Alan64

3 minutes ago, Buqibu said:

Ah, yeah thats how it looks. Its not chrome

This is the chrome-plated plastic draw-tube of my "AstroMaster" focusser...

What happened to your own?  Did the focusser's housing scrape it all off?  Did you receive it that way?  Did you purchase it new, or used?  If used, then I could understand it better, but not fully.  Like, I would wonder as to what the previous owner(s) did to it.

That's pretty far out, like beyond the galaxy in Andromeda.

On 10/08/2021 at 07:15, TheTeenThatLovesAstronomy said:

what is a zoom e/p?

This is my Meade 8mm to 24mm zoom eyepiece...

...and compared to a basic 32mm Plossl.  The 32mm Plossl is, generally, the largest of the single focal-length eyepieces.  The zoom eyepiece is like having multiple eyepieces in one eyepiece, for convenience...

You twist the barrel to select the focal-length, and thereby the magnification you desire.  There within the image, it is set to a 24mm focal length.  With the 10" Newtonian-Dobson, with a focal-length of 1200mm, that would give you a power of...

1200mm  ÷ 24mm = 50x, or 50 times larger than you would see an object with just the eye.

28 minutes ago, Buqibu said:

What do you mean?

With your permission...

It appears as this plastic draw-tube of my own, and where I had removed the chrome plating...

...same color.  Although, I see that the surrounding walls within your image are about the same colour, but it's still puzzling.

Why is the draw-tube of your focusser missing its chrome plating. 🧐

In addition, blackening and flocking will not make up for the lack of the special lenses used in apochromats.  Such will not correct false-color, either, nor will it make the images sharper, but it can make the images a bit easier to see, stand out.  You will notice a difference in the views, rich contrast, but only if you blacken and/or flock the telescope throughout.

6 hours ago, Buqibu said:

Sorry! Haven't had time to check back on the forum, indeed how would an achromat deliver views like an apo?

 

That's okay.  I'm glad you asked...

The way you do that is to deaden the entire inside of the telescope, from front to back, and to all sources of stray-light, whether natural(Moon), or artificial(porch, street and passing-automobile lights).  This is done with deep- and deepest-black, matte paint(spray-can or just a can), and flocking.  It's merely arts & crafts type work; for examples...

You can stick with just spray-cans, and spray from the can(where applicable), or spray paint into a plastic or metal container; a plastic lid from a jar, or a plastic container from a fruit or pudding cup.  They must be washed, of course, beforehand.  I lay a plastic sandwich-bag over the container, then a metal jar lid over that, and to keep the paint moist.  I do this between each short session of painting.  To thin the paint, if necessary, do not use paint-thinner, but better quality mineral-spirits.  Just a few drops into the container will re-moisten the paint.  As you can see in the image above, I use different sizes of artist-type brushes to apply the paint, and by hand.  I get those brushes cheap from my local super-department store.

Here, I've painted the edge of this doublet-lens all round...

Note the before-image, bottom-left.

The goal there is to make the lens(es) as invisible as possible, to prevent stray light from being reflected.  Ideally, we would not have anything between our eyes and the objects we're observing, but, unfortunately, our eyes, our pupils specifically, are very weak and make for poor telescopes, by themselves.  They can't even magnify; 1x is it.  That's why we all love telescopes.

Now, when painting the edges of lenses, invariably, unavoidably, some paint is going to get on the actual surface of the lens, there at the edge, all round, top and bottom.  You then take cotton-swabs, lightly dampened with 91% isopropyl-alcohol, then wipe the excess off away from the lens, but only one wipe per tip.  You can rotate the tip halfway round for a second wipe, but only if you get good at it.  You have to take care, however, not to remove any paint from the frosted, vertical edge all round.  It may sound difficult, but it isn't really.  You can source a scrap lens, just one, for practicing beforehand.  

I also paint the insides of the telescope tubes.  Before and after...

The telescopes that come from overseas, including yours, and practically all of my own, are painted on the inside, but the paint is lighter, tending towards grey, rather than a deep-black.  I call it "Synta grey".  Synta made your telescope, and several of my own as well.  Look at this before-image of my 6"/150mm f/5 Newtonian, without and with flash...

..."Synta grey".  It's such a lovely shade of grey, yet far removed from a deep-black.  There's some orange in that as well; rust, gads.

I also paint the screw-tips on the inside; everything that's glossy or shiny, and that could reflect stray-light.  This includes inside the draw-tubes of the focussers...

Also, in the case of refractors, the inside of the focusser housing...

Then, there is flocking.  Flocking is like very low pile carpeting, but for telescopes, and some accessories as well.  This is flocking...

Note how deep the black is; deeper than vast majority of black paints.  It is sold in rolls, usually, and it's self-adhesive.  You must wash the inside of a telescope tube first, dry it thoroughly, then gloss it throughout with a clear-gloss enamel...

The stuff I use smells to the high heavens above.  It's best to spray it outdoors, of course.  After the enamel cures and hardens, you cut the flocking into strips, and apply...

Within that Newtonian, there are only two things that reflect light: the primary-mirror, and the secondary mirror.  

This is the one and only instance where I flocked a focusser's draw-tube...

Here's an instance where I made a special flocked shield for a focusser's housing...

There was no need to paint the inside of the housing, behind that shield, in that instance.

In the end, you want the interior of your telescope...

...dead, and like the inside of Dracula's casket when it's closed, tight.

1 minute ago, SpookyKatt said:

Yeah I think there's always a bit of a gap between the setting circle and front dial, its certainly a bit disappointing
how it flops forward when the lock knob is slackened but I was never convinced how usuable the EQ5 setting
circles are anyway.

So you must be getting near completion with the project now Alan, are there many things that you have left to do with
the mount bar fitting your motor drive ?

Kathleen

Oh, I know that the setting-circles are going to be useless, in the end, but I want to, for the first time ever, actually try to use them to find something, and beforehand I need to get them working properly.

No, I haven't set about fiddling with the motor-drive yet, and the manner in which I will attach it, but all of that will be forthcoming.

The polar-scope arrived...

You can't get one of these from too many places.  I got it from Amazon, for about US$42, with free shipping, for about $20 less than the Celestron(without the dial and retaining-rings), and almost $40 less than that peddled by Orion(of California).  The unit is well-made, and most likely made in the same factory overseas as the aforementioned.  Perhaps the Astromania-branded units are factory-seconds, but I can't tell, not at present anyway.

The lenses seem to be coated quite well...

Not a single speck of debris to be found on or within, throughout.  Incidentally, Agena Astro, of California, stated this about the Celestron polar-scopes...

"Please note: It is rather common to have a few or many teeny-tiny dots or dust particles on the reticle glass in this and other Celestron polar finders. These are not made to the same optical standards as eyepieces and other accessories. However, these will have no practical impact on the operation and use of this accessory, and they will barely be visible in the dark, if at all. What we sell is a new, authorized Celestron product but please do not purchase this item if you are not comfortable with this issue."

Needless to say, I am not comfortable with that, and its lack of a dial, at all, but I said it anyway.

Alas, I got one with the older reticle...

It was supposed to come with a new type of reticle, according to the listing...

I suppose I could consult charts, maps or what-not to nigh precisely place Polaris round its circular path.

Still, I may take that up with Amazon; or with the horse's mouth, Astromania.  But then, it's just like the one within the polar-scope for my old CG-4(EQ-3)...

A pity that that one wouldn't fit my new mount.  SYNTA!

The polar-scope screwed into the RA-shaft of my Meade LX70/EQ-5 with no problems...

...save a 3mm gap between the dials.  I could fill that in with something or other, and I will.  It turns out that the Meade LX70 polar-scope, and specifically for my mount, both of which are longer extant, has that same gap; from the instruction-manual...  

The only other alternative, for myself, would be the Orion, but it would most likely result in having a gap as well.  The gap allows the larger dial to fall towards the thinner dial, which unseats the larger from its cavity; a wonky prospect if I don't fix it.

The Meade-blue cap fits over the end of the Astromania like a glove, most thankfully...

I'm glad that's out of the way, almost.

What, no question as to how?

You should have a look through my achromats.

In so far as collimation, your secondary-scene should look like this, or nigh enough...

That's from my 6" f/5 Newtonian, and half as large as your own...

If I'm not mistaken, even though your own is at f/5, in that it's twice the diameter, hence the issue at hand.

But don't let that discourage you, in the least.  You have a portable observatory there, most capable, and it's going to take time to get the best out of it.

Before purchasing additional eyepieces, it may be prudent to look into getting a coma-corrector, then try the 9mm again with that.

3...

That's my Antares 805, an 80mm f/6 achromat, and only 80mm longer than an ST80.  I think that that's a 13"/33cm bar.

On 07/08/2021 at 08:47, TheTeenThatLovesAstronomy said:

Thanks this is exactly what i was looking for, do you think i will have any trouble with it as a person new to telescopes and, will i have any problems with it? because if no im going to add it to cart

Hello, and I apologise for being late to the party <drapes and sets cape and top-hat aside, respectively>.

I was once a beginner like yourself, but at the age of 8 or 9 you don't have any money of your own.  One evening, back in the early 1970s, my family and I went to a Sears surplus store located within the large city in which we lived at the time.  Sears, in the U.S., sold telescopes over many decades, and were oft featured within their Christmas "Wish Book", as they called it.

There in the store, I was walking round and about, and suddenly I saw a telescope, perched atop an aisle-divider.  Again, I was only 8 or 9.  I went round and round, and round again, whilst never taking my eyes off of that telescope.  I then went up towards the front of the store, where my parents were, in line about to check out.  I asked, most likely, my father if I could have that telescope.  These days, it looks much better on the front of the owner's manual that came with the kit...

The refractor came with a solar-projection screen even, hanging off the back of the telescope there, and for observing the Sun safely.  These days, however, the telescope needs a bit of work...

...a right good cleaning, for one.  That's a 60mm f/11 achromat, or refractor, and just like this one...

https://www.ozscopes.com.au/skywatcher-sk607az2-refractor-telescope.html

Now, I am by no means suggesting that one for you, heavens above no.  For one, it's quite a bit on the dim side.  Think of a nite-lite, plugged into a wall outlet next to a closet.  You then peer inside the closet to try to find something, and by the feeble glow of that wee light on the wall outside.  It would be fine for observing the Moon, the brighter planets, Mars even.  But for the dimmer, deep-sky objects, you want something with a bit more "oomph".

For those first starting out, I like to suggest a longer-focus 80mm, in a refractor, at a minimum, or even this 90mm...

https://www.astronomyalive.com.au/product/saxon-909eq2-refractor-telescope-2/

However, a 90mm refractor will still be limited in showing you the fainter, and more exotic, deep-sky denizens of the night sky, but it would show you considerably more than a 60mm.  Now, whilst a refractor requires virtually no maintenance(collimation), the mount that comes with that 90mm refractor is an equatorial mount, which has a learning-curve all its own.  It is convenient, however, for tracking a single object for an extended amount of time.  Then, there is also this kit, and where the 90mm is mounted upon an easier-to-use alt-azimuth mount...

https://www.bintel.com.au/product/saxon-909-az3/?v=322b26af01d5

The mount of that kit also has the ability to track an object, but with a little more difficulty. 

There are larger refractors, at 102mm, 120mm, and those larger still, but they're more costly of course, particularly during these troubling times.  In addition, they offer only a modest increase in light-gathering aperture.

I'm not seeing much in the way of Maksutov reflectors among the vendors there in Australia, so I'll just leave those to your own discretion and research.  The design has a rather long focal-length, and is ideal for lunar and planetary observations; also for the dimmer, deep-sky objects as well.  Indeed, the vast majority of deep-sky objects are small, and can viewed in their entireties with said telescope.  But then, many of those objects require a larger aperture to see them well.

I think that you should start out with at least a 5"/127mm(or 130mm) aperture, especially these days with light-pollution running rampant, and particularly in that you mentioned nebulae.  Nebulae are the veils, the "ladies' handkerchiefs", of the night sky.  They are rather delicate, yet dim, save perhaps that of Orion.  For those, and the globular-clusters, and perhaps a galaxy or two, you want the largest aperture of telescope that you feel you might be able to manage.

I would like to steer you towards one of these...

https://www.astronomyalive.com.au/product/saxon-dob-8-200mm-reflector-telescope/

...however, stock is limited.  Or, consider this 10"...

https://www.astronomyalive.com.au/product/saxon-dob-10-254mm-reflector-telescope/

The best 8" "Dobsonian" is actually a 10".  Just imagine what you might see with that one.

I have quite a few telescopes, some might say too many; over twelve at present.  Here are two of my larger instruments: a 4" refractor, and a 6" Newtonian...

Despite all of those telescopes, large and small, I have been most excited upon having acquired my latest, and recently: a 70mm f/12.9 achromat...

It is my sincere desire and hope that you find what you're looking for, with the telescope you finally decide upon, and within the wondrous sights you will undoubtedly behold.

There are means and ways of improving your entry-level achromat, and to where it would rival the contrast of a fine apochromat; jet-black skies almost all of the way up to an object's edges, with the object itself standing out from said background in high-relief.

Several years ago, I got the cream-of-the-crop in coloured filters: Lumicons, made in Japan, save the 80A Blue which was delivered about two or more years later, and made in the U.S....

Reputedly, the two yellow filters are good for suppressing false-colour with short, "fast" achromats.

In all these years, I've rarely, if ever, used a single one.  The darker and darkest filters are used with telescopes of much larger apertures.

6 hours ago, Jay6879 said:

Well my telescope is only 61mm and with all equipment is around 7lbs so I guess I'm within the weight boundary with this scope eh. The only other scope I could imagine picking up would be a Mak 90 to get in closer to planets or dso's. Turns out Skywatcher says it can handle up to a 127 Mak...

But beyond weight limits and portability is cost. It's like $500 more for the next step up from the ewm that I'm just not willing to spend right now. That's why I was curious if there was anything else in the same price range that would rival the eqm.

 

Regardless, that's a fascinating picture showing all the different eq mounts. Didn't realize there were so many!

The Orion "SkyView Pro", that I had linked to initially, is the same price, practically, yet more capacious than the EQM-35, as it's an EQ5-class equatorial.  Then, a basic EQ-5 weighs only 5 lbs/2.3 kgs more than a basic EQ-3, the latter from which the EQM-35 arose.

Synta began producing all of those sizes of mounts around the year 2000, save perhaps the EQ-8.  The EQ-8 comes with a tripod, for presumed portability, but perhaps best suited on a pier within a static observatory.  These are the first three, from the smallest, that I have...

Then, again, my EQ-3 compared to my EQ-5...

Whilst it is true that a camera's sensor is far more sensitive than the human eye, therefore not requiring a large telescope, brightness-wise, there is also the aspect of resolution, detail, afforded and increased as you go up in aperture.  This is resolution illustrated; and from my images of the Moon...

Note how the image is softer, on the left; not as much detail seen.

Although, a 61mm will perform quite well, regardless.  I don't want my example to lead you astray.

Incidentally, Synta places a 4"(102mm) refractor atop an EQ-3...

It's doable, but for visual use only, with eyepieces.  Then, Synta also places a 4.7"/120mm(once marketed as a full 5" under the Meade marque) on an EQ-3, which is frightful, but I digress.  Now, this is my 4"/102mm refractor on my EQ-3...

My refractor is actually a bit shorter than Synta's, but it's fatter.  I call it a "porker", for a 4".  Hence, that appears every bit as frightful as Synta's 4.7" on same.  It looks like a large bird perched upon a skinny tree-limb.

All of that is to illustrate the importance of pairing a mount with a telescope, whether for visual-use, where you can get away with it; or for imaging, where you can't.

1 hour ago, John said:

No HEQ5 pictured Alan ?

The HEQ5 was an important step between the EQ5 and the EQ6 I think. You do at least mention it in the last para but the HEQ5 was much more than a slightly enhanced EQ5 I think. Inboard motors for one thing.

I'm not at all sure that the EQ4 was a Synta product. Several references I've seen have it as a Kenko product (the Kenko NES) and made in Japan. It's probably been cloned at some point by a Chinese manufacturer though.

The EQ3-2 was also known as the EQ-4 and the EQ5 as the CG5 when branded Celestron, just to make things even more confusing.

I did not say "slightly enhanced".  I'm fully aware of their construction.  Then, there's the "Rowan" upgrade. 

I had a chance to get a manual EQ-6 years ago, but I digress.  The HEQ5 is, indeed, seemingly a merging between an EQ-5 and an EQ-6, however "5" is used in its designation.  Perhaps it should have been called an HEQ5.5, or would the "H" eliminate the need for the fraction?  Does anyone know what the "H" indicates in that: heavy-duty?

The only mounts branded "Celestron" in the past have been the CG2(EQ-1), CG3(EQ-2), CG-4(EQ-3), and the CG5(EQ-5), up to that point.  Why the CG-4 has a hyphen, I've no idea.  The CG5 is no more, or rather it has morphed into the go-to variant, the AVX.

By the by, what does the "2" indicate within the EQ3-2?  It's identical to my CG-4.

Did you know that if I had the outlay for an EQ-8, I would custom-order one, and as a manual, then fit my own single motor to the RA-axis.  Yes, quite!

7 hours ago, Jay6879 said:

What the hell synta. This is ridiculous. So not only are there all sorts of rebranded models, the name changes based on country?

https://telescopescanada.ca/products/sky-watcher-eqm-35-mount-s30500?variant=32811968331856

This is the one I'm looking at. Apparently the "M" stands for modular. It can be turned into a star tracker as well.

Know your Synta equatorials...

Of those, the EQ-4 is a bit rare these days, but it does exist.  Those are the basic heads coming out of China.  It is the EQ-5, however, that is the go-to chameleon.

These are the optional modes for the EQM-35...

I have no idea of what that is on the left, but note the teeny-tiny counter-weight within the mode on the right.  That's for balancing a camera, only, no telescope. 

With an EQ5-class mount, you can attach an 80mm refractor, or a 130mm f/5 Newtonian, then insert a camera into those. 

The EQM-35 is for dabbling, puttering; a little bit of this, perhaps a little bit of that, but in the end not much else I'm afraid.

I made a big mistake back in 2012, and got an EQ-3.  I now have an EQ-5, which is the "sweet spot" among equatorials, and portable in its own right.

To be fair, the EQM-35, in its full-blown equatorial mode, will allow for a small telescope with a camera inserted, like a 60mm or 72mm, at most.  Then, you can certainly try an 80mm.  You do want to keep the weights of everything in mind.  The telescope and camera combined should only weigh 50% to 60% of the mount's load-capacity.  

If you reside within or near a heavily light-polluted location, you might want to rethink your strategy.  Then, dare I up the ante and suggest a Sky-Watcher HEQ5(in white)/Orion "Sirius"(in black)?  Those are basic EQ-5 heads, incognito, as well, and enhanced.

This is the go-to EQ-3...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/equatorial-astronomy-mounts/skywatcher-eq3-pro-synscan-goto.html

This is the go-to EQ-5...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/equatorial-astronomy-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-pro-synscan-goto.html

But then, if you really want the smaller one.

There are the EQ-3 and EQ-5 mount-heads, but they come in different colours and styles, but still only two sizes of heads.

The Celestron AVX is an EQ-5, just as the Orion "SkyView Pro", and just as my non-goto Meade LX70.  They are all made in the same factory overseas, and by Synta.  You can blame Synta for the confusion.

The one you're considering is an EQ-3.  The one I suggested is an EQ-5.  This is my CG-4(EQ-3) head compared to my LX70(EQ-5) head...

The CG-4 is the same as the one you're asking about, exactly.  The LX70 is the same as the Orion "SkyView Pro" I suggested, exactly.

I'd bypass that one.  An EQ5-class doesn't weigh that much more, but it will carry considerably more.  This one is (CAD)$966.99 as I type...

https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-SkyView-Pro-Equatorial-GoTo-Telescope-Mount/rc/2160/p/24709.uts

If you don't get that one, and go with the one you're asking about, you'll always wonder how the other one might've been.  

You can do some serious imaging with that one.

4 hours ago, Buqibu said:

Thank you! That's exactly the diagonal it has, I have an astromaster 102. Guess they have to make some compromises to make it suitable for terrestrial observing. Will check these out🙂

Well, you can use an Amici-diagonal at night, there's no law against it, but there's one thing about said diagonal that you might find very interesting.  There is such a thing called the "Amici line"...

Have you seen an illuminated line going through Jupiter like that?  Venus will exhibit that, too.  Saturn and Mars might, if at opposition, but then may not.  It's the brightness of the object that brings out that line.

12 hours ago, Buqibu said:

A few days ago I made a post asking for advice because I could not see the airy discs in my 4 inch achro. Some people said it might be the seeing, others said maybe I wasn't magnifying enough. Well last night I was getting some unusally clear views of the planets, so I decided to try and see the airy discs again, maybe the seeing would permit. I tried and....nothing. The same smudgy shape I had  been describing. I decided as a last resort to remove my diagonal, maybe it was the cause. So I did. Put in the barlow plus Celestron Zoom, at 165x. After a few minutes adjusting my position (sore neck, sitting on the floor, you know the deal)...there they were. These 3 or 4 rings around Polaris. The star itself looked like a disc. I was very pleased, having solved this "issue" that had been bothering me for a while. Not that it matters that much, its a very simple thing, all telescopes do it, but maybe that was the thing that bothered me. Anyway, back on went the diagonal, the optical imperfections didnt outweigh its convinience😁. Thanks for the help! Just one question, the rings seemed to be only appearing in the lower part of the star, was this due to the seeing or maybe astigmatism or smth like that? Thanks

A diagonal will never improve an image.  It can only degrade an image, if poorly-designed and manufactured.  The ideal is not to have a diagonal affecting an image at all, as though it hasn't even been placed into the telescope; invisible.  

Are you still using the diagonal that came with the telescope?  This is the one I'm talking about.  I have one too, and that came with my Celestron "AstroMaster" refractor...

If so, that is an Amici, erect-image diagonal.  It is primarily for use during the day, for land-based objects; birds in trees, ships at sea, that sort of thing.  For use at night, however, a star diagonal is preferred.  The word "star" says it all.  This is the same Amici, and compared to my Star...

Note the larger aperture of the Star, and for an object's light to pass through.  That is especially beneficial when using a low-power eyepiece, like a 32mm Plossl.  If you don't have one of those, such will provide the lowest power and widest view of the night sky.

There are two types of star-diagonals in the marketplace for your refractor.  One uses a glass-prism, like the Amici, but a star-type prism instead.  The other uses a mirror.  Your telescope is at f/6.5.  You can make use of either, a prism or a mirror.  A mirror will not introduce additional false-colour, but it is not as durable, and over the years.  

If you're located in the UK...

Prism... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/celestron-90-degree-star-diagonal-125.html

Mirror... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-90-star-diagonal-125.html

If elsewhere, you should have enough information here to find one there.  In my opinion, this is the best 1.25" star-mirror diagonal on the planet...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/diagonals/tele-vue-enhanced-aluminium-90-diagonals.html

This is an example of a better star-prism... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/diagonals/baader-t-2-prism-star-diagonal-32mm.html

The washer I made, but cannot use, fit perfectly at the bottom of the RA-shaft's cavity, or well, whatever you want to call it...

I should've made further measurements.

*EDIT: Scratch that washer, as the primary dial rises 2mm above it; back to the drawing-board.  I'm going to have to wait until the polar-scope arrives before I go any further.

That washer, for the primary RA-dial...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffxVap-1L1Y

...is most reminding of this...

...my largest alt-azimuth, an Astro-Tech "Voyager I", manufactured by GSO, and the alt-azimuthal equivalent to at least an EQ3-class mount, or perhaps even an EQ-4, if an EQ-4 is somewhat more substantial.

If I remember correctly, it has six plastic washers within, and all six the same size.  Here's one of them...

Those two axes were very difficult to crack open, as they were super-glued shut at the factory in Taiwan.  You can see the mess at far left at the bottom within that image.

Guess what it's going to get, and in the near future.

Rather, that will be the narrowest washer within the mount-head, and at only 3mm in width.