Alan64

I reside on the verge of the American west, in the eastern portion still, but just barely, and the two halves separated by the Mississippi river, the largest in the U.S.  I think that that may play a part in why I received these from California on the 20th, and when they were scheduled to arrive on the 22nd.  Needle-thrust bearings, one for the RA-axis, and the larger for the DEC...

Aren't they lovely?  It's not so important to place one within the DEC-axis, but whilst I was at it, why not.  Note the DEC flange there, and with its paint still upon it, as well as that upon the bores of the RA.

But do I want steel bearing against aluminum and steel?  

Lastly, in preparation for the hyper-tuning, these surfaces were stripped of their paint as well, inside and out here...

That brass rod will replace the rusty, steel clamping-pin, after it's cut to length of course.

The flange of the DEC shaft was also stripped...

Rust at the tip of the counterweight-shaft, inside...

That has been rectified.  There are also portions of the DEC control with rust, and those will be cleaned and lubed as well.  Thankfully, those are only two instances of rust that I've found within this mount-head.  In addition, those instances were not surprising, expected even.

The aft RA bores, one stepped, were stripped...

The other side, and where the lock-nut goes, was particularly gruelling, as I not only had to remove paint and smooth the metal surface, but I had to do all of that from the top of a deep well...

On the left, that's after I had removed most of the paint; on the right, where more paint was removed whilst sanding and polishing the surface.  That's about as good as it's going to get.  In that that's the butt-end, so be it.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  An instance of where paint needed to be removed, of the saddle, and before I had masked and painted it...

Casting burrs were also filed down where needed.

The RA-axis, exploded...

On 25/02/2019 at 07:55, FaDG said:

I got to use a CG3 (EQ2 equivalent) sold with an Astromaster 130 newt, a few years back. 

It has the same new look as your CG2 but it also had a BIG design flaw: the saddle is not centered on the axis (your seems to be), thus balancing the relatively heavy 130 just wasn't possible. 

Are you planning to add a small motor on it? 

Hmm, that's odd about the saddle placement.  I have this Meade EQ-2 that I got last year, and it seems to be centered...

Oh yes, I have this Celestron 9V-battery motor-drive for the mount.  It can be used on a CG-4(EQ-3) even...

The worm-shaft must turn easily with the fingers before using the motor-drive, lest the plastic gears inside lose some if not most of their teeth.  I'll be seeing to that.

1 hour ago, Stu said:

A very entertaining read so far Alan! Looking forward to watching this progress 

Thanks, Stu.  I do hope that folks look upon this smallest of equatorials in a whole new light once I've completed its hyper-tuning, and as a practical mounting solution, albeit for the smallest of telescopes.

I shall, and I did in fact.  At first, I had gotten this 73p rattle-can of gloss-black, and from my local department store...

But later, I discovered this...

The mount, the black paint, has a hammered finish.  The dark-grey of the "AstroMaster" saddle does not however, so I had to go out and splurge...

I would never do that.  

I didn't want to paint over where the dovetail-bar would slide and be clamped into position, so I masked that portion off...

There, that's done...

Incidentally, throughout this whole project, I've had to remove the paint from all of the bearing surfaces, where metal moves against metal.  To wit, Synta's painting methods are one of the major banes of my existence.

What, is paint lubricating?  Who paints bearing surfaces???

Now for the mount-head, and the star of the show...

I had gotten this "AstroMaster Deluxe" CG-2 last July...

But since that time I've come to judge it a bit too garish and tacky in appearance; too moderne.  It does, however, come with a Vixen-style mounting saddle.  Still, I now prefer the old-school, far more tasteful and subtle appearance of the basic CG-2...

Why, I could grey-scale that image, and you couldn't really tell the difference...

See?  I like that.

This basic CG-2 comes with painted, rudimentary thumbscrews to clamp down the axes, and a bolt-on mounting-saddle...

It's 2019, and it still comes with that archaic, draconian saddle.  Those are really the only two aspects that are more "deluxe" on the "AstroMaster" variant.

During the interim, between the acquisitions of the two CG-2 mounts, I had submitted a warranty claim with Celestron, and ended up with a spare "AstroMaster Deluxe" mount-head, and somewhat stripped.  Are you thinking what I'm thinking...

Shall I, or shan't I?

33 minutes ago, FaDG said:

He, he... I wrote: "some of its elements". 

Actually only the Gear and worm wheel (which has a measured PA of about 150arcsec! ?). 

Not completed yet, so I don't know if I can get anything usable out of it. But I'm trying to convert it to an astro tracker. If I succeed you'll find some info in the DYI section. Else, only some time lost. 

Fabio

Ah, but you are using it for an astronomical project still; good that.

The eyepiece-and-accessory tray screws onto the hub...

...and with provision for your favourite 1.25" and .965"(!) eyepieces and accessories...

I may make another tray for it, and on a rainy day.  I've had LOTS of those hereabouts, and over the weeks and months.

This is a nice touch: angled feet...

I wonder how well those will keep the legs from sinking into the mud...

Just now, FaDG said:

The suggestion to fill the legs with Sand is actually aimed at increasing the weight and reducing the centre of mass when loaded. 

Can't imagine the benefit of the foam: maybe reduce vibrations? 

Yes, and in the hanging of a weight from the bottom of the tray as well; and yes, the foam to dampen.

Those rolled-pins came out easy enough...

Where the arms attach to the legs, the supplied stainless-steel screws and lock-nuts were a refreshing discovery, albeit skimpy.

I went out the other day to my local hardware at the county seat, whilst on another day also to the big-box hardwares near the state line, and got non-metric, #8(quite close to 4mm) stainless-steel(always) screws and lock-nuts, and #6 washers of nylon and stainless...

I had to squeeze the rolled holes at the six anchoring points to as small a diameter as possible, and for a tight fit, but there at the legs I had to insert brass sleeves to fill the holes further for the screws, as shown.

The tripod completed...

The tripod now snaps open and closed like one of those collapsible top-hats...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0MG6F2WjBk

Now, elsewhere someone suggested filling, the center legs at least, with sand, but that would make the tripod heavier.  The thing I like about this tripod is that it's ever so light in weight, so I won't be doing that.  Another suggestion was insulating-foam, from a spray-can, and to fill with that.  That would be in keeping with the lightness of the tripod, but I can't see or understand the benefit of that at present.

The only pressing, real problem with the aluminum tripod, is the spreader...

It's no wonder it shakes and wiggles at the slightest breeze or bump.

Now, I have a few wooden tripods, and from smaller, older kits, but this arrived along with the telescope, and I don't want to throw it away.  The hub of the spreader...

The arms are anchored onto the hub with rolled, stamped pins.  What might be done with that?

22 minutes ago, FaDG said:

Only tripod still available. The head (an old japanese model, even without elevation screw and bolts to fix a motor) has been dismantled and I'm reusing some of its elements in another Project. 

But the tripod is really sturdy and ideale for the Star Adventurer. No small photo tripod goes even close to this for its stability. Here is a pic. 

I must be psychic, as it was after I had posted my most recent post that I read yours, and there you state that you had used the mount-head for a project.  Incredible!

There, among the debris and refuse within the landfill, it's usually the upended tripod that one first encounters...

But where's the mount-head?  It's nowhere to be seen.  Alas, I suspect it was utilised for some non-astronomical project or other; a pity, sad, that.

8 hours ago, FaDG said:

Yes, yes, I know. A friend of mine had one of these 130 (1000 fl, i think) on the equivalent of a Lidl mount (Bresser skylux), and it was already undermounted: in fact it broke after some time. The barlow-like doublet is used to keep the tube short and yet extracts the focus. 

I'll be interested in your opinion on the scope, let me know! 

And yes, for your 600 f12 the EQ-1 will just be fine! ?

 What I dislike is the choice of proposing it to newbies saving on the mount, with the result of frustrating them out of the hobby. 

Ah, I forgot: i have one of these EQ1 myself, which i bought for its wooden tripod. 

The head was close to useless, but I'm trying ti get something out of it anyway. If i succeed I'll let you know! 

I would be very interested in seeing an EQ-1 with a wooden tripod, as I've never seen one before.  Do you have a photo of it to share?  

After I illustrate what I've done, and what I am to do further to this one, it is my earnest desire and hope that others will renovate theirs similarly, and then to make practical use of them.  

2 minutes ago, FaDG said:

 

... A further reason is included in your first pic... A 127 newt on an EQ1? REALLY? ? 

Manufacturers have the use of undermounting their scope, but this is extreme even visually. 

If used visually with a very small scope, it makes sense and allows one-handed following of the sky rotation. 

But if proposed for imaging or to hold a heavy or long focal scope well, it's the recipe for frustration. 

Fabio

Actually it's not a Newtonian, but a catadioptric, and in the case of the 127mm an economical alternative to a 130mm Schmidt-Cassegrain, and by virtue of this, its "corrector"...

...a doublet-lens integrated at the bottom of the drawtube of the focusser.  One method of collimating the telescope involves the removal of the lens, whereby it may then be collimated in the manner of a classical Newtonian.

No, the mount, and the subject of this thread, will not be hosting the telescope in question.  I do have a few smaller telescopes that will be mounted upon it, however; one in particular: my "Floating Achromat"...

I recently acquired a new kit, and my very own "Bird Jones", at long last...

But this thread is not about the telescope.  That will come in future, and once I set to "fix" it.

The kit came with a genuine Celestron CG-2, or EQ-1.  The mount has been described, among other adjectives, as "spindly", and indeed this one nigh disappears among the spindly, wintry branches of the trees surrounding it...

If I had a nickel, or a five-pence, for every EQ-1 upended in landfills all around the world, I could buy, well, this mount, and the telescope to boot...

There's a reason for the castaway nature of an EQ-1, especially the modern ones, not least of all these plasticky, soft and spongy washers...

But it doesn't have to be so...

I use Super Lube for all of my astronomical equipment...

It's a PTFE(Teflon)- based grease, and quite adequate for up to an EQ-5 at least.  It's also food-safe, in case one wants to take their mount out for dinner.  It's neither thick nor thin; just right rather, and the perfect thing for replacing factory glue-grease...

8 minutes ago, DS24 said:

Hmmm links didn't work and I believe your suggesting different mounts altogether but I think I've head that es mount is an eq5 type anyway 

I just corrected them.  Have another look.  Specific links directly to Orion of California products are seemingly forbidden on astronomy websites outside the U.S.  I would order your choice directly from Orion however, not Amazon...

https://www.telescope.com/Orion/2160.home

Yes, the EXOS-2GT is an EQ5-class mount.

If you don't anticipate attaching a DSLR in place of an eyepiece and taking pictures(astrophotography) in future...

https://www.amazon.com/Orion-SkyView-Equatorial-Telescope-Mount/dp/B0069WDUW8

...although you can certainly engage in astrophotography with that one.  But if you do plan on imaging in future, in the long run this is the best EQ5-class mount for astrophotography...

https://www.amazon.com/Orion-9995-Sirius-Computerized-Telescope/dp/B00E63KTQW/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1549429782&sr=1-1&keywords=orion+sirius

I'd go ahead and get that one, regardless.  Both are the same as the Sky-Watcher mounts favoured in the UK...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-pro-synscan-goto.html (Orion SkyView Pro)

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-heq5-pro-synscan.html (Orion Sirius)

One of the great, fun things about telescopes, and over binoculars, is that you can change the magnification.  I'd give it up if all I could have is a pair of binoculars.  Instead, I would just walk outside, look up at the sky and muse, "Oh, how pretty", then go back indoors.  It has been said that there is no one telescope that can do it all, in regards to low-power and high-power observing, but I beg to differ.  To observe the sky at a binocular-like 20x, then in the next moment 150x or 200x, and everything in between, is desirable, possible, and with one telescope.  That would cover all bases: the galaxy in Andromeda and the Pleiades; other yet smaller galaxies, globular-clusters and nebulae; then high-powered views of the Moon, the planets and the double-stars.  The brighter and brightest objects in the night sky, the Moon and the planets, are far fewer than the vast multitude of the dim and dimmer deep-sky objects.  We know that the Moon and the planets are relatively close to Earth, and here within our solar system.  But everything else lies outside our home, and at distances to boggle the mind.  The farther out that they are, the farther back in time one sees.  When you look at this globular-cluster through an eyepiece...

...you're seeing it not as it appears at that moment, but rather as it appeared over 20,000 years ago; most ancient.  The light that it sent out, that it may send still into space, took that long to reach us, and at the speed of light.  It is, therefore, over 20,000 light-years distant.  When its light first left that cluster, and headed towards Earth, someone made this out of ivory in what is now France...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Brassempouy#/media/File:Venus_de_Brassempouy.jpg

The refractor and the Newtonian are the oldest yet most effective designs, and from the early-to-latter 1600s.  That's all man had to play with, until much later.  In the 1940s, the Schmidt- and Maksutov-Cassegrains came into being, and that's it, too.  In developing telescopes, the endeavour has proved almost as difficult as making a human eye from scratch.  Collectively, they're the only instruments with which to observe the heavens, and to this day.  It's not a lot from which to choose.  The primary function of a telescope is ever so simple: to observe faraway objects up close.  Back in the golden, olden days, low-power views were handled by the naked eyes, and effectively, as there wasn't nearly the level of artificial light pollution that plagues us today.  Oh, I suppose if all I had was a pair of binoculars, I'd make merry use of it...

...but only if telescopes were non-existent.  But simply knowing that telescopes do indeed exist, then what are we waiting for?

This is a rather versatile go-to mount, and can be used in manual mode as well in the event of battery/motor/computer failures; perish the thought...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth/sky-watcher-star-discovery-wifi-az-goto-mount-tripod.html

Every house begins with a foundation, as does a customised telescope kit, and tailored to the user.  The next step: what sort of glass shall I place upon it?  This ready-made kit includes that go-to mount, and a 150mm f/5 Newtonian...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/sky-watcher-star-discovery-150i.html

Newtonians require the most work in keeping their optical-systems aligned, collimated; and for sharp, pleasing images throughout the range of magnifications.  In return, however, you get the most aperture for the least amount of expenditure.  A 150mm f/5 Newtonian is most versatile, in observing the gamut, most everything in the sky, from a low 23x, to 200x and beyond with the aid of 2x and 3x barlows.  It's the closest one may come to an all-rounder; a "jack of all trades".  I know, as I have one myself; many of us do...

The Newtonian of that kit however, to save weight and in being less of a burden upon the mount, is of mostly plastic, yet still quite capable.

Another telescope, at or near the stated budget, that might be placed upon the mount is a Maksutov-Cassegrain...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-ota.html

That one would require less work to maintain, and is designed for the upper range of magnifications; medium-to-high powers.  Inexpensive eyepieces, including the wide-angled, would play very well with that design of telescope.  Low-power, wide-field views would not be possible with that one however.  Although, in future, if such is desired, a short refractor can take care of that aspect of observing...

 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/startravel/skywatcher-startravel-102t-ota.html

That one, however, would not be suitable for viewing brighter objects, only the dim and dimmer of sprites, deep-sky objects and vistas; and due to chromatic-aberration, or false-colour.  Refractors require virtually no maintenance at all.  They are the least work-intensive of the designs of telescopes -- although I prefer to take them apart, blackening and flocking them throughout, and for improved contrast.  This customised kit would require virtually no maintenance, no batteries; just you, the kit, and the sky above...

The foundation... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth/skywatcher-az4-alt-az-mount.html

The glass... https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p2684_Skywatcher-Evostar-102---102-1000mm-Refracor---optical-Tube.html

I would've listed a UK vendor for that one, but for some curious reason or other, no one offers it as an OTA.  The three daughters(U.S., Canada, and Australia) can get the same OTA, made by Synta...

...but the mother cannot.

The hunting of comets requires a wide field-of-view, the widest possible, and at the lower if not the lowest of powers.  An f/5 refractor is ideal for that very thing.  Somewhat recently, I had my 80mm f/6 out observing Comet Wirtenan...

Over the course of time, fifteen to thirty minutes, I was able to notice the comet's movement in relation to other objects nearby, and quite close to the comet those were, thereby making the detection that much easier.  All in all, not a bad show, not at all.  A 200mm f/2.4 achromat would've been far better, of course, if such were possible; ever hopeful I am in that fantasy.  

The f/5 achromat in question, an "ST80" I believe, comes with a 1.25" focusser.  A 32mm Plossl would provide the lowest power(12.5x) and the widest view practical.  80mm f/5 achromats are routinely re-fitted by amateurs with 2" focussers, for this purpose and that.  This one from China appears to be viable, and with a 78mm threaded interface; naturally, a bit of DIY work is to be expected in its integration...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/New-2-Manual-Gear-Focusing-Focuser-for-Refraction-Astronomy-Telescope/323419115167?hash=item4b4d480e9f:g:PwsAAMXQDK1RtT2P:rk:27:pf:0&shqty=1#shId

I changed the country to "United Kingdom", then selected "Get Rates": £54, and with free shipping.  

However, it would be for the user to decide if the effort would be worth the while.  To wit, a view of the Moon with an 80mm f/5 achromat, a 1.25" 32mm 52° Plossl, and a 2" 32mm 70­° wide-angle ocular...

https://goo.gl/fCQkdG

Then, if the views through the achromat have been beyond satisfactory, that is, if the achromatic doublet is of an above-average figurement and polish, then it would most certainly be worth the while to upgrade it.  If the level of quality of the doublet is presently unknown, get the power up to 150x or greater, aim it at the Trapezium within Orion, for one, and note the thinness of the first-diffraction rings of the brightest stars.  You want them as razor-sharp as possible, and the atmospheric seeing is to be at least good, or better.

If said upgrade is not possible or practical, a 32mm Plossl does, after all, offer a reasonably wide field-of-view.  Although, I would not suggest spending a lot on a 1.25" mirrored star-diagonal, if you're going to stick with the 1.25" focusser.  You may, however, want better, a dielectric, and for the specialised purpose at hand.

21 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Just add "to form the image" at the end of that sentence

No, thank you.