just made the segments out of wood and put some rubber on top of them to cushion the roll.

All in all, few cosmetic cuts remaining but it really came along very well. Maybe Thursday I will get to test it on the Moon.

Yeah .. To put things into context, the errors I am speaking of are like 1 degree per hour of tracking.. pretty minor but worth sharing for any new buiders.

Also to come back to the printable segments shared in this thread. They are incorrect for all the latitudes. Seems like Reiner has counted with a tilt degree for the segments of 15 degrees but in the plans it is 20 degrees. For some of the latitudes he did not apply the segment tilt at all, making the error bigger.

In practical terms this will induce some errors necessitating to change the speed of the motor during the tracking and some minor drift.

After I fixed it for my latitude, the difference between 15 degree tilt or 20 degree tilt is obvious

Sorry for the bad news to everybody who printed the segments for their platform. On the bright side, I guess they can be easily replaced. I may create a fixed version after I finish my platform for all latitudes as it is pretty easy using Libre Office - Draw

Another mistake I have noticed in this thread, people have printed the segments at the wrong scale. Somebody asked about this and someone else took a picture of a ruler over the segment. When you open them in Libre - Draw using the in-app rulers for the page, it is clear how big they should be. One can even draw a simple line and see exactly to mm how long the segment should be.

This is likely induced by the incorrect handling of PDR printing by the printer and some auto-scaling stuff going on due to printer margins.

To avoid, it is best to import the plans in Libre Office - Draw. Fix the segments there and print the segment directly from the app.

In order to perform the fix, one may need to temporarily increase the page size to 100x100cm as the ellipse creating the segments is that big.

The exact dimensions of the segments are very important because the distance in the plans is fixed at 244mm between them (meaning they should be at a specific size). Again all of this can be verified in Draw.

Not having them exact is again inducing minor errors in the system.

Update:

All the stuff I need arrived from AliExpress and I have initiated the planning phase. Spent about 2 hours fine tuning the Sector 49 degrees using Reiner Vogel's approximation method. The segment itself was easy but it was important to have it at the right dimensions on the A4 so that it fits with the plan I have that has the distance of the segments at 244. Everything needed to fit, and I had to ensure I can mount them to the board. I used Libre Office Draw to create a printable, at scale' segment I can easily copy on the wood without much hassle.

At the same time, I couldn't get off my mind the work HenkSB did here:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/916052-vns-platform-sector-calculations/

He is using a much more accurate projection and was claiming Reiner's projection is off by 1%. That is something, that was bothering me. So I installed SciLab (was really simple on Kubuntu from the app store) and ran his scripts for my latitude. The ellipse that was generated was a lot more compressed than the one I had calculated using Reiner's plans. 

So I asked him about it, I thought I was not using his stuff properly but in the end it was a simple oversight. He fixed the code and lo and behold in the end Reiner's projections are only 0.1 degrees for a 90 minute tracking off. That is something I can live with. My woodcutting will likely introduce a lot bigger errors. Either way, great work by HenkSB to confirm the accuracy of the segments. I don't think anybody had done this before.

He also made a nice animation that shows the movement of the segments in all three dimensions. They do move and this is something that should be taken into account when spacing the wheels. I am also skipping making the segments out of aluminum and doing them from the 18mm wooden board.  Omegon has gotten away with a lot thicker segments, so I am hoping this won't matter much as they do tilt on either side. I was originally going to use some aluminum at the bottom of the segments, but I will try to skip that part.. as long as I polish the wood after the cut, it should be fine.. I hope.

With the segments finally resolved. I put everything on the table for one final count that nothing is missing. Of course, stuff was missing, took me 30 minutes to figure out where I had put it and also had to locate a hex mini tool to tighten the wheels. 

After about an hour of some geometry fun with my daughter's coloring pencils, the board is ready for cutting.

I don't have a woodshop and I don't want to make a mess out of my apartment, so I am converting my cheap drill into a wood cutting machine. Will be doing the cutting sometime next week in my shared garage space. Hope I don't make too big of a mess. The cut of the segments will be a bit tricky but I did order some some polishing bits for the drill to make the final touches. 

I am documenting the whole thing for a video as stuff like this should be out there for future generations. Have not found any simple designs documented on YouTube.

The final price tag is right now at about 100$ , including the wood cutting adapter for my drill and some rechargeable batteries for the motor. The wood was pretty cheap, got it for 20$ including shipping as I couldn't find any good wood at our summer house. It is much more beautiful than some old worn-out wood. Maybe I will paint it white, or maybe not. We shall see. 

1 minute ago, Neutrinosoup said:

Aperture is everything….very interesting write up.

Up until I bought an 8 inch dobsonian recently I was a refractor only person. When I first used the Dobsonian I couldn’t believe how silly I had been. I still think a lightweight 4 inch Apo like the Takahashi FC-100DC is an unbeatable grab and go scope. And my little 3 inch apo is my binocular substitute (lazy eye, so binoculars are useless to me)…..however neither match what I can see with the dobsonian.

You mentioned considering adding a 12 inch Dobsonian to your collection? I’d been debating adding an Orion Optics U.K. 10 inch with upgraded mirror cell…..simply because of size, weight and storage. Have you experience of lifting a 12 inch and ever compared it to a 10 inch? 
—> And to anyone else have any of you used a “standard” 12 vs a “premium mirror” 10?

I have experienced lifting the 10" in one go to move it a couple of meters. I have yet to lift a 12" but it should be fine when broken apart in two pieces. I am a relatively strong guy and can carry my 8" in one piece about 20 meters.

Just now, Alan White said:

Nice video and liked the hear your feedback and reaction to nice sized Newtonian scopes.
Interesting comments on the eyepieces, I do wonder if you wear glasses or not at the eyepiece, this makes a notable difference.
Thanks for sharing.

Oh yea, glasses are a complete deal breaker with some of these. I can't imagine using the Explore Scientific 100 degrees with glasses. Even without I had to push my eyeball to the eyepiece like I have to do it with a 25mm Plossl in order to see the entire FOV. 

Sure even when I couldn't see the entire FOV I was still seeing over 80 degrees of FOV from the 100 but this made me feel anxious and uneasy that I am not 'looking through the eyepiece as I am supposed to' types of feelings. 

APM had a much better eye relief.. the Morpheus as well. 

But so do my 30$ 'red line' SVBonys. The eye relief on them is amazing.

I was fortunate enough to join a Star Party for a night under a sky of 21.30 SQL (measured on the spot by somebody) , so a solid Bortle 3.5. There were a bit of high altitude clouds but it got better as the night progressed.

Here are some of the key impressions I took with me, obviously they were based on limited observing time with the big scopes as there were literally lines of people waiting to have a peek at M51 and Orion.

• Aperture is absolutely everything. Even something as solid as M13 looked amazing in the 20" , not as amazing in the 16" and lousy by comparison in a Bino Combo Double Refractor 2x155mm with premium eyepieces attached. There were literally lines of people waiting to see M51 in the 20" , even the guy with the 16" came to check it out and he noticed a difference in the 20".
   
• Galaxy dust lanes are incredibly difficult to visually observe. Even with the 20" it was not obvious to the eye as it is with an astrophoto. Any other galaxies, we didn't even try. I assume observing the dust lanes has a lot more to do with having a Bortle 1,2 sky, instead of having a big telescope. I mean they were clearly there with the 20" , but they were not self-evident and easy to see.. You would wonder if you are really seeing something or the mind is just filling it up based on what should be there, as we know what to expect having seen the photos.
   
• This is entirely my personal opinion but eyepieces and the whole discussion around eyepieces is absolutely overblown. I did not see any lines of people to test some premium eyepieces or even many discussions around the types of eyepieces being used. Explore Scientific 100 , APM 84 , Morpheus 76.. it was all pretty much very very similar in my view. In fact the ES 100 did not feel comfortable to my eyes as I had to push really hard and really close with my eyes to get the benefit of the full FOV. I just didn't feel the whole 'space walk' experience... just another eyepiece with a field stop a bit further out than my 68 budget ones.  Sure .. they were better, but not 500$ better compared to my 30$ SVBony 'red lines'.
   
• Same goes with expensive O3 filters. The guys were putting some O3 filters for the Nebulas and yes they were making the image more contrasty , but I did not see any visible difference over what I am used to have with my cheap UHC filter from SVBony for like 25$ and 40$ for the 2". If there is a difference, it is VERY subtle and in my view not a 300$ difference, which is what those O3 likely cost.
   
• GoTo - There were two identical Sky Watcher 400p GoTo telescopes as you can see below. One of them spent the night observing, the other spent the night trying to solve it's GoTo system. As the guy probably didn't know how to Star Hop, he spent this amazing opportunity at this amazing place.. troubleshooting technical issues and playing around with cables and what have you not. A similar situation unfolded also with the amazing Bino 2x 155mm refractor. The guy with the manual 20" spent the night happily observing with zero issues and has little trouble finding the targets even with such a huge scope. This only solidified my opinion that GoTo is not something I want to invest in. Even the guy who had no issues told us that it took him a long time to optimize his battery, cabling and so on to prevent having those issues.
   
• Having quite a bit of experience with the 8" was really a good thing. This solidified my opinion that a worthwhile upgrade to my setup is going to 12". The 16" is simply way too much of a beast and clearly a two person scope. The guy who had used to have an 8" and a 12" and he confessed that it is not a good scope to take with you, only if you already have the place and space for a solid fixing.

The rest, you can check below:

19 hours ago, Jules Tohpipi said:

Thanks and congratulations for a very interesting and useful write up @AstralFields  Out of curiosity which inclinometer are you using - do you have a photo or link possibly?

This one .. very accurate

Just found this amazing item on AliExpress. Check it out! 
US $9.39  50%OFF | Digital Display Inclination Box Precision Measurement with Backlight Magnetic Suction Protractor Inclinometer Angle Meter 1PC
https://a.aliexpress.com/_EzyJ7NR

14 minutes ago, Simon Pepper said:

This is awesome! Where did you obtain the print out from? Thanks 

Here:

messier-objects (lowell.edu)

The top row is missing the checkmark boxes though

35 minutes ago, Whistlin Bob said:

Excellent work- that's a really great achievement. I got stuck on 91- the remainder aren't viewable from home- so I need to get myself to a dark site!

Have to say, I'm all for taking your time over this- many of these objects are so much more rewarding with a looking look.

And I completely agree about the Leo triplet 👍

Not sure if you mean a 91 total seen or M91 but this reminded me of M91. It is a very cool one with a bit of history. It was the first on the list of my last session with the last 12 objects. Right next to it there is an NGC 4571 galaxy, very clearly and easily visible that it confused me in the first moments and I did not know which is which. Due to some bug also in Stellarium on my phone it was not immediately clear what is the galaxy next to M91.

Apparently, before the age of Stellarium, with only paper charts and notes the NGC 4571 was frequently confused with M91 and this is one of the reasons it never got its own Messier number. 

https://www.jthommes.com/Astro/M91.htm (not my photo but a great one)