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.



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

967 Excellent


About Alan64

  • Rank
    Sub Dwarf

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    ...astronomy, naturally.
  • Location
    Mid-South, U.S.
  1. An EQ5-class mount would be an excellent choice, and the sweet-spot among the equatorial mounts. They do get ponderous at an EQ-3 and up. Also, the best EQ-3 is an EQ-5. An EQ-5 weighs only a little more than an EQ-3, yet is much more versatile in the range of telescopes that can be supported.
  2. Again, I'm not certain, as I no longer have my Japanese-made EQ-2 from the early-1990s with which to compare, therefore I only suspect, and strongly, that that's incorrect.
  3. In that any and all eyepieces are pushed over to one side when securing with thumbscrews, then it would follow that the Cheshire, cap, or laser should also be pushed over to one side, the same side, when collimating. That will ensure that the centres of the 1.25" eyepieces will correspond to the centres of the secondary and primary mirrors. You can certainly use a centring-adaptor, but the adaptor will be required when using the 1.25" eyepieces as well, if you want everything spot on. It's not so much an issue with 2" eyepieces, as those are at the lowest powers. Rather, it's at the higher and highest powers where the collimation needs to be precise.
  4. Try to find a 12V marine-type battery, and get a box for it. You can add USB-ports to the box, and other 12V DC connections. You will need to research that... https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/288564-portable-12v-power-box/
  5. If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the latitude-scale... If so, I carefully lifted it off, and then re-glued it on as true and square as I could manage. I used what I call a squaring-jig, and of my own design... I made it out of narrow strips of thin plywood. It's not that crucial to correct that, however. Now, in so far as the setting-circles, for the RA and DEC, they might as well have been printed with clown faces... Aside from those aspects of the mount, and of far more importance, if the RA-axis is stiff, bound up, or loose and sloppy, you will have to figure out a way of adjusting its lock-nut. You don't have to take the axis apart, but you should at least be able to adjust it. I can't help but think that there is a set of sockets that have thin walls, the kind that would crack and shatter if you used them for automobile repairs. Such a set would be made in China, of course, The set should also be dirt-cheap, and found at discount-houses or other. Back in the late 20th-century, here in the U.S., I used to run across sets like that all the time. If that fails, and if you desire to defeat the manufacturer in that, then you will need the tool that I had described previously.
  6. Yes, I have the same 114/900... Let's take the 900mm focal-length of our telescopes and see what we get. The planets become interesting at 150x and up, up close... 900mm ÷ 150x = a 6mm eyepiece. The telescope is certainly capable of reaching even higher powers, up to 200x, and beyond even whilst observing the Moon's craters, and within those, the craterlets; not to metion the walls of the craters as they slope upward. You can get a 2x-barlow, and combine that with a 12mm eyepiece, and for a simulated 6mm. A 9mm can be combined with the barlow, and for a simulated 4.5mm(200x). In order to aid in the hunt, a 32mm Plossl is also recommended, and for your lowest power and widest view of the sky. Once you spot something or other, you simply pop in the shorter eyepieces and get closer and closer still.
  7. Which telescope do you have exactly, the make and model? I have a 4.5" Newtonian myself, a Meade.
  8. A 9mm Plossl should be allright. Anything below that will have a tiny eye-lens and tight eye-relief. I have a Vixen NPL 6mm Plossl. I have to hold my eyeball right up to the lens, to where it almost touches same, and in order to see the full field-of-view. It can be uncomfortable to use, but the views are outstanding... It's a keeper and a half.
  9. You don't want to go all the way round with a shim, for when the thumbscrews are battened down the eyepiece will be secured slightly off-centre.
  10. Trouble with the 1.26" visual-backs? When the thumbscrews are battened down against the barrel of an eyepiece, that leaves a 0.010"(0.25mm) gap on one side. Simulate that with a partial shim of that thickness, something slippery, and with the thumbscrew(s) fully loosened.
  11. Laser-collimators are generally used for larger and longer Newtonians on Dobson mounts. The cheaper lasers usualy have to be collimated first, and can be more trouble than they're worth. I have one myself, and it is difficult to collimate, and before I can use it for a telescope. In any event, I don't use one to collimate my smaller, shorter Newtonians, like your own. Instead, I use a Cheshire and a collimation-cap, both, and during a single procedure. Cheshire... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/premium-cheshire-collimating-eyepiece.html Beware of cheaper Cheshires, as the cross-hairs may not be aligned correctly, and cannot be corrected. Collimation-cap... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/rigel-aline-collimation-cap.html In the case of Newtonians, the peep-hole and cross-hairs of a Cheshire act as those of a sight-tube, and aid in centring the secondary-mirror directly under the draw-tube of the focusser... Then, adjusting both mirrors, you direct their centres towards each other, back and forth until they are aligned... When the cross-hairs of the Cheshire on the outside are aligned with the mirror-image of same in the centre, and both along with the primary-mirror's centre-spot, you're golden. I then use a collimation-cap to verify, and tweak further if necessary... When tightening down the primary's lock-bolts after adjustment, the cap allows you to keep an eye on the alignment to ensure that nothing shifts out of position when tightening. Note how the lighter circle is not centred within the larger black circle. It's askew, off-centre. That is normal for a short Newtonian(f/4, f/5). It is known as the secondary off-setting, and it occurs during a normal collimation procedure. There's nothing you have to do to accomplish the off-setting. Newtonian collimation tutorials... http://www.astro-baby.com/astrobaby/help/collimation-guide-newtonian-reflector/ https://garyseronik.com/a-beginners-guide-to-collimation/
  12. Your CG-3 equatorial mount is an EQ-2. I have a Meade, "Large Equatorial" they call it, and also an EQ-2. Here's my thread on its renovation... https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/319273-meade-large-equatorialeq-2-hyper-tuning/ Now, you're not expected to do everything I did. Just pick and choose according to your ability. You may not be able to access the lock-nut of the RA-axis with a socket-wrench, to free it up if it seems too tight. I had to use a larger pair of needle-nose pliers; heavy-duty, and to adjust or remove the nut. I don't have a 130/650, but I do have this 127/1000 "Bird Jones"... https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/340294-celestron-powerseeker-127eq/ You might be able to glean some help from that.
  13. Yes, I had to use needle-nosed pliers, the heavy-duty type. A pair of those will make it a breeze. The lock-nut is not difficult to turn.
  14. In addition, I would place a protective drape over it, perhaps a smaller plastic tarp or other.
  15. I've always held dear within my heart and mind that the best EQ-3, is an EQ-5.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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