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.

  • Announcements




Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,694 Excellent

About DRT

  • Rank
    Red Dwarf

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,535 profile views
  1. I use Baader adapters for exactly the reason you describe. Either of these would do what you are looking for and would be very secure: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/baader-2-to-125-reducer-adapter.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/baader-clicklock-2-125-adapter-2956214.html I can't vouch for the Revelation item you linked to but it is certainly a reputable brand. I always just plump for Baader because I think the extra few quid is worth it.
  2. I think JOC is just looking for easy tracking of one object, not GOTO. I have used a variety of mounts to simply point at the object I want to look at, select the correct tracking rate and then leave it to do its stuff. So long as you have the mount level this seems to work well.
  3. No. The force excerpted on the fulcrum (in this case being the mount) is a function of the mass of the weight multiplied by the length of the lever (the bar).
  4. What is the advantage of the barlow? A laser beam is straight - putting a lens in front of it cannot make it more straight, but it can make it not straight. It also introduces yet another device that might not be perfectly aligned with the light path. I use a Hotech laser very successfully. I can't imaging why I would want to stick it in a barlow
  5. Think about the extremes of this - a short bar with a weight that is the same as your OTA plus bits that is exactly the same distance from the centre of the mount versus a 4, 5 or 6m bar sticking out the other side from the OTA but producing the same balance through the weight of the bar without the need of a weight. Intuitively the first option just seems the way to go
  6. I think this is going to need a great deal of luck with the weather. Here are the stats for London, which is where I will be... Given the advice for 20:04, perhaps I should go for dinner in the restaurant at the top of the Shard? You can generate this info for your location here: https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/uk/london
  7. Our posts crossed! Apologies to @JOC for declaring it would not be visible from the UK - but I stand by the fact that it isn't happening tomorrow
  8. Spurred on by this thread I have now found that this eclipse might be visible from the UK These are the times from London:
  9. There is no solar eclipse tomorrow The much discussed eclipse will happen in the USA on 21st August and will not be visible from the UK. But there is a nice active region of sun spots to look at
  10. I have the older white aluminium tube version and it has the screw-on dew shield. Very swish, but quite likely very expensive compared to an Astrozap or one made from a camping mat
  11. Glad to hear it worked out. I bought a batch of the 45mm ones because I wanted to use them on a range of sizes of scope (8", 12" and 16") and agree you could get away with the sorter ones for an 8". Happy collimation
  12. I'm away from home at the moment but when I get home on Saturday I can see if my C5 Astrozap dew shield fits the OMC140 and let you know
  13. I have the older white version at the outer diameter is 162mm
  14. That would be my assumption, John. As Adam suggests I think the most critical factor is balance so that the mount doesn't experience uneven stress, but having a weight sticking out on a long pole is bound to lead to more opportunity for vibration in the same way that long OTAs vibrate much more than short ones.