Jump to content

740427863_Terminatorchallenge.jpg.2f4cb93182b2ce715fac5aa75b0503c8.jpg

runoffshed

Members
  • Posts

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by runoffshed

  1. I may be quite wrong about this but to my eyes it would appear that the whole secondary holder has swivelled. If the adjusting screws were just loose then then the extension (lower section) that holds the mirror itself would rock a bit but the 'back plate' against which the screws bear would remain fixed relative to the tube. It looks like the whole thing has moved in which case it is worth checking that the bar that supports the secondary holder isn't swivelling where it passes through the tube - or perhaps where the bar enters the holder...it could be brazed, glued or retained on a thread that has come loose. (there are either retaining nuts both sides or a captive nut within the tube and a locking nut on the outside. Probably just my eyes but perhaps worth checking. Best of luck sorting it out.
  2. Quality of this work looks absolutely fabulous to me. Excuse my ignorance but are these parts you've manufactured from scratch or are they off the shelf and put together by you? Either way, brilliant bit of work.
  3. Here is my SP102 being used by a friend while we wait for darkness; I've had it about 10 years and have loved owning it. Only an achromat but I can't say colour fringing has ever bothered me much. I stripped it down 6 years ago as the axes had become a bit stiff and there was a lengthy discussion on SGL about the type of grease to use with lots of interesting stuff I didn't understand about 'high pressure' for the worms. I wouldn't say it was 'heated' but there were many different opinions...all very interesting. Well I used white lithium for everything and now I need to do it again...which seems quite soon to me(?) It's still quite usable, I just notice it getting harder to balance properly. Anyway, lovely scope that I can't see myself ever selling.
  4. Thanks CraigT82, I didn't know either of these tricks so will try them both.
  5. Thanks so much Michael and Gulinux for the helpful suggestions - very much appreciated. Yes, the colour is something else I struggle with but I will have a go with the autobalance. I do actually use Autostakkert 2...although I'm sure I can get more out of it with better understanding / knowledge...but will definitely try your suggestions on the Registax wavelets. I've never attempted an unsharp mask but will have a go as well. Once again, thanks so much for all the useful info. John
  6. Have been enjoying having a go at Jupiter with my new asi 120 colour camera which seems ridiculously good for the money; this is with an old Vixen 4" and barlow. My problem is that when I get the raw image into wavelets I really have no idea how to proceed but saw a useful post about only using the top two sliders and this has really helped. Last night I also used an Omegon flip mirror for the first time. They do 2 versions and I can't recommend their cheaper version as there are no collimation screws and it was miles out.
  7. Hi, I don't have this model of binocular but on every set I have (too many) the cover is unscrewed anti clockwise - the thread attached to the cover matches that of the mounting bar you mention so the cover screws on and off in the same way. Perhaps you could try wrapping insulation tape around some pliers to smooth the jaws and avoid damaging the binos mounting point cover and try giving the cover a 'tweek' with them. Good luck!
  8. Very nice shot ...and better than my night time stuff. Our local group are supposed to be doing a public event this evening in Oxfordshire but it's looking like thin high cloud at best or more likely just wall to wall thick stuff.
  9. Great images. Selling off some camera gear and going to put the money towards that ZWO. I've been using Sharpcap - which I really like - with the Phillips 900 but I notice a lot of planetary folk seem to use Firecapture. Certainly seems to be a steeper learning curve than for Sharpcap but perhaps a lot more flexible.
  10. Thank you JS Moraes, that's a very telling comparison - and a wonderful ASI 120MC image - and backs up exactly what Peter suggested as well. Many thanks to both of you for your help/advice. I'm in the market for a 120mc! John
  11. Thanks Peter, that's really helpful. I've just had a look at your gallery...fabulous! I should have said in my question that I was stacking the live feed images in AS2, although the frame rate was only around 15 or 20 per second which I guess is a lot less than your ASI. I haven't produced any Jupiter images anything like as good as yours...not remotely close...so I guess that answers my question thank you. (I see you have a 120ED - I was using a bog standard Vixen 102mm...a scope I have a huge affection for!). You must post when you've got something on your new camera as I'd be interested to see the difference. Thanks for the advice. John
  12. I have recently had a go at using Backyard EOS to take the live feed off my Canon 600d with the 5x setting within the software to obtain what I have read is a close approximation to a 1:1 pixel image. I have only tried the Moon and Jupiter so far, both in quite poor conditions, but I was quite pleased with the results. (But I am not a good/experienced imager) My question is, how would the images I can obtain this way compare to a low end dedicated camera like the popular ZWO ASI 120mc? Do people think it would be a worthwhile upgrade or would it be better to hold off and save for a much better dedicated planetary camera? I have looked around the web and although I can find images obtained in both these ways it is hard to compare them as the scopes/locations/imager are always different. Jerry Lodriguss wrote a great article in Sky and Telescope about using a DSLR for imaging planets using movie crop mode or equivalent and has produced stunning images but he is using a C11 and doesn't mention comparisons with specific cameras etc... If anyone has any thoughts on this I would really appreciate the advice. Many thanks John
  13. I am not a very experienced imager and would like some advice please. I have recently been using Backyard EOS to take the live feed off my Canon 600d with the 5x setting within the software to obtain what I have read is a close approximation to a 1:1 pixel image. I have only tried the Moon and Jupiter so far, both in quite poor conditions, but the results were pleasing. My question is, how would the images I can obtain this way compare to a low end dedicated camera like the popular ZWO ASI 120mc? Is it a worthwhile upgrade or would it be better to hold off and save for a much better dedicated planetary camera? I have looked around the web and although I can find images obtained in both these ways it is hard to compare them as the scopes/locations/imager are always different. Jerry Lodriguss wrote a great article in Sky and Telescope about using a DSLR for imaging planets using movie crop mode or equivalent and has produced stunning images but he is using a C11 and doesn't mention comparisons with specific cameras etc... If anyone has tried both or has any ideas I would really appreciate the advice. Many thanks John
  14. There are some great imagers in my group - Chipping Norton Amateur Astronomy Group - CNAAG, many of whom post regularly on SGL. They are all fantastically helpful and free with their advice and have encouraged many of us to 'have a go'....so I thought I should. Although I have used a webcam and dslr in the past to take some shots, I have very recently started to use Backyard EOS and this is my image of Plato from last night being an Avi stack from the live feed of my 600d through a very old Vixen 100mm with the addition of a barlow. I used Autostakkert, which I really like, and registax for wavelets which, despite all the guides and advice I don't really understand how to use properly at all. I'm pleased with this but any advice/help would be very welcome.
  15. Great shot, Mel - and nice graphics to clarify exactly where it is!
  16. I think I will be taking down my Super Polaris again on the basis of what you and others have said. I suspect the grease for the main shaft rotation is fine but I'm not so sure about the worm. Anyway, that's only a partial strip down but it seems a shame to take any chances with what I consider to be a really good mount...albeit with a truly awful tripod. I have emailed Vixen to hear what they suggest for the worm and will report back if I hear anything.
  17. Brilliant bit of kit - much prefer it to my 10 x finder, BUT...I've never known anything attract dew like a telrad. Luckily wrapping some foam to form a tube around it helps so you don't have to go down the heated rope or hair-dryer route. There are several posts on here about getting round the dewing problem...including the foam tube design - with a simple cut-out for the on/off switch. Probably the best improvement in my observing efficiency/enjoyment for the money!
  18. Interesting, Mike. I have now seen a couple of posts on other sites saying that Vixen use two different lubricants on the bearings and worm - which certainly supports what you and Keith are saying.
  19. You may well be right - and I hope I haven't stored up trouble for later - but all I can say is that are plenty of examples on the web of people using this (or similar) White lithium greases with- seemingly excellent results - , including Carsten Anholm who is very experienced and knowledgable about these mounts. As the Weldite grease is specifically for use in wheel bearings, I hoped that would mean that it has quite a high load bearing capacity. As to tracking, it is now vastly improved, although I am all too aware that I am comparing this to how it was in a thirty year old mount with original grease so stiff it was getting to be an effort to balance the mount properly. I will email Vixen for their take on it...probably want me to send it back to Japan.
  20. Rather late to this post...apologies...but I regreased my ancient Vixen Super Polaris earlier this year and used Weldite Lithium grease as recommended on various sites (Astronomy Boy EQ 5 re-grease). Some have spoken of these old mounts being difficult to disassemble, with a very tight ring nut being a particular problem, but mine came apart very easily and was a joy to work on. The re-grease made a HUGE difference. Hope this helps
  21. Terrific, Mel. Amazed at the clarity with the structure and panels so clearly defined.
  22. Great shot, Alex. I heard Saturday was really good! Your image will be in the cnaag newsletter...can praise get any greater than that!
  23. Hi Sanmatt, thank you - I am pleased with the shot but there was so much luck in it. As the light levels changed so quickly with the passing clouds, I kept going up and down the exposure dial and was usually way out in my guesses. I took loads of shots and on most of them you can't see anything much but I got lucky on maybe 5 out of 50 odd. Such a shame Mel wasn't there to get something really good. I look just like my Dad on Barry's film...trouble is, I look like him when he was about 75 Hope to see you up at The Stones again sometime.
  24. Hi sanmatt, compared shots with you at Rollright yesterday and, embarrassingly, had it filmed for Witney TV report! Anyway, still can't believe how incredibly lucky we were!
  25. I don't know if you have an astro club nearby but they are invaluable, not only for their enthusiastic company, but also for comparing eyepieces, barlows, scope views and getting 'hands on' advice about collimating etc... I would get along asap and get their help and advice. The information given in all these posts has been excellent but I would have thought doing some first hand comparisons with other scopes and getting other observers to look through yours etc...might help a lot.
×
×
  • 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.