Waldemar

If the filterwheel sticks out on one side, the radial balance is off and can cause a guiding problem, it should be in line with the CW bar or have a CW system of it's own. So, no esthetics, but sheer necessity. Getting the spacing right is done between camera and filterwheel.

extra 0,5% : The best thing you can do without building something to cover the mount (and scope) is to buy a telegizmo 365 all weather cover: http://www.telegizmos.com/365 sizes and prices page 2.htm They are the best covers you can buy.

So would I ...

Don't forget that longer fl telescopes, which are better for planetary vieuwing, also need a sturdier (better) mount, because small movements have a huge impact...

You would be better of to get another cw. Better have more weight closer to the mount then less further away. Many references to this effect called inertia, can be found here on SGL

It would be smart to tell the local police, what you are planning and what they think about it... Better safe then getting fined

Maybe this is helpful to find the exact distance: FF distance to sensor.docx

removed because the link did not work. Sorry

a very tiny bit of superlube grease will work for the rest of your equiment's life.

In your ASCOM file is an diagnostics program. If you run that it should tell you what is wrong.

Maybe you can borrow a FTDI based converter to try if that will work before you buy one. My experience is that the converters with a FTDI chipset always work... Prolific is a gamble, the cheap Chinese ones... well... just throw them away and buy a real one.

Well, at least there is one consolation: By the time this issue is solved you can remove the L plate... you will be an expert at this!

In the pictures of the inside of your scope, I see some shiny bolts protrude. Those may very well be the cause of the diffraction. Maybe you can paint them mat black and see if that makes a difference.

Hard to tell, but easy to find out: It looks like the M48-M42 converter has a 3mm optical length when totally screwed on. By the looks of it and the place of the setting screw, it is meant to be able to fine adjust the distance. So I would go some where in the middle: 55- 3(+2mm range for fineadjust)= 50mm Your cam and fw need 35 mm, so a 15 mm spacer is needed. So I think that with a 15 mm spacer you will have enough adjusting room to get a good flat field. You will have to find the sweet spot (distance wise) anyway. It is never exactly what they tell you...

Ok, Chris, but that one is taken with a modified DSLR and maybe even debayered...

Chris is absolutely right in saying that a DSLR is the worst camera for solar imaging: The Bayer matrix is absolutely worthless on solar imaging, If the DSLR is unmodded then the chance of getting any images is almost none. The backfocal distance of your DSLR is about 44 mm, another challenge... On top of that the B600 filter is really small, so you will have a lot of vignetting to deal with as well. Best option: Mono CCD or CMOS camera with a small sensor. and then... unmodded DSLR? no registration of H alpha.... There are more pitfalls to deal with when solar imaging, too much to write down here, so I took the liberty to attach a very nice piece of info that may help you. SolarPrimer.pdf

First of all the start with synthetics is a lot cleaner than that stuff from your nose... On top of that, though they may chemically look alike a bit, natural hydrocarbons are absolutely not the same as synthetics, in spite of the fact that carbon based chemistry is called 'organic' chemistry... In that case 'organic' is a very misleading term. Better would be to differentiate with synthetic organic chemistry and natural organic chemistry or bio-chemistry. So I should have said: 'no bio-organic stuff near optics...!!!'

Hi Hayden, First of all I would remove the little screw(s) that are visible between your thumb and index finger. Probably there is more than one. That will probably allow you to remove the larger ring to get a better grip on the thread part. If you cannot remove it, than use a vice with two pieces of wood to hold the knurled ring of the T-ring without damaging. Then use a small chisel and put that in one of the grooves of the threaded T-adapter that screws into the focuser tube. Hold it in ± 45° pointing left for unscrew and hit the chisel carefully with the nylon hammer to loosen the ring. Once it moves you can separate the two it by hand. If you act carefully, you will not damage a lot and still be able to use both. The tiniest bit of PTFE grease will prevent these situations.

No organic stuff near optics...!!! Things may grow a lot faster than you expect....

If it does not matter to you if you ruin the adapter and save the scope, you could use a small chisel and a nylon hammer. place the chisel in a 45° angle on the edge of the adapter and hit it cautiously with the hammer in the direction to loosen it. While doing that have somebody hold your unmounted scope

Correct. UV and IR are unwanted. IR will give you bloated stars.

Several filter drawer systems are available which can be used with the HyperStar, you will have to have made a dedicated adapter for them to get the right focal distance, but the filterchanging will be so much easier: http://www.gerdneumann.net/english/filterzubehoer-filter-accessories/filter-drawer-system-filter-schubladen-system.html or: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5742_Quick-filter-changer-for-50mm---50-4mm-unmounted-filter---low-profil.html

I use a Starlight Xpress Maxi Filter Wheel. That holds 9 x 2" filters: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/starlight-xpress-accessories/starlight-xpress-maxi-usb-filter-wheel.html I have everything in it: LRGB, H-Alpha, OIII, SII, Clear and UHC .

1,25" filters really restrict your choice of CCD camera's. If you would want to buy a full frame CCD in the future (or even APS-c) these will cause vignetting. You would far better of saving a bit more and buy 2" filters which will last you a lifetime. Larger sensors will give you a far wider FOV, but are also more demanding about size of flat imaging circle and filter size. In the end you are the one who has to make the choice. I would allways go for 2" filters... been there, seen it... of course vignetting can be taken care of with flats, but without extra problems is better and easier. You will encounter enough problems along the way, without having to take care of those also...

No, I don't Steve. But I looked through one and it is totally amazing. A lot of different ones are on the market and prizes vary from a few hunderds till almost 4000 They can be equiped with different lenses, but no doubt there will be a way to attach them to a telescope also. You will have to Google them: Nightvision cameras or image-intensifiers