Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

NigeB

Members
  • Posts

    269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by NigeB

  1. A bit rough but dodging moonlight and rain storms - here is M63.

    Details:

    Celestron Edge 14 with 0.72 reducer
    Atik 640ex + EFW2 
    Mesu 200 mount
    Processed in PixInsight

    L 10.2 hrs, R 3.2 hrs, G 3.5 hrs, B 2.5 hrs

    Second attempt at processing the data and still lots of work to do, I may update if I manage to fix all the problems before the challenge is up!

     

    M63 - The Sunflower Galaxy

     

    • Like 13
  2. That's a really nice analysis @Xilman! Would be interested in knowing what level of detection is represented in this image (i.e. sigma), and what levels in the individual subs are. Just curious. Regardless, really nice work, you've inspired me to try something similar. Did you do this from your UK or La Palma site?

    Nigel

  3. This is an interesting thread and a nice reflection on the nature of the SGL community - on a different astronomy forum, this discussion might have descended into acrimony and thread-locking within the first page. 

    My own perspective as a Tak owner: I had a TOA-150 which I loved. Long before I got it, a Tak for me was an aspirational thing - my wife would say obsessional. I've have had many scopes in the 45+ years I've been actively into astronomy, but never a Tak. I knew it was something I wanted to try. I liked the reports of looking through them, the images taken with them, the perception that in terms of quality it didn't get much better (note, not "THE BEST" - which is subjective and impossible to determine - but at least, up there among the best, which I would argue is at least less debatable - but read on). And I liked the appearance and the engineering of the instruments - not necessarily because it was better than any other brand - it was just an aesthetic that appealed to me - and why not; this is a hobby - if some people enjoy looking at as well as through, then that's just fine. Some people spend serious money putting paintings on their wall, I find equal artistic merit in a well engineered and nicely designed telescope.

    So when I reached the time of life that provided some disposable income, I scratched the itch and bought a TOA-150. It didn't disappoint. Did I do a quality-per-£ analysis when it arrived? No, I just knew that I was happy with the views and images it gave me; it lived up to my expectations, and I did not regret the money I'd spent.

    But I was  curious to see how it stacked against my other telescopes. After a couple of years of just enjoying the Tak, I decided it would be interesting to do some side-by-side comparisons with my other 'scopes, particularly a C11, Edge 14 and a Wave 80. In each case the TOA was mounted side-by-side with the other OTA so I could do simultaneous observations, with eyepieces selected to give similar image scales. On the whole I did this privately - I posted one comparison image, but this was really about satisfying my own curiosity - I had no interest in "proving" how good the Tak was, or by implication denigrating other makes.

    The outcome? As I explained to my wife, there was absolutely no way I could justify the cost of the Tak based on the performance I saw, from my site in the midlands of the UK. I could have bought all of my other scopes, for less than the price of the TOA. I'm not talking about the fundamental differences due to focal length, aperture or SCT vs refractor - those "3 inch Tak Beats 20" Plane Wave" posts are utterly pointless. I'm just talking about general experience. Yes, the Tak showed pin-sharp images - so did the Wave 80. Yes, the SCT showed fatter stars.... so did the Tak when I pushed the magnification up to the same level - but the SCT was brighter. Yes the deep sky images I obtained were somehow "more aesthetically pleasing" (to me) than the ones I got from my SCT. But so were the Wave 80 images - again, I think more to do with shorter focal length than optical quality.

    Was there a slight "edge" to the Tak? Possibly - and if I was observing from a world-class site with excellent seeing I might have managed to determine that more precisely. But that wasn't the point. If I was using rather than comparing then I would have been every bit as happy with the images coming from the other 'scopes, as I was from the Tak.

    So in a sense I did end up doing a cost-benefit analysis, and for me, the cost of the Tak could not be justified on performance grounds.

    As some on this forum will know, I sold my TOA-150 because of a coating issue that developed (much later). What did I do, knowing the outcome of that analysis? I replaced it with a TOA-150B - despite, and because of, all the points above. 

    Once upon a time the gap between Tak (and similar "high end" makes such as AP), and other manufacturers was much wider, and the quality improvement that came with the price premium was much more distinct. But times have changed - the quality of optics coming from China is getting better and better. I've never looked through an Esprit 150, but looking at sites such as AstroBin - or posts from people here on SGL, suggests that the optical quality of the Esprit is in the same class, such that any noticeable differences are more likely due to seeing, processing, tracking, than intrinsic optical performance. I spoke to a professional optical expert who has worked on both makes (and on my first TOA), and his view of the optical quality of the Esprit seemed to be in agreement.

    Bottom line: I don't believe you will ever be able to justify a Tak on a cold, objective, cost-performance basis - not today. And perhaps as a consequence, the aspirational nature of the Takahashi brand is becoming less distinct and more challenged with time. You earn your money, and  spend it on the things you want. If you decide to pay the premium for a Tak over similarly specified telescopes from other manufacturers, you should be clear that you do it for one reason only - because you want one.

    N

    • Like 10
    • Thanks 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Hughsie said:

    I have presented a few images here over the last two years and received ‘likes’ which is always nice.

    This last 24 hours Vlaiv has presented a critique of my image far and above anything I have received so far which has challenged me to consider what I feel is the ‘norm’. Having acknowledged his assessment, I undertook my own review of on the points he raised and have learned that this is not the first time he has called out the demerits of DrizzleIntegration. 

    From my own personal perspective I really welcomed this challenge. Spending hours in the dark freezing cold I always aspire to produce the best that my scope/camera can see. To be better requires good constructive feedback and Vlaiv has provided that over the course of this weekend.

    Thank you Vlaiv.

    Agreed, this is an excellent discussion and I've just been reading the previous analysis of drizzle integration by @vlaiv. Bookmarked this one for future reference. 

  5. Hi Mike

    That's a really useful comparison. Clearly there's no substitute for a weather station right next to the observatory, but the general trend in the wind speed looks consistent, and I'd feel confident in using the API wind data on the basis of what you're showing. It makes sense that the gust data are different - those measurements must be strongly dependent on the local environment in which the sensors are mounted.  (Aside: I speak as someone who, many years ago, received a text from a neighbour telling me how my home-made dome had just been seen floating across the fields. It was lifted clean off the walls and didn't touch the LX200 inside - despite there being about 30 cm clearance between dome and scope. The aluminium dome was dumped about 50 metres away. The cause was failure of the shutter, which flipped off, and allowed the wind to get inside the enclosure and lift it - but in any case, I regard wind measurement as essential now, along with some good clamps...).

    Where I'm less convinced about the API is the cloud monitoring. From what I've seen, the OpenWeather API can report >75% cloud, when what I see here is more like low altitude mist or very thin, high cirrus that I'd consider imaging through in some cases. I'd be very interested in seeing the comparison with your All Sky Camera, and perhaps implementing something similar if you find good results from it. 

    I'm not yet convinced that I need to buy a physical weather station given how useful some of the API data seem to be - I see many good reviews of systems like AAG Cloudwatcher, but also plenty of discussions about sky clarity calibration etc, so it seems that neither solution is free of issues, but the API is at least free...

    I looked at the image-based approaches to cloud detection previously - I came across a solution from Tektite Skies that looked interesting:

    http://www.mcdougalltech.com/page1/page1.html

    Is this the approach you're taking? I'd be interested in hearing more about your system.

    Thanks

    Nigel

     

  6. Hi All,

    Many thanks for your comments ( @hughgilhespie that does look quite familiar!)

    @skybadger thanks for those suggestions. Interesting observation on the Hydreon - I went out yesterday when it was snowing and checked it - indeed, the telltale green light wasn't on, yet it's able to detect the slightest bit of rain. That makes some sense based on the detection method - a useful heads-up which I'll monitor carefully).

    Re: the battery, I've got the charge controller set so that the electronics are not powered between dawn and dusk, which improves the charge/discharge ratio somewhat. I've managed 5 open/close cycles of an evening so far but not tested how far I can go before it fails (the motor is drawing about 3 amps on average). Weather permitting I'll see how many times I can cycle this weekend during the day.

    Good point on the MPPT - I think the shutter charge controller is working well enough for the battery capacity, but I had hoped to run the 'scope, cameras and dome rotation from a 100 Ah battery, and the panel/charger really struggled to keep that battery topped up even with quite demand - the PWM charger could well be the weak point here so I'll try a MPPT unit - thanks for that pointer.

    One final point, what OpenWeather API are you using? I'm using the OneCall API and rain data is definitely included, and seems to track local conditions here pretty well. However, the "rain" keyword is not always present in the JSON structure - it's only there when there's a non-zero value for rain, at which point it appears in both the "Minutely" and "Hourly" sections of the JSON structure. So in the Python script, I use a "try" operator, and set the rain condition according to the value in the ["hourly"][0]["rain"]["1h"] field.

    Best Regards

    Nigel

     

  7. Hi Alvin,

    That's a short question but the answer is perhaps a little longer...

    It's true that the central obstruction reduces the effective aperture, though there are other things in play that could have a bigger impact on performance.

    The amount of obstruction varies by telescope design, but ~30% reduction in area is fairly typical for a reflector. So in the case of the examples you give, a 90mm refractor has an area of pi*(90/2)^2=6362 square mm of unobstructed aperture , whereas the 114mm reflector has an aperture area of pi*(114/2)^2 = 10,207 square mm, but a 30% obstruction means that you only get 70% of that area - so that's 7144 square mm. It's still 12% more collecting area than the 90mm refractor, but all other things being equal I doubt you would see much difference (but read on...)

    There are a couple of other points to bear in mind. There may be a little bit more "loss" in the reflecting design than the refractor (mirror reflectivity tends to be a little lower than lens transmission), and that further narrows the gap between the refractor and reflector examples you chose if we're just considering how much light they collect.

    However there  are other considerations. The angular resolution of the telescope goes as the diameter of the aperture as well, and in principle the 114mm reflector offers improved resolution over the refractor. The central obstruction does have some practical effect on that as well, but if the optical quality of the two telescopes is equal, and the reflector is well collimated, then the advantage is certainly real.

    My view is that based on the points above, then what the view through the eyepiece looks like (or the image, if you're using a camera) will be determined more by parameters such as the focal length of the telescope assuming that the optical quality of the two is comparable. And if the focal length is similar, then I would expect the views to be similar - again assuming optical quality is comparable in the two systems. If the reflector has a "spider" holding the secondary mirror, then it will produce diffraction spikes in the image, which the refractor won't do. Some people like the spikes, some don't - it's a personal choice, but the kind of thing that might persuade you to go with one over the other.

    So while I would not disagree with the statement you quote as a broad guideline, there are always other factors to consider, particularly when the two options are as closely matched as the ones you suggested.

    If there are specific models you're looking at, post the model numbers here - you'll get lots of advice from SGL members considering the specific details of the telescopes along with user experiences, and that is probably more useful in helping you to reach a decision.

    Best Regards


    Nigel

     

    • Like 1
  8. Hi All

    I've been into astronomy since I was a kid, but somehow I was oblivious to the existence of this fabulous place in Switzerland until earlier this month. It looks to me like the archetypal "fantasy observatory", teetering on a mountaintop. All that's missing from the image is the big refractor poking through the slit.

    The camera angle in these photos is carefully chosen - from other angles it's clear there is a significant building (and a substantial research facility) here, and it's not as precarious as it first seems. Still, it made me smile. I've hyperlinked the photos to their sources.

    shot-1545238685-57-1-819x1024.jpeg.a7c7c8856c638856b839ad9d2965178f.jpeg

    100s1f000001gx71oD4AE_C_760_506.jpeg.0c055573d533f3f023ea8642efef09b4.jpeg

    Sphinx Observatory:  http://www.hfsjg.ch/en/home/

     

    Nigel

     

    • Like 10
  9. Hi All,

    After months of faffing about, I've finally got a reliable, working solution to full automation of my 2.7m Pulsar dome which I thought I'd share here. 

    The automation of rotation using a timing belt and pulley is well documented elsewhere. In particular I made a lot of use of the detailed threads and discussions by Steve @sloz1664  (along with a few pm's - thanks Steve!). This uses the LesveDome driver and electronics scheme, based around a Velleman VM110N USB Experiment Interface Board (see http://www.dppobservatory.net/DomeAutomation/DomeDriver.php). I won't dwell on that part of the project - see Steve's posts, and others on SGL, for lots of details on that. The only modification I made was a different choice of motor - instead of a windscreen wiper motor which is commonly used, I ended up fitting a Planetary Gear Motor with 369:1 reduction gear sourced from Gimson Robotics (https://gimsonrobotics.co.uk/categories/dc-electric-motors/products/gr-ep-45e-medium-power-45mm-12v-planetary-gearmotor).

    Where things got really "interesting" is shutter automation. Looking at SGL and elsewhere, there's a wider range of solutions for this, and it seems to be the part of the project which causes the most issues. Initially I went for a timing belt + wiper motor approach, but this proved problematic. The 2.7m shutter is heavy, and the load on the motor changes significantly from fully closed, through mid-travel, to fully open. I had lots of problems with slippage, stalling and runaway, as I posted on September 10th 2020 on Steve's thread here: 

    So I went for another 369:1 motor from Gimson, which has more than enough torque to deal with a shutter twice the weight, and fitted an 18 tooth pulley which engages with the AT10 timing belt strip that is secured to the inside of the shutter using "Sticks Like Turbo".

    Mounting the shutter motor assembly securely was a challenge - I wanted to avoid drilling holes in the dome. The central seam provides one possible anchor point, but the motor assembly needs to be supported at both ends to provide enough contact pressure on the belt to work properly. On my version of the dome, there's a convenient channel on the inside, approx. 2 cm tall and 2 cm deep, that runs all the way around the slit edge - a consequence of the shape of the recess which holds the shutter in place - as shown on the image below. I use this to route the power and signal cables feeding the shutter motor and "open" microswitch - but it also provides a mounting opportunity.

    IMG_3712.thumb.JPG.db035bd4b0f7435fc0ca291baf8e73ab.JPG

    995214993_IMG_37112.thumb.JPG.347d724eec0eb983e2184f571a15d1eb.JPG

    So I exploited this by making a spring-loaded motor bracket which, on one end, bolts to a plate mounted on the central seam, and on the opposite end has a 1.9 x 1.9 x 5 cm aluminium block that fits snugly into this recess. The following photos show my bracket and the block (the white stuff on the block is adhesive which I used in a temporary fit check to mark up some screw holes). The spring is a 3.5mm diameter carbon steel spring, outside diameter 25.4mm, length 40mm. The hinge is a strong Eclipse fire door hinge.

     IMG_3687.thumb.JPG.894a9e02d8022449b888cc380e3d7621.JPG

    IMG_3690.thumb.JPG.3a6ee2933a9f76671c9e5076aadfcfe8.JPG

    The length of the bracket is precisely cut so that, when one end is bolted to a plate on the central seam, the block at the other side fits firmly into the recess. I originally made this mounting bracket out of 3mm Al plate, but the contact pressure with the shutter needs to be very firm, and the 3mm plate wasn't stiff enough. So I changed to a plate made of 4mm aluminium angle (sides 100 mm x 50 mm), which solved the problem. The plate on the central seam is 3mm Al, and that's working fine. This plate was originally designed for the wiper motor, but I've re-purposed for the new approach. You can still see the wiper motor mounting points on the plate. It's not elegant and I may re-make at a later date, but it works.

    I was still getting a couple of slips near the extremes of travel, which I tracked down to shutter flexure - in the middle of the shutter there's plenty of rigidity, but at the extreme ends there's more flexure. I fixed this by fitting a 5mm thick Aluminium strip of width 50mm across each end of the shutter - you can see one of them at the end of the movie in this post (they're painted in white Hammerite). These strips remove flexure from the shutter, and the slippage is fixed.

    IMG_3716.thumb.JPG.521c95f3b9120fc327d6251a66d7092c.JPG

    IMG_3717.thumb.JPG.9a93ce455e6d4338f5213f3d633f43a8.JPG

    The shutter is controlled with the fantastic MagicWire system designed by @hughgilhespie  , which works like a dream. It's powered by a 12V 9Ah battery which charges every day via a solar panel mounted on the lower shutter. There's a manual open/close switch on the control box, but for normal operation everything is controlled via Voyager. Microswitches provide open/close confirmation and power control. I wanted to provide a way of triggering the switches but allowing a few mm of extra travel just to bring everything to a standstill gently, so used some kitchen cupboard soft closing pistons as the "probe" to activate the microswitches. That seems to be working nicely.

     IMG_3713.thumb.JPG.fcc68e2a51218a066e1ac90947b2a502.JPG

    Here's a video of the whole thing in action. "Sequences shortened" as the adverts say; with the DC soft start unit in-line, shutter opening or closing takes around 100 seconds in this configuration.

    I was planning to fit an AAG Cloudwatcher for protection from weather conditions during robotic operation. But over the past few weeks I've been monitoring the data coming from https://openweathermap.org , and the current weather conditions reported are in excellent agreement with what I see at my site (there are clearly several reporting stations nearby which feed into openweathermap). So I've written a bit of Python code which calls OpenWeatherMap via an API to read the current conditions every 90 seconds, and generates a Boltwood-compatible file that Voyager reads and uses to trigger safe/suspend/shutdown signals in the event of cloud/rain/wind warnings. As a last resort safety measure there's a physical sensor - a Hydreon RG11 rain sensor on a post next to the observatory which overrides anything coming from the PC controller and uses MagicWire's safety sensor inputs to close the shutter in the event of rain being detected. On that same mast is a solar panel which charges a 12V battery for an uninterruptible power supply that ensures the system continues operate in the event of a mains failure, along with a long-range wifi access point that provides data link with my house about 50 m away. 

     

    IMG_3706.thumb.JPG.9a12cc406e81335885bfefca4f2914df.JPG

     

    So far so good - remote operation is working well. There are a few improvements in the pipeline - I've repurposed brackets which were used for the original wiper motors, whose geometry is quite different (drive axis at 90° to the motor axis, unlike the planetary motors which are inline). The dome rotation bracket needs to be modified so that the hinge is rotated by 90° to give better rigidity on start/stop. I also plan to separate the dome rotation encoders from the drive pulley, onto an un-driven wheel in contact with the dome. This way the system measures dome rotation rather than motor rotation, which seems like a better solution. And I'm going to upgrade to heavier duty microswitches for the open/closed position signal - these ones work, but they feel a bit small and flimsy.

    I hope this helps anyone considering shutter automation on their observatory. I have to say that I started this project to save some money - the Pulsar off-the-shelf solution seemed to be very expensive for what it is. The solution above has achieved the same results, and I've certainly saved money. But I've also spent a lot of time, and in retrospect I no longer regard the Pulsar product as unreasonably expensive. That said, this approach has the advantage that if/when things go wrong, it's very easy to diagnose and fix yourself, and there's some satisfaction to be had in that.

    Thanks to @sloz1664 and @hughgilhespie for their advice during this project!

    Nigel

       

    • Like 4
  10. 7 minutes ago, Craney said:

    I agree totally..  always had helpful responses and great customer service from them.    Same with Starlight Xpress as well.

    I think I sent my filter wheel off to somewhere in Norwich, England, but I seem to remember on FB seeing images of a new factory complex in Portugal.  

     

     

    Yes that's right - the UK office responded to me - they're based in Norwich, but I believe the factory is the one in Portugal.

    • Like 1
  11. Hi All,

    Wanted to briefly share my recent experience with Atik.

    I've been out of action for the last few months while replacing my roll-off-roof observatory with a dome. When I came to set everything up again a couple of weeks ago, I found that I couldn't get my Atik 460ex down to my normal operating temperature (-15°C). A bit of sleuthing with a DVM showed the power was getting through to the fan, but the blades weren't moving - so it was pretty sure to be a blown fan. 

    It's a good few years old, well outside of warranty. I contacted Atik via their support forum and described the problem. They could have charged me for a return-to-base service, and I'd have been happy to do that. But instead, they requested a replacement fan from the factory, and the next thing I know, it arrived (today) in the post, no charge. I fitted it, and everything is working as it should. 

    I'm really impressed with this response. At some point in future I'm likely to upgrade to a larger area detector, and this kind of experience really makes the decision process much easier.

    Nigel

    • Like 3
  12. 3 hours ago, sloz1664 said:

    Well, last night I set up SGPro to run 5.5 hours of images to start at astro darkness, a test for the newly implemented shutter and the dome in general. At 9:24 pm SGPro kicked in, connected PHD2, opened the shutter, slewed the mount to the required target and synced the dome. So far, so good. After plate solving and focussing the imaging commenced as normal. So off to bed and see what tomorrow brings. Awoke to the Dome sitting in it's parked position and the shutter firmly closed. On entering the Obsy I found the mount parked and 5.5 hours of images stored on the hard drive. The one failure is a vbs script I had written to power off the electrics had not been implemented. Not a big deal as I know this works perfectly in Voyager.

    One happy chappie

    Steve

    Brilliant result Steve - congratulations!

  13. Hi Steve,

    That's interesting. I'm toying with the chain approach and have had a very helpful exchange with @hughgilhespie regarding the design of his system, in parallel with the discussion with you here. 

    I'm reluctant to give up on the belt yet - you've clearly managed to make it work, and actually seeing some of Hugh's solutions to the chain guide, has given me an idea for improving my implementation of the belt drive. I got the dome rotation working at the weekend (relief!), but in doing so I realised that the pressure needed between the pulley and belt  to get skip-free performance was somewhat more than I'd expected. I can't possibly get that on the shutter in the current version. But I can now see how to mount a metal support frame inside the top of the dome to achieve that. Combined with a higher torque motor, I think this might work - and if not, the motor will be useful for the chain.

    Re: sliding mechanism. It's quite a nice design - the shutter has a set of plastic (maybe PTFE) cylindrical blocks bolted to the inner surface of the sides. These engage in a wide groove which is moulded into the outside of the raised lip which runs on either side of the slit from front to back. The groove is closed at each end so once you bolt everything together, the shutter slides smoothly back and forwards but can't drop out.

    For now I'm going to focus on getting the rotation finished and stick to manual shutter, but as soon as that's done, I'll upgrade the shutter motor/mount and see what happens.

    Thanks again !

     

    Nigel

     

  14. Hi Steve,

    Many thanks! Interesting, slippage is what I'm also seeing (but only the first few cm, which I understand in terms of the force exerted by the shutter at that part of the travel, and I think I may be able to fix it with some better spring tensioning design for the motor mount). I can see how the wheels you've implemented would help this.

    The other problem in my case is the lack of torque from the wiper motor, and that's more fundamental. Those planetary gear motors are much better from that perspective, but tricker to mount - however, I may need to embrace that challenge. In parallel I'm also weighing up the chain approach which @hughgilhespie has implemented. Your system seems to work beautifully. But the 2.7m shutter is pretty heavy, and I'm slightly concerned that for this reason, the timing belt might be "on the edge" for shutter operation in my setup. At least the same motor can be used for both approaches, so it's not a big financial hit to try one then the other - but I want to avoid cutting the dome and then finding I have to adopt the alternative approach. Some temporary fixings may be in order.

    I've also got MagicWire as part of the system (I had some exchanges with you via the SGL messages channel a while back) - the boards are made up and seem to be functioning. It's just those awkward little mechanical gremlins that I need to combat!

    I put a telescope in the dome for the first time last night. Even though the automation is not ready yet, I can't stand seeing the clear evenings we've had lately and not be able to at least take a look at Mars and the moon...

    Thanks for your ongoing postings - they are really the primary guide I've been using to implement the automation of my system.

    Nigel

     

     

     

  15. Hi @sloz1664 Steve,

    That looks absolutely fantastic!

    As you know, I've been following your work and implementing your design in my 2.7m Pulsar. I've got the timing belts fitted, and am about to test the rotation. However, I've already tested the shutter drive and found that my 12V wiper motor isn't up to that task. I can open and close the shutter, but it's a heavy shutter and the load on the motor changes significantly across the range of travel from fully open to fully closed. The torque available is not enough to keep the movement under control.

    I see from your images that you're using what looks like a planetary gear motor. I've been looking at these ones: https://gimsonrobotics.co.uk/categories/dc-electric-motors/products/gr-ep-52-high-torque-planetary-gearmotor-12v-and-24v-versions and they have much higher torque and lower output speed than the wiper motor - plus the smaller body diameter means I can use a smaller timing pulley without the motor body catching on the shutter, which will also help. So this seems like a better choice - and as far as I know is similar to the ones used in the off-the-shelf Pulsar solution. 

    Does this look sensible to you - and could you tell me which motor you've used?

    And one other question - can you explain how, in your bracket, you've managed to support the motor at the end opposite the pulley? There's obviously enough play in that to allow the spring to keep the other end in contact with the belt. Very nice.

    Thanks!

    Nigel

     

  16. Mr P. has brought me a toy from Altair...

    I decided I wanted to consolidate all my small cabling, power and connectivity problems into one big one 😁 And it came with Haribo. Based on the veneer of stickiness my kids leave after Haribo, these may be quite effective at fixing the box to the telescope...

    Seriously, it's well made - the outward appearance seems to have changed slightly compared to the first v2 units. Looking forward to fixing it up - alas I pulled down my wooden observatory a month ago and haven't yet finished setting up the dome, so it may be a few more weeks before I get to try the Power Box out. But it's going to significantly reduce the amount of "stuff" around the telescope and make full robotic use with power control a bit easier to achieve.

    Nigel

     

    IMG_1634.thumb.JPG.a5b808efda88266be2550f3160725060.JPG

    IMG_1635.JPG

    IMG_1636.JPG

    IMG_1637.JPG

    • Like 5
  17. Hello All,

    I've just become the owner of a used Pulsar 2.7 metre observatory. It's come with no keys (fortunately the door is unlocked!)  The previous owner has sent me a photo of some keys, but he's not sure if they are for the observatory (he bought the dome second hand last year but had planning permission refused and never got to set it up and use it).

    I think this is a "Mk II" design. I've attached a rather poor photo of the door handle, and the keys. For those of you who own Pulsars with this kind of handle - do these look like the right keys?

    Thanks


    Nigel

     

     

    IMG_1468.jpeg

     

    Resized_20200614_131319.jpeg.55c239de561b17d39d082f13b31d2c2e.jpeg

  18. I watched the talk live last week - it was excellent - looking forward to the next.

    Having access to these recordings is a fantastic resource. This is a real service to the community - many thanks to the speakers and SGL team for putting in the effort to make this happen. As far as I can see this is a pretty unique initiative for the online astronomy community and you're setting a high bar for others. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.