Jump to content



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


kalasinman last won the day on October 4 2014

kalasinman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

631 Excellent


About kalasinman

  • Rank
    Sub Dwarf

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Thai culture, gardening, F1, MotoGP, photgraphy, astronomy, hifi.
  • Location
    N.E. Thailand

Recent Profile Visitors

3,323 profile views
  1. Well, this was a EU. manufacturer, but nevermind. I find it interesting that not a single commentator has actually tried this. What does being American have to do with anything?
  2. I do appreciate the opinions. I do find it interesting that the idea of using a Barlow in this way was suggested by a guide scope manufacturer. Has anyone actually tried this?
  3. The instructions say to subtract 20% from min and add 50% to max to start with.
  4. Fair points . I would say that flexure is the most likely candidate as it's mounted in a finder style stalk rather than rings. The greatest strength of the Barlow idea is low capital at risk. I'll most likely go back to the OAG for now, and keep the 50mm for its' intended use as a guider for a 200mm camera lens. Even though the graph looked bad, 15 out of 22 5 minute subs looked good with round stars. Keeping with the flexure idea, I'm not correcting for PE at the moment, although the mount will do non-permanent PEC. Seems like when the PE hits, it's going to be magnified by any flexure.
  5. I appreciate your response, but your terms aren't clear. I am not interested in comparing between the OAG and anything else. I know what it does and does not do quite well. I am only interested in this 50mm scope I have with or without a Barlow, and the net effect on guiding. I have plenty of stars to guide with without the Barlow. My guide cam is quite sensitive. I fail to see, other than from a reduction of FOV, why an increase in FL would give me less stars. If you read the sticky here on SGL about guiding, it is stated that without the Barlow , I am right at the limit of undersampling. Tha
  6. It is difficult to work with results in pixels as the pixel scale must be figured in order to understand results. This is why I use arc-seconds. Of course there could be many factors contributing to poor guiding. My post, however is addressed specifically to the effect of introducing a #X Barlow into the system as a way of improving guiding.
  7. OK, not happy with the FOV limitations of my OAG, but love the guide accuracy. Tried a 50mm f/3.5 guide scope I recently bought for a wide field rig. Great FOV , but very dodgy guiding. Imaging scope 750mm , guide scope 160mm. So why not 3x Barlow the guide scope? That would bring it near 500mm FL and still be somewhat undersampled, but not extremely so. I considered a 400mm guide scope, but total near $300 with shipping and hardware. It's almost 2.5 k also and the 50 is .5k. 3x Barlow from GSO is $40 plus shipping. Could use the 50mm for both rigs, as I have only one mount. On balance, attrac
  8. My grandpa worked in a hardware store and taught me the wonders of paraffin candles. Used on such threads and all kinds of zippers, it's great! Just rub a candle across the threads.
  9. Considering the integration and ISO, I'd say there is much more data there than you are bringing out. I don't know Nebulosity, but after stacking do some stretches. You'll be pleased.-Jack
  10. Today from John, "Yes, the CEM25 is the same as ZEQ25 regarding PEC. The recording does not permanently save. The difference is CEM25 can record PE without autoguiding. I think the PEC for ZEQ25/CEM25 is purposely designed so to differentiate it from iEQ30/Pro." Agreed with your view of the business model, Olly Having never owned a telescope or mount before, or even known anyone, I guess I could have done worse. In retrospect, as problem solving is an effective learning device, I've learned a lot. Many of the problems I've had were not else but my inexperience. A slightly fussy critter, bu
  11. No mention of FOV. I'm playing with medium format lenses adapted. Very flat fields.
  12. Today from John at Ioptron re SDE error Regarding SDE in CEM60-EC, from customer feedback all except one case the new firmware has greatly reduced and in some case eliminated the SDE. We suspect the only exception might have something else other than SDE. For example, his DEC and RA ripple were the same and symmetrical which was not understandable since DEC should be flat when guiding was off. One possibility was the camera was not orthogonal to either axis then the DEC ripple was actually a portion from RA. We have not heard from him after a few months when we suggested him to check the DEC
  13. The QHY9 with superior 2 stage cooling and wheel, would/will be my first CCD when I get the cash. I agree with your FOV thinking. Making mosaics isn't attractive unless there is no other way.
  14. As I'm nowhere near to understanding SDE error, I've decided, as I've been offered the upgrade, what I need and what I don't. I don't need unguided accuracy. I do need sub arc second guided accuracy. Right now I can't record PE, so PEC pretty useless. I need to record PE so I can get rid of it. *note to self.. I probably could be doing this per session now, as I am guiding. I would love to get rid of "over current error" and related burned motors. If the stepper motors contribute to ANY of the above, that would be good.
  • 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.