Charic

That's a first me me? Hey, if it satisfies, then why not.

.......apparently Nils passed away in the last few days RIP Nils.

Check this article http://www.micosmos.com/enlaces/collimation_with_a_Barlowed_Laser.pdf The amount of slop in any system, and the laser tool itself, often they come with sealed adjusters, are more often in need of further collimation before the tool could be classed as accurate? therefore from experience, and reader reports, I don't have no faith in laser tool accuracy, but I find this method very quick and efficient, despite how inaccurate the tool may become! Unless I use a smaller donut? its unlikely I can get my scope any more collimated than it is, using this Barlow method. Of the methods I have used, sight alone, 35mm film cap, Cheshire tool and laser, the laser is the last tool on my list. I also don't think spending more on a laser gets you a better result, unless you can accurately get that laser to fit 100% the same everytime,without any sloppiness. I still check and monitor the collimation of the laser tool itself, but only use the Barlow method for when I need to do a quick test, better still a Star test.

Accuracy and efficiency?............just looking for the article.......but just discovered some sad news about Nils?

Totally agree, its the method I often recommended.

Its a modification I have considered many times over, however its the reach or lack of reach on my 200P scope thats my real concern. The BK's make's for a simple no-nonsense tool less operation, however if I can't reach them, its an un-neccessary upgrade IMO! With my eye at the focuser observing the collimation process, I just cannot physically reach the original adjusters with a tool, I just don't have the reach, therefore my process involves me moving between focuser and adjusters, it's not a smooth operation, and I originally thought this was one reason why BK's existed in the first place, to make the process easier, but no, I have to ask Mrs Charic to assist me! I have also considered spring loading the collimation adjusters, buts its of my opinion that the mirror cell has more scope (pun intended) to bounce around under spring tension, during transportation rather than the stability of being compressed against the original 'O' ring. I do understand the benefits of tool-less adjustment, it will benefit some users, and of course, there are cheaper bolts out there, that said, I would still like to see what's actually in the Bob's Knob's kit, for when you look at what your replacing (check their images) the BK's appear to have design spacers on the collimation adjusters (something you must consider if your new bolts are longer). For now though, things will stay the same on my scope!

I would check using one of the other bolts to ensure the hole itself has not been threaded too, otherwise the new replacement may fail. You could re-tap the hole or replace the 'spider' at worse.

My first Plossl's were loaned to me, and at first light could not handle the very short eye-relief, not only that, the shortest focal length in the series was 8mm, I believed I needed shorter for my scope, yet the short eye-relief is an inherent design with the Plossl. Having tried Meade, TeleVue, Revelation, others, and despite the short eye-relief, I invested in the Revelations, and find them a joy to use. They appeared to be the better optics for my eyes, despite TeleVue being the dearest. That said, I bought another two Tele Vue Plossl's, and still came to the same conclusion, the Revelations were good if not as good as the market leader Tele Vue. As mentioned above, a certain web site does add the annotation that the Revelation's are in-fact made by GSO! Their quality and performance on my f/6 scope belies their value, if you can get them cheap, do so, you shouldn't be disappointed.

........looks like a great setup you have there, often things come to those who wait, however its the overall image that interests me as a way of describing storage space? I often suggest that my 8" Skyliner, fully setup, takes up about the surface area of a kitchen chair! Unless those chairs are miniatures, an EQ takes up quite an acreage of space!

I would avoid the MS206060 20-60x60 from a certain high street store. Cheap as chips, visual quality, poor at 60x ( even after a quick test outside the store won't always show the imperfections) and under varying light levels, the image here is poor, probably down to the basic optics, and its unsteady on its flimsy tripod, and Jupiter showed up as a rainbow, its shape/size was rectangular? ( imagine about 4-5mm off the end of a matchstick for the shape!). We have also discovered that an inline focuser would be of more benefit for our use ( mainly for Mrs) I know there is better out there, just depends on how much you want to spend, I might visit the local bird hide, see what the folk are using, get a feel for the image quality.

The first eyepiece I used failed to reach focus using the Barlow extension tube. I did not try any other eyepiece.

Cheers Richochet, I'll give it a try sometime.

I use the Barlow lens directly on my eyepieces for the same reason, 1.5x is comfortable in use. I have the Skywatcher De-Luxe (the one I use) and a Meade Tele negative Barlow lens. But just reading this thread has got me thinking, maybe now the spare Barlow tube could suffice as a Moon filter holder, or not!

....I knew things would be small but my most memorable moment so-far, from my limited view of the night sky, is with Jupiter, and only for a few fleeting seconds, perfect image, burnt to memory, looking forward for the next one. My worst letdown, M31 from my garden, until viewed from a darker site, now even my 70° afov may not wide enough?

...showing your age? mind you, I still remember thruppnee bits, the coins, not the cockney slang ? And you know what, Its still possible to find them today on a local beach, I already have an ice cream tub full of mixed coins from that era, part of the beach is adjacent to the old railway line and station, so quite possibly loose change was thrown into the water by the passengers, just to make a splash? why else throw money away? There are more coins, its just reaching them between the boulders, that's the difficult bit!

Not only are they removing the £1 (GBP) coin for the new dodecagon shaped £1 coin, Sir Isaac Newton will be commemorated on the new Fifty Pence coin this Year.

Hi and welcome to the SGL. I don't have or know of his equipment, but my first search gave this article, but you may have already seen this during your own searches... https://lenathehyena.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/berry-and-mackay-mechanical-genius/ House looks similar.......as depicted in Google Earth

Hi. You say it rolled with little effort, I assume you have a runner system, tracking or wheels, or does the roof just slide, wood on wood, in which case the extra weight over friction will cause a big issue. I would instigate some sort or horizontal pulley system, wheels or tracking included! A series of pulleys reduces the effort you need to assert.

....was on the box all this time, well done Cornelius Varley.

Jenn82 says its a Danubia. We just need to find out which model, the Saturn 50 was as close as I could find at the time. Like I said earlier, someone will know, sooner or later. Jenn82.you stated its a Danubia, are there any other markings on a sticky label or plate to give us any other clues?

Hi welcome to the SGL. Your scope looks like the Danubia Saturn 50. Though someone will locate the right scope for you but I'm trying to locate a user guide for you.......... I spent £40 on my first scope, the Celestron 127EQ. Very similar in design and setup. With your scope you can learn about equatorial alignment, setting the scope up, and with the basic eyepieces, you may get a decent view of the Moon if the scope is correctly collimated, which on a scope like this can be done with the naked eye, no fancy tools. For this telescopes type of operation and performance ( I'm being kind tonight) its the reason I quickly upgraded to my present scope. Check out the link above to see if you have 'all the parts', then just get the best with what you have. Ich hoffe dein Deutsch ist besser als meins..... http://www.doerrfoto.de/service/pdf/EQ12_Deutsch.pdf

Not So!....... Its ease of use makes it convenient to use, but without a scope, you won't observe anything? do remember a Dobsonian is the name normally given to an Alt-Az base unit, called, the Dobsonian. The Dobsonian name is derived from its inventor John Dobson [RIP] Don't confuse between your Newtonian and a Dobsonian, as being two different scopes. They are both Newtonian telescopes. You have to manually hold to move the Dobsonian ( some folk call it 'nudging') in order to keep your target in the field of view otherwise it will appear to drift away ( quicker at higher magnifications - caused by the rotation of Planet Earth - A Go-To scope with tracking avoids this issue, as it can maintain and hold the target image central to your view, but this ability requires critical setup every time and is far more costly than a basic Dobsonian like mine ) . My scope is super smooth, but not overly? It goes where I want it, and stays there upon release, when the compression handle is correctly adjusted. You say damaged mirror? If its right at the edge of the mirror, then not a major issue as most of your visual observation will be on axis, the middle of the mirror is used, but damaged, broken or scratched is a good enough excuse for anyone to buy something new. A jump from 6" to 8" should be quite noticeable, as would going from 10" or 12". There is a massive choice out there, and from your distance to my house, some 4700 miles, precludes me from demonstrating how good and efficient my system is, but no doubt there may be someone or maybe a group/club of astronomers near to where you actually live. Visiting them one night may allow you to look through their scopes, giving you first hand, what is achievable, given the right type of scope. Don't be in any rush with this hobby, the stars will out live us all, it just takes a little time and patience to decide whats best, but to see first hand cant be over emphasized, if the option is available.

Describe in 6 words or less. Ben has the answer

My next choice of scope, If I could get one locally is the Skyliner 12" but they don't make them brand new any more? Its bigger, therefore gathers more light, and may even show things that my present scope cant detect under my present conditions? The rest of the scope has, for some folk, some negatives, mainly physical size, weight, cost. That said, there is nothing wrong with my 8" Skyliner, it does what is says. Its the fact that if you buy the next scope up in the range it can offers some more? You say your scope is old, but as long as its clean and collimated, it should still work quite well as a 6" telescope. Have you tried using your telescope from a darker site, this makes a massive difference to the final image. For simplicity of use and setup, I would recommend an 8" Newtonian mounted on a Dobsonian base.

....ditto. If it's not for you, then a change is required, and I`ll bet you feel more satisfied now! I'm about to (hopefully) complete the last two EPs in my Revelation Astro collection this weekend, for a midweek delivery? That will complete my Plössl collection. Cheap as chips, yet stunning views for their price, comfortable too? What if, you tell the Mrs, that there is an issue with the present telescope and you need another?.....................I wonder how understanding she will remain?