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.

Stub Mandrel

Members
  • Content Count

    10,601
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Posts posted by Stub Mandrel


  1. 5 hours ago, Chriske said:

    To be clear :

    The name of that file has been changed.
    The drawing is mine.
    The mount as is, is my idea.
    I made a couple of these mount, I call these mounts Boxmount.
    Published an article in Sky&Telescope in 1983(if I remember well).
    A variant of that mount I did use again to mount my Bino-Kutter I made last year(posted here on SGL).

    Posted that boxmount on CN years ago.
    And yes it would be most polite to
    mention the source/original poster where ever it has been posted before.

    As Alex.K is in the USA and the image is on a Belgian website, it's unlikely he was the person who appropriated it.

    The site it's hosted at is: http://telescopemaking.be/

    Changing the number in the filename suggests that site has appropriated many of your files.

    Which links to http://users.telenet.be/telescoopbouw/Welkidex.htm and http://users.telenet.be/telescoopbouw/Welkidex-e.htm

    This misled me into thinking it was your website (I thought you were something to do with the Urania Project).

    You might want to do a 'whois' search on telescopemaking.be, but I suspect you may struggle to find who has appropriated your images. According to google it can't find any examples of it, so it must be on unindexed pages.

    Assuming Alex is nothing to do with that website, he may have found it embedded elsewhere, and it may be a long and complex search to unravel the truth.

    You can contact the registrant via this website, although their personal details are hidden:

    https://www.dnsbelgium.be/en/whois/info/telescopemaking.be/details


  2. Traditionally it would probably be a drop of shellac, that is easily dissolved with meths or loosened with heat.

    UV sensitive adhesive is great for jobs like this, although harder to remove. You can reposition to your heart's content then set it in seconds with a little UV LED torch that comes as part of the glue tube.

    I've used it for wire cross-hairs.

    • Thanks 1

  3. 1 hour ago, Chriske said:

    Do you have permission to post this image.
    And if so why not post the creator of this mount's name...?

    It's an embedded link, rather than a cut and paste, which, rightly or wrongly,  appears to be generally accepted practice.

    Although an acknowledgement is polite, the URL of the image does show the source and its appearance here should encourage search engines to locate your website.

    It's legal in the EU and (presumably still legal in the UK) and explicitly does not infringe copyright:

    https://www.copytrack.com/embedding-images-legal-theft/

    Quote

    Embedding

    Embedding, also referred to as inline linking, framing, and, typically when applied without permission, hotlinking, allows you to make content visible on multiple webpages via the original location. By means of a link to the original website of an image, but also text or video, can be shown on another website without affecting copyright.

    The embedded content acts as an inserted window to the website where the content is hosted: the content appears to be part of a third party’s webpage, but is in fact retrieved and loaded via the original website where it is hosted. In 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the embedding of protected content without permission constitutes no copyright infringement*.

     


  4. 8 minutes ago, JamesF said:

    I did wonder that myself.  I'd assumed that we'd see some flame and/or disturbance of the dust on the ground before the actual landing, but I saw neither.

    James

    No doubt 'Mannakin Skywalker' will have something to say...


  5. On 12/01/2021 at 17:39, wobblewing said:

    Yes, but did you work out the geometries?  I don't think it'll work if you follow the axis of rotation at 52degrees, the Dob will fall off the platform!  Unless I've completely missed your point 🙂

    Here's a drawing to explain my reasoning.  Based upon my Dob with CofG about 24cms and 52.2deg latitude.  It'll fall off the platform.

    image.png.3d0856d12494b879e9e73d25c0a4c4bd.png

     

     

    The platform is more or less horizontal.

    I have no worries about thread drift! It all seems relevant to me.

    • Thanks 1

  6. OK, my findings;

    The 'compatible.iic' version:

    Old desktop: Works in 16 and 8 bit mode in Sharpcap. Works in 8 bit mode in PHD2, but with all split frames.

    New Laptop: Works only in 8 bit mode, but unstable, doesn't always start unless I change mode) in Sharpcap, doesn't work at all in PHD2.

    The 'standard' version:

     Old desktop: Works in 16 and 8bit modes in Sharpcap. Works in 16 and 8 bit mode in PHD2, sometimes with split frames.

    New laptop: Works in 16 and 8 bit modes in Sharpcap.  Now only managed to generate one frame in PHD2 over multiple tries in 8 and 16 bit modes.

     

    So... the conclusions are:

    The 'standard' iic seems to be more reliable than the 'compatible' version.

    Sharpcap is better able to manage a connection to the ASI120MC with both sets of firmware.

    The difference appears to be something about how USB 2 is implemented on the two computers (note the 'old' desktop is bang up to date - it did the latest Windows full update yesterday).

    Looks like I need a new camera for guiding. I've ordered a cheap Svbony one as a stopgap, even if the max exposure is only 500ms my system can cope with that.


  7. OK... on my desktop, the compatible version stopped it working in RAW16 mode, but the three 8-bit modes were OK.

    I've gone to the standard firmware and it works in all three modes.

    I will have to see which version works best with the laptop I use.

    Thanks!


  8. 23 hours ago, 7170 said:

    Is it the USB2 or USB3 version, as what you are describing are some of the issues people report with the USB2 version. There is a firmware update to try and help and fixes some people's issues. 

    It maybe your USB hub drivers were updated by windows during the year without telling you which is triggering the well known issues with USB2 versions. If it is the USB3 version then the above won't be the issue.

    Also maybe worth contacting the ZWO support people on their website - I've found them to be very helpful in the past if you take the time to compose a detailed and precise question.

    It is the USB2 version, quite possibly this is the result of a helpful windows update.

    The laptop does have a USB3  port, I run my ASI1600MM off it.

    I didn't realise ZWO had a support forum, I will check there.


  9. Back from a break 🙂

    A productive evening was  the 22 November. I have a strange field of view at home, so along session means I get data on several targets, and at this time of year I often can't revisit for more data. This means these images need to be seen as 'works in progress' that will need more subs adding in the future. Also, I've used Jpegs because my broadband is playing up some of the subtleties are lost (he claimed!) 😞

    All Baader narrowband filters, except the Plieades, ZWO RGB. 130P-DS, ASI1600MM-pro and HEQ5

    The Tadpoles NGC1983 in Hubble Palette:

    Tadpoles.thumb.jpg.43ce903b84c6eb29bafc3f3a754d7fb8.jpg

    The California Nebula HSO, with the S from an evening a few weeks later. No Oiii under my skies. The FOV is a bit limiting with this setup:

    51719217_CalforniaHSO.thumb.jpg.e656d16fb0e556d7556dd1682987e8f4.jpg

    Which do you prefer? Pacman in Hubble (SHO) and HSO, in contrast these are crops from a larger frame:

    209128722_PacmanHubbleCrop.thumb.jpg.84da0760ad9d4c33323c3a123c4de37b.jpg

    887763977_PacmanHSOcrop.thumb.jpg.55ed3d655e1ada133d41cc2972feb6c1.jpg

    Finally, the Pleiades in RGB, knocked off at the end of along evening so just 75-second subs and not very deep:

    Pleiades.thumb.jpg.07acdb2a8c7da1a26b21925895fd52d4.jpg

    All in all, a worthwhile evening, even if my Witch Head was a complete fail and these do need more data next year 🤞

     

     

    • Like 13

  10. I prefer the SHO version.

    You have got very deep with that nebulosity.

    Personally I also prefer stars to have a gentler fade toward the centre, even if this bloats them a bit. In RGB they can look over-processed, like boiled sweets, if treated too harshly, but not as extreme in these images.

    I'm found that these targets look best in HSO, strong Sii regions showing up as gold and the Ha ranging from deep red to orange depending on how much Sii is present.

    The O filter passes enough blue for strong reflection nebulas to have some presence.

    I use 7nm filters, narrower ones may give different outcomes.


  11. I prefer the SHO version.

    You have got very deep with that nebulosity.

    Personally I also prefer stars to have a gentler fade toward the centre, even if this bloats them a bit. In RGB they can look over-processed, like boiled sweets, if treated too harshly, but not as extreme in these images.

    I'm found that these targets look best in HSO, strong Sii regions showing up as gold and the Ha ranging from deep red to orange depending on how much Sii is present.

    The O filter passes enough blue for strong reflection nebulas to have some presence.

    I use 7nm filters, narrower ones may give different outcomes.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.