Louis D

I put a cut-down foam bicycle grip over my 127 Mak's focuser shaft since the original plastic grip split and fell off. I had to build up the shaft diameter with racquet handle grip tape first. It works great and just fits next to its 2" visual back.

I recommend becoming proficient using the scope on your own before bringing your daughter outside. On the other hand, kids learn quickly, and she may take to using the scope quicker and easier than you. It's a beginner scope which means it has crude movements, basic eyepieces, and a compromised viewing position due to the included 45 degree diagonal. It's actually easier to get started with an advanced scope and eyepieces in my experience because the equipment gets out of the way, and you can concentrate on learning the sky and honing your observing skills. Imagine if you had to learn to drive on a Ford Model T as compared to a modern vehicle. You'd have to be constantly aware of the older vehicle's crude mechanicals instead of concentrating on the road.

The Hyades and Collinder 70 in Orion's belt are also good bin targets this time of year. Also, pan around between Casseiopia and Perseus before they set. There are a bunch of beautiful open clusters in that area as well.

Sorry to hear that. Mine have been excellent in binoviewers. Perhaps they have gone down hill in quality over the last few years, or they are simply incompatible with the light cone of a microscope.

Because you need to use a telecentric magnifier like a Powermate at long focal lengths (above 20mm or so) to avoid vignetting and pushing out the exit pupil causing blackout issues. This then leads to a very long and heavy moment arm in the focuser/diagonal which can be difficult to balance in an alt-az mount at high altitudes. You're generally better off to buy a comparably compact and lighter 13mm to 16mm 82 to 100 degree eyepiece instead. If the Ethos are too expensive, you might want to investigate the 100/110 degree eyepieces marketed as APM/Myriad/Stellarview/WO/Lunt/etc. They've been getting very good reviews at reasonable prices.

Before you rush off and think all Naglers are parfocal, look at column F under eyepiece dimensions of the Tele Vue eyepiece specifications page. Notice that the 31mm NT5 is parfocal with the 21mm and 17mm Ethos and nothing else. I would also investigate the Morpheus line of eyepieces. They're nearly as wide as the ES-82 and Naglers, have longer eye relief, and are very well corrected at f/7.7. I have the 9mm and 14mm versions. The 9mm is pretty close to being an equal of my 10mm Delos. The 14mm falls a bit behind at the edges, but probably no worse than a 14mm ES-82. Are you using a tracking mount? If so, you may be able to get by with narrower fields of view at higher powers since planets, PNs, and double stars tend to be quite small.

The circle-T mark means Tani optical house. They were best known for their volcano top orthoscopics sold through University Optics, Kokusai Kohki, and many others.

Not unusual right at the field stop for the best eyepieces. You can put a bright star out there and rack focus back and forth to check for aberrations. If it switches between being a radial line and a tangential line on either side of best focus, that's astigmatism. If the star is simply stretched into a radial spectrum of colors at best focus, that's chromatic aberration. If it needs to be refocused between the axis and the edge, that's field curvature (which could be in the scope as well). If it simply expands into a teardrop shape pointing to the center even at best focus, that's coma (again, could be in the scope).

I use Bogen 3036 tripods under my alt-az heads. They are now known as Manfrotto 475B and are much more expensive. Used Bogen 3036 tripods with heads can be had for under $150 shipped within the US. They are super sturdy in my experience. It might be worth checking around for them. The Manfrotto 058B (Bogen 3051) is basically the same with different leg locks and can be had used for under $200 as well. I like the variable angles for the legs so I can set the height and level without extending the legs. The extendable center column is also handy for use with refractors when moving from zenith to lower altitude objects.

Most GEM EQ mounts don't have the ability to overcome the weight imbalance without counterweights. There are some harmonic drives that don't need counterweights up to a certain point. They employ a drive technology similar to some assembly line robots, and you never see counterweights on them. Some direct drive EQ mounts are also able to handle imbalance as well. As long as an alt-az mount is level and the entire load is well within the footprint of the tripod, counterweights are generally unnecessary. However, if you set up one tilted, as on a slope, the azimuth axis will swing around by itself until the load is at the lowest point. If it was properly counterweighted, this wouldn't happen. However, it would weigh a lot more and be much less portable to dodge obstructions such as buildings, trees, and shrubbery.

My Telrad got kicked out of my A-team case years ago in favor of more Pentax XWs. I just put the pick-n-pluck foam blocks I'd saved back in. They stay in place due to friction. My Telrads now live in a cardboard box wrapped in closed cell foam padding. They're surprisingly rugged.

They look to be Sharpstar Optics made scopes based on the mechanicals. I have one of theirs as a TS-Optics 90mm FPL-53 triplet. I love the mechanicals as much as the optics. For instance, I've come to the conclusion from using it that every frac should have a camera rotator at the end of the focuser to safely and smoothly rotate a heavily loaded diagonal to the side. I prefer it to rotating the whole tube in the rings, rotating the focuser only, or simply loosening the diagonal and rotating it. The focuser is buttery smooth. The optics are impeccable as well. SO seems to be positioning itself as a premium telescope maker.

This is in large part true because many 1.25" eyepieces these days use a negative/positive design, much like having a Barlow ahead of the image forming eyepiece. This allows for better correction and longer eye relief. That positive-only image forming section has a fairly long native focal length. To accomplish the same thing with two inch eyepieces would require really large positive sections having a very long native focal length. My 35mm Baader Scopos Extreme is an example of this approach. Below is the optical design schematic (eye lens at left, negative field lens at right) and an image of mine side by side with other similar focal length eyepieces. It's also 38 ounces, so right in between my two ES-92s in weight. And yes, it has very good correction as shown in the last image.

Then you can try using a short 1.25" extension tube inserted into the focuser with one 1.25" polarizer screwed into the bottom of it and the 1.25" eyepiece with the other filter inserted into it. Of course, this assumes you have enough in-focus to accommodate the extension tube's additional optical path length.

Not if you get a 2" and a 1.25" linear polarizing filter. Screw the 2" into the front of the 2" to 1.25" adapter, insert the adapter into the focuser, screw the 1.25" into the bottom of the 1.25" eyepiece, insert the 1.25" eyepiece into the 2" to 1.25" adapter, and there you go! Just rotate the eyepiece to vary the dimming. It works great for me for solar observing in particular (with a full aperture solar filter, of course).

I'd also like standardization on how apparent field of view is measured and have vendors quote accurately measured numbers using this criterion for each and every eyepiece, not just for a particular eyepiece line as a whole. That, and quote accurately measured effective field stops so users can calculate true field of view accurately. Televue's specs are pretty close on these, so they could be held up as the gold standard for others to follow.

And take manufacturers claims of eye relief with a large dose of skepticism. Most quote designed eye relief to the center of the eye lens, which can be much less than the usable eye relief if the eye lens is deeply recessed or deeply concave.

Do y'all secretly use US coinage for trade in thoughts over there?

Were the Hanimex made in Japan? My Japanese made binos from the 50s to the 90s are all made to a higher level of mechanical perfection than my more recently made Chinese binoculars at similar inflation adjusted price points. Focus is smoother, eyecups don't come unglued during adjustment, no hokey internal stops to reduce clear aperture to improve optical performance, wider apparent fields of view, etc.

Do you have a 2" diagonal for it? If so, a 30mm APM UFF or equivalent (Altair Ultraflat, Meade 5000 UHD, Celestron Ultima Edge) would be a very good choice for wide field views. It is basically flawless in my f/6 Astro Tech 72ED. You may notice field curvature, though, due to the very small radius of curvature of your new scope (420/3=140mm). I know I sure did with my 72ED. I ended up springing for a TSFLAT2 mounted 15mm in front of the body of my 2" GSO dielectric diagonal to flatten the field. I do remove it for high power work because it contributes some spherical aberration at high powers.

Check to see if they're labeled/marked Taiwan anywhere, including the boxes. I suspect they are made by GSO of Taiwan.

Found it. The 10% luxury tax was enacted in November 1991 and the yacht part was repealed in August 1993. The car part wasn't repealed until 2002. Imagine buying a $3,000,000 boat, only to have to pay another $300,000 just because of where you bought it. It was probably cheaper in the 90s to buy a yacht anywhere else than the US, and this just sealed the deal to buy elsewhere. As long as you didn't flag it in the US, there wasn't any way to compel an owner to pay the tax avoided. The wealthy didn't get that way by beings stupid with their money. Ever notice real estate developers (like a certain orange one) put up very little of their own money? Instead, they rely on "partners", "investors", and bank loans secured by the property involved to finance their deals. This greatly limits their downside exposure in case of bankruptcy.

First, I would go slowly by hand with fine emory cloth if the amount to be removed is localized and of a small amount. Dremel tools can be very aggressive and will remove a lot of material before you know what happened. I would use one only as a last resort.

I never claimed it would work in all situations. The law of unintended consequences comes to mind about now. Back in the 80s or 90s, Congress enacted a luxury tax on all yachts sold by American companies to "stick it" to the wealthy. This had the unintended consequence of putting thousands of American yacht makers out of business (including my cousin in New Jersey) because the wealthy simply bought foreign made yachts and registered them overseas before bringing them back to US marinas. Needless to say, that stupid law was repealed after about 15 years, but the damage had already been done. The US yacht building industry has never really recovered.

Unfortunately, in trying to prevent silo'ing, it may just push discussions into the wrong forums for lack of a better place. In particular, the beginner forums. Recently, I've noticed more than a few advanced threads in them that didn't really belong there.