tooth_dr

7 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

I can't understand why you didn't cut the flange off at the weld, then put the shorter pipe into the flange like the original. It would have been much easier and a lot stronger than attempting a butt joint.

There are a couple of reasons why that didn’t happen 😊 but I don’t really feel like explaining myself.   I’m happy with my work but thanks for your feedback.

Hasn’t welded in my life until a few days ago, gave it a go and ended up with this.

16 minutes ago, tomato said:

There you go, the easiest bit of post processing I’ve ever done.

Thank you! Whatever way you look at it though, that’s a hell of an image of m31 

15 minutes ago, tomato said:

Thanks, but I thought there is no up in space?

Folks rarely present the Horsehead Nebula “the right way up”.

IMO it looks asethetically better the other way round. Just like the horsehead looks better presented the way it does.  M31 'looks' upside down that way.

Just wanted to continue the updates here.

I was gifted the DN pipe so beggars can’t be choosers!  The DN100 was a 2m length so too long.  I established the required length for my observatory - 1.06m - then cut the flange off one end and shortened the pipe accordingly.

Plan is to weld it up tonight.

Looks good apart from neck ache looking at it 👀

2 minutes ago, Elp said:

I tried this as I initially thought the same. The dovetail I mounted the lens rings onto have perpendicular slots so there's very little chance of any misalignment between the two lens rings. Imaging tests showed lens 1 centred on target, lens 2 was to one side with the target just about visible in one corner. My second iteration was to add a pan head to lens 2, this also missed the target with any sort of adjustment. My latest addition without trial is adding a tilt head but utilising it for roll adjustment instead.

I'm only doing this at 135mm focal length but with two identical cameras.

Haven't really had the time to mess with it from earlier this year though due to inconsistent weather.

This will be down to errors in your mounting equipment, but the light rays are (basically) parallel.  This is why you need an adjustment saddle. You need the light rays parallel, and this may not coincide with your mass produced equipment mounting points.

Just throwing in my view - I run a mono and a OSC IMX571 cameras on the same rig.

Both cameras in their own right produce great images.  The OSC produces great images but needs exposure time.  I often think I’d prefer two monos but I’d miss not having the OSC.

I run identical scopes, reducers and sensors so alignment is critical as the FOV is identical.  This was not difficult using the JTD saddle, but helped by having a rotatable focuser too.  I just centred the fixed scope on a bright star using the crosshairs in SGPro and adjusted the saddle on the other scope until it was aligned. Plate solving confirmed angles etc.  Took a good hour but that’s a one-off.

I used to synchronise my dithering using APT.  This was important with 30 minute subs, not to lose one. Now with 2 minute subs I don’t bother synchronising dithering and only dither every 15th sub.  I only lose a small % of my subs this way.

I run all off a run of the mill mini PC with a few GB ram.  One scope does the platesolving, guiding, controls the meridian flip etc.  The other scope just keeps taking images all night.

10 hours ago, Elp said:

The main issue on one mount will be getting both scopes aligned to the same FOV, it's not a case of mounting them parallel (if you imagine looking through one eye at a time and notice the FOV shift), the same thing happens with two scopes, due to the focal length you'll find one may not even frame the target at all whilst the other has it centred

I don’t believe this is correct.  The scopes will, for all intent and purposes, be completely parallel. This is due to huge distances involved to our targets - look up the ‘parallax method’ - astronomers use the orbit of the earth around the sun to create a large enough distance between their two scope to observe a minute shift in the image.

On 03/11/2023 at 12:28, Louis D said:

Also, if using a traditional long Barlow, be careful when inserting it into the rear port to avoid hitting the corrector lens if indeed it is at the back of the scope and not on the secondary.

I was out last night and definitely need to be careful inserting anything into the focuser too far as the corrector is just in behind it. 

1 hour ago, Mandy D said:

@tooth_dr I would go with the helicoil. They are designed for exactly this type of problem and provide a stronger thread than the original aluminium. Plus, it will keep the equipment standard.

Cheers Mandy. Originality isn’t high on the list at this stage 😂

1 hour ago, Mick J said:

Is there a way to enter a bolt from the top, nut & washer under fixing plate ?  needs to be a more permanent mounting.

I had a look and thought about it, but it’s not really practical, the altitude bolts are in that area.

1 hour ago, Stuart1971 said:

Helicoil will work, but you will have to drill out to the next size up and tap, to fit that in anyway…👍🏻

This is true, but the helicoil taps aren’t the same as conventional taps, so it’s one or the other.

16 minutes ago, Tomatobro said:

given the state of the hole you might find that a M14 tap will go in without drilling out. My experience of the mount material is that it is pretty soft and cut's easily.

I would think you are correct. Having owned an eq6 for several years, steel bolts don’t be long stripping aluminium threads on these mount, it’s like butter. 

I was attaching a recently purchased used NEQ6 to my pier last night but wasn’t able to tighten it to the metal plate, the bolt kept turning and wouldn’t tighten.  I had a look and the thread are all destroyed.  I was able to catch a few threads at the top using a longer threaded bar.  Would there be any harm is rethreading this as M14x1.5? Or try an M12 helicoil repair kit?

I’m in the process of recommissioning my RoR observatory. I bolted down the pier last night and setup a newly acquired used EQ6 with my new VC200L to have a look at Jupiter.  I could just look at this scope and mount all day though, beautiful.

Absolutely stunning. I’m currently in the process of recommissioning my Takahashi ε-180ED and D800E, so fantastic to see what is achievable.

Is this the same scope with a scratched objective?

Anyone know?

My new scope (VC200L) has a built in corrector that requires 149mm of backfocus. It isn’t a problem achieving this, but I’m just curious if this is important for planetary imaging, and secondly, if I use a barlow 2x how does this affect that spacing?

Thanks

On 26/10/2023 at 21:30, Paul M said:

My plan is to utilise my trusty old ASI178MC camera. I've used it on a tripod with the included lenes and been happy with the results.

I use a 178MM-cool as my ASC but am considering changing to the type posted above, to free up the camera for use on a scope. However it is an excellent performer with the 1.55mm F2 lens so I’m a little hesitant.

Something like a Mintron camera would do this.  It requires no software to run, just coax into the tv.  Mono is much more sensitive than the colour version so bear that in mind.  There will be lots of solutions, this is called EEVA.

https://stargazerslounge.com/forum/287-discussions-eeva-equipment/

43 minutes ago, david_taurus83 said:

@tooth_dr Here's some pics. The PCD pattern on the flange on my pier isnt divisible by 3 so the 3 bolts are unequally spaced but its not an issue. I just made a template over the flange and put onto the disc and marked the centres before drilling. The bore of the disc is 65mm which is perfect for the AZEQ6. Not sure if the NEQ6 is the same. I also had to drill and tap for the North peg. An M12 bolt underneath then with a metal plate to bridge the recess in the disc holds it all down.

 

Hi David. That’s very helpful. A small piece of rectangular bar, that’s what I couldn’t think of, but can see how its obvious now for holding the eq6 onto the disc. Thank you!

3 minutes ago, david_taurus83 said:

I'm taking my AZEQ6 off the pier and putting the AM5 on there to see if it guides better so will send you some pics tomorrow of how the AZ sits on there.

Thanks David 👍🏼

45 minutes ago, david_taurus83 said:

I think it was for a Golf. I searched for one that had a centre bore just large enough for the bottom of my AZEQ6 to fit into. What mount did you say you were going to use? I can send you the spare disc if you want it. I owe you a favour after all.

I bought a used NEQ6. I’ve dug out the welder here, see what I can come up with 😬 appreciate the offer and might still avail of it.  Cheaper than buying a lathe. 

16 minutes ago, blinky said:

What I always wonder though - as the op says, in the UK we usually get around 2arcseconds of seeing, so are we actually gaining anything by guiding at something like 0.5?

Probably a stupid question, but if the seeing is 2”, how can we guide at 1/2”?

3 minutes ago, david_taurus83 said:

a round brake disc

Was there a specific disc you used David? Is there any chance of a photo of the underside?

21 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Triggers broom more like

@geoflewis amazing detail. Do you track on Jupiter?