Louis D

Or, if you are short of spare time, or your scope didn't come with a focuser dust cap, pick up a Rigel Systems Aline for under $10.

Search for "knurled knob thumb cap head screws stainless steel" or similar and you should get lots of alternative hits.  As @banjaxed says above, most astro screws are M3/M4 and even M5 occasionally.  Just check the width of the knob/cap to ensure they won't interfere with each other.

On 24/10/2021 at 15:04, Merlin said:

Now to try it out.. . The Moon was the first target. The new arrangement yielded sharp images at quite high magnifications. Then, I tried the stars in the Pleiades. Again, the images were sharp and, surprisingly, there was no sign of astigmatism. Finally, I made a dew shield from  a piece of rolled camping mat.

I haven’t tried the ‘scope yet with the highest magnification of 400x  as the primary needs a recoat, but it looks promising.

Try A/B testing by viewing both with and without the optical window on low contrast targets like Jupiter.  Look to see if faint features become more difficult to make out either way.

On 27/10/2021 at 10:46, Mr Spock said:

Running out of room - might have to have a cull 

Nah, time for another case! 😉

I've been using the 1990s version of the AstroSystems laser collimator that was both 1.25" and 2" compatible.  It seems to have held its collimation just fine over the years.

6 minutes ago, Hugo hazendonk said:

Thanks again.  Good to know the z114 is fully collumatable and has less obstruction.  Would a home made collumation cap do?  That's what I use for my dob.  I have 10mm celestron ep that came with 60 mm astromaster LT I could lend him but I think it may be a kelner.  I thought of suggesting a 7 to 21mm zoom for warmer nights.  Would a 2x barlow be best?  He could even unscrew barlow lens and use it on the zoom to make 4.66 to 14 mm equivalent.

I would bring over some of my starter gear and see how it performs in the new scope sometime.  That which works well could be loaned to them until they can buy (or be gifted) their own.

I remember loaning a cheap 2x Barlow I had laying around to a coworker.  It was so bad (it added chroma and blur to the image), he returned it to me 6 months later despite me having forgotten all about it.  I guess what I'm saying is, don't go too cheap on a 2x Barlow. 😁

I like the look of the Z114's spider veins.  Four nice and thin supports rather than a single thick and chunky support like so many beginner scopes have these days:

Let us know how it works out for all involved.

I bought an ST80 back in 2000 when they first came out.  After having used 8" and 15" Dobs for a few years before it, it was a huge let down.  All sorts of chromatic and spherical aberrations vastly limited contrast and ability to magnify the image.  It didn't even make a decent spotting scope.  Everything looked hazy.  It has sat at the bottom back of the closet unused for the majority of the past 20 years.

13 years later, I thought I'd give small fracs a second try with a 72ED and fell in love with it.  Sharp and color free at low to mid powers, high contrast, and the ability to use 2" eyepieces to get down to binocular level fields of view.  It's a great scope to complement a larger reflector.  However, I would never get a small frac of any quality level first.  Views of planets, planetary nebula, and globular clusters are just so lacking in resolution compared to a decently sized reflector.  The small frac excels at large open clusters and large nebula under dark skies that are out of reach of most large reflectors.  However, are they alone enough to keep a beginner interested?  Yes, you can make out Jupiter's moons and possibly some banding along with Saturn's rings, but not much more.

You can also view the moon and the sun (with a solar filter) fairly well with a small frac.  However, picking out Mercury during the most recent transit was a real challenge with the ST80 compared to the 8" Dob.  I couldn't get off work that day, so I had to bring a scope to work and use it in the parking lot on breaks.  I wasn't comfortable bringing my better gear to work because I work near a high crime area, so the ST80 was my choice for the day since it was stowed in the car between uses.

Basically, I skew heavily toward decently sized reflectors for beginners because they're more likely to keep them hooked on the hobby, but YMMV.

Well, I wasn't able to photograph any significant SAEP in my 24mm APM UFF (see the fourth row, second column) in my 127 Mak.  Black or gray rings or shadows correspond to SAEP.  It's even less noticeable in my 72ED.

I also have never noticed any blackout issues under any visual conditions with it.  It does have a lot of eye relief; and if you don't wear eyeglasses, it may prove tricky to deal with it.  Since there is a thread under the eye cup, it may be possible to add an extension ring Morpheus style.  I believe both are M43 threaded.

4 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Good  selection from Louis , just to add as you mentioned planets a  little 102 Mak  would be lightweight and show good views ( although tbh i would go with the heritage as it offer a bit of everything and of course comes with a mount ) 

Since the 102 Mak starts out well over $200 without mount, I left it out.

I just leave a Rigel Aline in the 2" to 1.25" adapter during transport.  I point the scope at a bright light or light wall (or use a flashlight shining into the tube) and look to see that the center mark ring is centered around the peephole reflection.

The illuminator sticking out to the side may limit the use of the negative profile adapters.

A Skywatcher Heritage 130, AWB OneSky, Orion SkyScanner 100mm, and Orion Starblast 4.5 would all be reflector possibilities.

You could go @John's route as below using a Skywatcher Hyperflex 7.2-21.5mm zoom with a Baader Q-Turret 2.25x Barlow to get a 9.55mm to 3.2mm zoom if funds are tight:

I have a white textured plastic wall board on the ground board of my Dob with large rectangular teflon pads riding on it for the azimuth bearing.  The white board looks similar to below:

The large teflon pads smooth out the roughness, and the bumpy surface greatly reduces friction over a gloss surface.  The result is that I've had a maintenance-free azimuth bearing for the last 23 years that never sticks but still holds its position well.

Based on my experience with the 14mm Morpheus relative to the 12mm BST, the Morpheus has much better eye relief, much wider field of view, somewhat crisper views, and somewhat better contrast.  It's also quite a bit more expensive, so it should offer some improvements.

Whether you should upgrade depends on what you want to improve.

11 hours ago, old geeza said:

Aye, but not sure I want to go that route. Could be a problem if i ever sell to upgrade. Cheers though.

Only if you put the original focuser back on before selling it.  I doubt any buyer would balk at a few extra holes in the tube if it means getting a better focuser in the deal.

Get a quote from a local machinist to fix the bend and send it to the seller requesting reimbursement for having to make it right locally.  Remind them of those UK consumer protection laws.  The seller may come back with a counter-offer to make it right after all.

Try adjusting the pinion tension by tightening the grub/set screw in the center of the plate holding the focuser shaft.  This should fix the focuser losing focus the moment you release the focuser knob.  To reduce focuser tube wobble, I recall reading that it might be possible to shim the side opposite the pinion shaft with lengths of milk bottle plastic or similar set 120 degrees apart from the pinion and each other.  Simply tightening the pinion shaft tension might be sufficient, though.

There are further mods you can make to it mentioned in this video:

8 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Louis i can see you have no idea about the poor state of UK roads lol 🤣

Nope, I haven't driven in Britain yet.  I'd probably screw up the whole left/right side of the road flip and crash. 🤪

Your roads are probably similar in condition to Michigan roads where my wife is from.  They go through dozens of freeze/thaw cycles every winter which destroys their roads.

9 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

hmmm not sure i like the analogy with cars ... my last 5 have been 3 x BMW and 2X Nissan ... i think the nissans take it for comfort 🤣

Oh, I'm not arguing that at all.  My 2009 Pontiac G8 GT beat the heck out of my back on backroads going to a new job back in 2011, so I bought a 2011 Chevy Impala just for commuting.  Problem solved!  However, I still love driving the G8 on evenings and weekends on good roads, and the Impala has been passed along to my daughter as a college graduation present.

If they really are 56mm in diameter as I've found online, that would be pushing it as far as IPD and trying to get the bridge of your nose between them unless you're flat faced.  That, and you're looking at 658g for the two of them, making for a rather heavy load in the focuser when coupled with the BV's weight.

Would you be using them with or without an OCS/GPC/Barlow?  If with, the higher effective f-ratio will allow you to use lower cost (and smaller and lighter) wide-fields to good effect.  I use a Meade 140 2x Barlow nosepiece with my BV for an effective 3x magnification or f/18 f-ratio.  I've recently found that the new Svbony 20mm 68° Ultra Wide Angle work really well as a BV pair at f/18:

I tried a 90mm Mak, but found the views just too dim and low resolution to be fulfilling.  Jumping up slightly to a 127mm Mak improved matters considerably without going overboard on weight and size.

I would agree with others in this thread that a 130 or 150 Heritage would probably work well for your needs.  Neither will be perfect, but what telescope is?

I put together a camping outfit for my grown daughter two Christmases back.  It's a 127mm Synta Mak (Orion/Celestron/etc.) riding on a spare DSV-1 mount I had laying around.  I put it on a barely used Manfrotto 3033 tripod from ebay for stability.  It takes up very little room in the back of her Chevy Equinox which is important considering all the other camping gear back there.  I also mounted a 60mm finder scope I had laying around to it to bring in wider fields of view for finding objects.  Everything fits in two bags, a mid-sized gym bag and a long tripod bag.  Neither attracts much attention with the rear hatch open at campsites.  The tripod and mount are way heavier than the telescope, but both are super rugged.  They're easy to carry slung over the shoulder in the padded tripod bag.  You don't want a wobbly alt-az mount as it will ruin the entire stargazing experience.

On 21/10/2021 at 06:42, Stu1smartcookie said:

Yep a little bit more than i am willing to pay , but ,of course quality costs ... not sure my older eyes can discern minute details that lend themselves to top of the range EP's though .

 

It's a matter of ignorance is bliss.  I literally had no idea what I was missing in clarity of view with poorly corrected eyepieces until I looked through premium eyepieces at star parties.  Same thing with coma correctors and field flatteners.  Once you've identified what eyepiece (and optical chain) flaws look like, you can't unsee them.

It's similar to cars.  Until you've driven a high performance sedan or sports car, you really have no idea what you're missing driving an econobox.  That visceral experience is intoxicating and addictive, just like viewing through high end eyepieces and telescopes.