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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_beauty_night_skies.thumb.jpg.2711ade15e31d01524e7dc52d15c4217.jpg

adamsp123

Members
  • Content Count

    2,637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

6 Followers

About adamsp123

  • Rank
    Brown Dwarf
  1. I was wondering if spending a litle more to get the EQ6 mount may save you money in the long run as this mount will take a greater payload than the EQ5, a good solid hefty mount is very beneficial for AP. Having said that a big old mount like the EQ6 would be a pain to set up each time, not a problem if you at least have the mount in a permanant set up. I put off autoguiding for far too long, in truth to laziness mostly, and have always regretted that.
  2. Hi Tim, I have a method that a bit before the meridian flip I will find an object on stellarium that has gone a bit PAST meridian but is of similar DEC. I slew to it (ie meridian flip) then check it has appeared in the field of view if this is OK I then recalibrate the guiding. By now my target is past meridian so I can slew to it. I check the field of view again and if happy I can guide immediately. Pete
  3. Hi Jon, I feel I need to warn you about the potential problem you may have with the mount if you go to long exposure deep sky imaging. The Vixen mounts, certainly with the older Skybook (pre Skybook 10) have a nasty habit of doing DEC corrections in manner which makes the image jump. Every minute of so the DEC jumps and if you are auto-guiding with PHD you can see the DEC jump up in one direction, PHD will correct only for it to happen repeatedly ensuring you have nicely elongated stars and data. The only solution I found was to replace the control board with NEXSXD/NEXATLUX control board from a Lady called Maite Ortiz who is/was based in Spain. Once I did this the mount worked perfectly. Pete
  4. Graem, With my shed I just have it well ventilated and all the kit remains dry. With my original "waterbutt" cover I did get a little amount of condensation (only on the mount - no scopes attached) I think mainly because there was not enough airflow in the system. You could add a close fitting plastic cover..... Pete
  5. cough cough - I stand corrected I think !! It is definately an age thing, in the above statement replace "Bias" with "Dark Flats" - but ............ I am prepared to be shot down again. I do use the T shirt technique to get my flats. I used my fridge to do my DSLR dark library (various exposure times and ISO settings) - at +5C they should be good for +10C down to 0C and then used the ice box at 0C for another set of Darks which I found covers most of the temps I see around here at night. Using the fridge means better control and convenience as you can do this anytime and get a lot of Darks exposed.
  6. Also someone, who I greatly respect their knowledge in these matters, pointed out you don't need bias frames in DSS if you are using Darks......I know I added bias frames and the results were definately worse off. Remember the Darks should have same exposure lengths as well as ISO settings as your Lights.
  7. One question though, if yours is well ventilated why did you need to drill more holes, wouldn't the vents let the heat out?. The answer is that nearly all the ventilation, without the holes drilled at the apex of each end, would have been by the slot in the floor to allow the telescope mount to fit. I was concerned that on a hot summers day the heat could build up significantly in the top area of the shed if I didn't add some venting holes to improve hot air circulation. As you rightly say so long as the shed is weather proof, ventilation is the key to keeping dampness out.
  8. I have a T&G wooden roll off shed, to put your mind at rest I have not insulated it or put in a waterproof membrane, I do not heat it - (and all was well a few years ago when the temps dropped to -15C on some nights. ) It never has suffered from damp as it is well ventilated which I believe is the most important consideration against damp. One concern I had was overheating on hot sunny days so I drilled some holes at the top at each end to allow heat to vent out. HTH
  9. I went and did this.... http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/67833-my-roll-off-obsy/, since I posted this I have moved house and the roll off shed is still going strong.
  10. My Astronomy has been in the serious doldrums for a long time, mostly due to having near zero chances of getting any imaging done because of the rubbish weather we have had or when clear the Moon has been near full. I went to a meeting of the Newtown (powys) Astronomy Association and it rekindled some enthusiasm then followed by clear nights recently where I got off my butt and had a few runs at getting some pictures of galaxies, work still in progress, not the best time to get going again as summer rapidly approaches but it is nice to "feel the need again" so to speak. Hope it lasts..... Pete
  11. I use a 6X4 ft roll off shed.....£300 all in.
  12. I would suggest that good ventalation would help considerably, I have a roll off shed - so it is up on wheels with a dirty great slot cut into the floor, plus I added vent holes above the door and just below the roof overhang to allow hot air out if we ever had a run of hot weather (hahaha). Living in very wet Wales my shed stays absolutely dry, as does the kit inside and I have never had any mold. Pete
  13. I also meant to point out, but forgot, that if you do go with a buried pier with legs you only need to cut 3 slots in the ground, just wide enough to fit the pier base legs and to pack some sand on each side. This saves alot of digging. Pete
  14. Hi, Just gone out and measured the pier and it is around 800mm above ground, my little "table" shown in the pic attached is about 320mm from the deck. In regards how deep I buried the pier it is about 150mm thats all, first time it was deeper but it wasn't really necessay to be so deep, whole pit is packed with sand as is the pier tube, unless you knock it pretty hard it remains in place nicely and so long as you don't stopmp around it whilst imaging it won't shake, sand is a very good dampening material. Without the table it could go a lot lower, so long as the telescope and/or camera miss the ground/table at zenith all should be well. Also from the pic you can see the slot in the shed base and one of four the wheels it runs on.
  15. DP, looking at the area you have to place your obsy and some of the other constraints you have I would recommend a different approach. Firstly consider ditching the concrete pier and consider what I did here with the pier ... http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/46537-what-lies-beneath/ I have twice used this method of base "construction", the reason I went this way initially was that I was renting the property but wanting to move to my own place... I found that the base was completely adequate for imaging and it was easy to remove, a few hefty push and pulls got the pier out. It was such an easy and effective method of pier construction I decided to do the same at my new place after I moved.... and it is still solid the second time around. Secondly your strip of land would probably be ideal for a roll off shed as I had the problem with space so my next move up was this http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/67833-my-roll-off-obsy/ You could lay treated planks in shallow trenches on your lawn and roll off a 4x6 foot shed along the planks, this would work nicely for you IMO. Hope that gives you an alternative worth considering Pete
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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