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.

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customise your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_satellites_v2.jpg

jambouk

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    3,935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,002 Excellent

About jambouk

  • Rank
    White Dwarf
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nottingham

Recent Profile Visitors

1,963 profile views
  1. Yes if you release the clutches to manually move to the first star it doesn't matter where the scope starts, but if you allow the mount to slee to the first star, the better the home position, the more likely it is that the first star will be bang on. I do it that latter way. both alignment stars were likely on the same side of the meridian so cone error, if there is any, will likely be less of an issue even if there is some. A three star alignment using stars on both sodes of the meridian will help with GOTO accuracy of there is cone error though. james
  2. My mate who lives in the next street has just got a new mount so I suspect he will be selling his in the near future. Where do you live? James
  3. It's fine, align the reticle with the RA but don't worry about the orientation of the reticle. James
  4. Every time i've done this I've needed to make the tripod very unlevel to enable me to point the polar scope at something on the horizon - just make sure it doesn't over balance and tip over! James
  5. If you are serious about the astrophotography (and want to progress to guiding) I'd go for a second hand HEQ5, ideally one with the belt modification. James
  6. Maybe check the lead between the mount and the handset, and the connections at each end (both inside the mount and inside the handset). James
  7. I agree with the above. It seems like a good idea to change the screws, but the time and hassle to change the screws will be greater than the perceived difficulty in using the existing screws to align the reticule. Also, the thumb screws stick out and are likely to get knocked and result in misalignment of the reticule. Stick with what you've got.
  8. No idea why I've also posted a picture of Birmingham University, or my set up twice - sorry.
  9. Yes
  10. I use an extension tube and it's fine. If it's very windy you won't be doing astronomy anyway.
  11. Is the idea so you then have two legs under the new peg which you can have lower than the one leg the other side? I'm not sure how easy it will be for anyone to attach a new peg as the top plate of the mount is a funny cast alloy, I think the new peg would likely get knocked off very easily. If this is the only solution I wonder if it would be easier to just hack the peg off yourself, and then add something which introduces a bit of friction between the tripod and the mount head and just rotate the mount head by hand to polar align before subsequently fully tightening the central bolt. Or maybe if you know someone who can engineer a new too plate for the tripod which has a new peg, and that new top plate could just slip on to the old one; but it would need to be reasonably thin to ensure the central bolt had enough thread to screw into the mount head. Good luck. James
  12. Do you mean you don't understand the concepts of RA and declination, or that you are struggling to use the RA and dec axes on your mount? If the former, get hold of this book and read the first few chapters: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Astronomy-Explained-Gerald-North/dp/3540761365/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1490081507&sr=8-7&keywords=North+astronomy If the latter, what is the exact mount you are using. James
  13. I was going to say the same thing. If the images above were standardised then this would be the best evidence I have EVER seen for flocking a telescope, however I think there are too many variables including: - the two telescopes aperture (150mm vs 100mm) - the two telescopes focal ratios (f5 vs f/4) - the image method (afocal) - the absence of any capture settings - the absence of any information on processing methods - the absence of information on sky conditions - the absence of information on the quality of the optics... James
  14. 1. If the scope slews to the second star OK, then the issues is not related to the data you have input into the handset (time, date, latitude, longitude, altitude, inside leg measurement) - but that is assuming the second star is the same star which is named on the handset; it is easy to centre on a bright star but it is not the same star the mount was expecting. 2. Assuming you have addressed part 1 above, then if the third star is way out either you did something wrong with the first two stars (centred on the wrong star(s)), you have serious cone error, the set up isn't well balance or the clutches slipping, power issues, kit too heavy for the mount... etc. 3. Who fitted the motors to the mount? What power source are you using? 4. How far out (in degrees) is the third star? 5. Are the first two stars on the same side of the meridian, and the third star on the opposite side? James