Jump to content

Banner.jpg.39bf5bb2e6bf87794d3e2a4b88f26f1b.jpg

Alan64

Members
  • Posts

    2,329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alan64

  1. I couldn't describe the outermost circle right on the edge of the sheet, as this sheet is not quite squared, and it was not sawn but seemingly chopped out, as one or two of the edges are slightly bevelled... But there it is nonetheless. As to when it will be sawn out, that's anybody's guess, including my own.
  2. Oh, if I'm careful in laying the spacer out on the sheet, I can probably get a total of three spacers out of it, in case mistakes are made.
  3. Ah, we mustn't rush these things. I haven't even completed the mount yet. It will be a challenge in enabling the fitting of it, and perhaps a fun one. It has already been done, per a thread on CN. But I didn't care for the manner in which it was done. In any event, it was successful.
  4. Another reason why not to re-glue the old spacer back together again is that there's another glued layer which was subjected to the heat, repeatedly, as well. It would've come apart before finishing up the grinding and sanding, and I did have a bit more to do. Life's too short for all of that... I've never had aluminum stock this thick before... It sits right at 3.07mm, according to the caliper. At that thickness, I won't have to radically adjust the date-dial of the polar-scope via its retaining-rings, like I would've with the old spacer; perhaps only very little or none at all. The old spacer sat at 3.37mm, incidentally.
  5. Too late... The 3.18mm-thick aluminum is currently, "Out for Delivery, Expected Delivery by 3:00pm". I would then have to grind on it further after re-gluing, and that's not happening.
  6. I have a 150mm/6" f/5 Newtonian, just like yours, but a solid-tube... I got it in 2012, then in 2015 I moved the OTA over to my tripod-type alt-azimuth. It was much more enjoyable afterwards, being easier to aim. You can do that, too, someday, if desired. In the meantime, if you're going to observe Jupiter, Mars and Venus enough to warrant its purchase, a variable-polariser will help you see those objects much better. Jupiter will not be a bright, white ball any longer. Instead, you will see the natural colours of the planet's surface, details within the equatorial bands, the festoons and whorls, and at the higher powers, 180x and up. Jupiter was still too bright at 174x, so I went inside and got the filter. I then saw glory... https://www.amazon.com/Variable-Polarizing-Eyepiece-Telescope-Polarizer/dp/B0143M8BFQ/ref=asc_df_B0143M8BFQ/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=416690499814&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11209363740441613353&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9013733&hvtargid=pla-912251474325&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=100759323824&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=416690499814&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11209363740441613353&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9013733&hvtargid=pla-912251474325 The filter acts like a dimmer for indoor-lighting, but for the too-bright lights in the sky instead... Venus has no surface features, save the craters on the surface perhaps, and to make the Moon envious, but those can't be seen due to the planet's cauldron-like atmosphere. But since Venus is in between the Earth and the Sun, the planet exhibits Moon-like phases, and the filter will enable you to see those more clearly. The front of your telescope, and similarly my own, what I call the "cowling", like that of an old-style aeroplane, has three spider-vanes, three "sticks", like a propeller... Those cause flares on smaller, bright objects, like Jupiter... ...and Mars even, when at opposition... The filter will reduce, and even eliminate those, as well.
  7. I only go up to 12.5mm in focal-length with orthoscopics... I've chosen the 12.5mm orthoscopics in the past only because they're so close to the 9mm. But for the lower powers, I use Konigs at 12mm and 16mm, an Erfle at 20mm, and others. In that I use those simply to find things for the orthoscopics to ogle, they serve their purpose... I'm the type who would rather observe through a 0.5mm, if such existed, than a 25mm.
  8. Throughout the online tome, particularly regarding Celestron SE mounts, manufactured by Synta as well, it has repeatedly been said that using "AA" alkaline-type batteries with any go-to mount is going to cause problems. Just because the manufacturers include that power option doesn't mean that it's ideal, for it's not actually. Why they include the option is anybody's guess. And you certainly can't use the rechargeable "AA" type, as those are at a lower voltage, 1.2V vs 1.5V. Connecting to the mains is an ideal; as are the svelte, relatively diminutive lithium-ion power-packs, and for a detached experience. There are also power-tanks, like those used to jump-start automobiles, but those specifically for telescopes rather. There are bad ones, and good ones, among the power-tanks. Research for the best one, if you wish to consider that option.
  9. Might I interest you in this 130mm f/7 Newtonian, instead... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130.html Scratch that, as you'll enjoy a go-to Mak that much more.
  10. Yes, as the trees block the stars required for aligning a go-to mount, then to begin observing. This is a Newtonian... Tried and true since 1668. It's an open-air design. No meniscus, or "lens" at the front. A Newtonian contains an ingenious mechanism called a secondary-assembly, and rather befuddling to those first starting out... You can thank the good master for that one.
  11. The SVBONY zoom is certainly reasonably priced, as the price has shot up for the Celestron and others. A zoom serves, primarily, as a teaching-tool. Say, that after a while, you find yourself observing mostly at the 12mm setting of the zoom. You may then wish to get a dedicated 12mm eyepiece; that sort of thing. A zoom is also convenient, for impromptu, spur-of-the-moment jaunts outdoors to catch a glimpse of this and that, then to retreat indoors just as quickly. Zooms are a bit strange, in that the higher powers exhibit the widest view, the widest AFOV. The 8mm setting of my zoom is at 60°, yet the 24mm setting is at around 40° to 45°. That suits me perfectly, as I prefer higher powered views. But others prefer lower powered views. It all depends upon a user's preference. The general consensus throughout the online tome is that the quality of the images seen through a zoom are not quite as good as those through dedicated focal-length eyepieces. But this is to be expected, given the convenience, the ergonomics, of a zoom...
  12. A 150mm/6" f/8 Newtonian-Dobson will be a very good if not excellent simulation of a 140mm apochromatic-refractor, and improved over my 150mm/6" f/5 Newtonian... In hindsight, I should've gotten the f/8.
  13. In addition, the EQ-5 is the "sweet spot" among equatorial mounts; not too terribly large, certainly not too small, just right rather. I like mine. The 200P/EQ-5 kit, sold by this vendor and that, does not come with a polar-scope. There is a newer reticle out for polar-scopes. I don't know how long it has been available... You can inquire as to the reticle within the Sky-Watcher offering, if that's important to you. They may have moved over to the newer one, or not. The old one will work, still.
  14. I just got an EQ5-class mount myself, new old-stock. The 200mm f/5 is a bit much for an EQ-5. It should be alright for visual use. If we knew the asking, we could opine as to whether yea or nay. You can certainly get a polar-scope for the mount... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-mount-accessories/skywatcher-polarscope-for-eq3-2-eq5.html
  15. I did learn from the failure. I didn't take the scope-cap into consideration. I will need to make the new thing the same diameter as the date-dial of the polar-scope, and with the same inner diameter as before. I've ordered a 4" x 6" aluminum sheet, and 3.2mm thick. I should've ordered that the first time. I should receive it more quickly, as it will be sent from a state adjacent to my own. We'll see.
  16. Drat... The thing just couldn't take the heat from the sanding and grinding. It just wasn't in the stars to be. I have enough of the aluminum to do it all over again, but why would I want to do that? Back to the drawing board.
  17. A few more times round the inner diameter with the sanding-drum, and... ...dropped. "Look Mum, no gap!"... Much to my surprise, the outer diameter, of the thing or washer, where I had simply and randomly stopped sanding, turned out to be exactly as that of the scope-cap... That is what is known, in a strange vernacular, as a "coinkydink". Next, I will need to reduce the outer diameter of the thing until it drops into the cap. It won't take too terribly much to drop it, only the thickness of the wall of the cap there.
  18. Here, it is just about to drop...
  19. Extra circles were described, and as guide-lines whilst dressing out the diameters with a sanding-drum, for improved accuracy. Also, the pilot-hole for the scroll-saw's blade was drilled... One nice surprise: I did not see any epoxy along the sawn edges...
  20. That's all I need out from that mess...
  21. Not a glamour shot... Only one side will be described, then all three layers sawn in unison.
  22. Of these two kits, which one might be better, and perhaps the ideal... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-virtuoso-gti.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-gti.html I have a 127mm Maksutov, albeit without a go-to mount, and the same as the Bresser... A 127mm Maksutov is the "sweet spot" among the varying apertures of the design. I chose that one over a Celestron C6, and for very good reasons.
×
×
  • 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.