astronymonkey

Hi shane, im putting some stuff together to help school kids use a telescope so ill include these in the pack if thats ok.

really good stuff and thanks for posting.... +1 for this being a sticky !

Cheers

Sounds like a right faff ..... this is one of the reasons why I avoided this model cos if I dropped it and it lost collimation Id have to send it away. In the end I got a cheap one and accepted I would have to adjust it , but at least it is do-able.

To be honest it only takes 5 ins to collimate , but I cant see why Baader has restricted this on their current model,

cheers

Hi Look_up,

well done, good purchase.

I used one of these for years as a kid and still have it today for showing my kids the moon and planets....although you can see some other deep sky objects and double stars with it.

With scopes there is a limit to how high you can push the magnification on a scope before you just start magnifying a blur. For a 60mm scope this is approx 120x magnification.

To calculate what magification your lenses will give divide the focal length of the scope (700mm) by the focal length of the eyepieces (6mm or 20mm) so this will give 116x and 35x but the barlow will basically double these figures.....so in theory you can use the barlow with the 20mm eyepiece to give 70x magnification but it won be worth doing this with the 6mm lens as this would give 232x which is way above the limit for your scope.

Hope this helps, and enjoy your new toy.

The strip you would need would be 1806mm long based on Pi (3.16) x Diameter. One degree would be just over 5mm of length.

Astronymonkey

Good point but the obstruction would be dependant on the area , not the diameter.

At 350mm the area of the primary would be 967cm and the secondary (at 93mm) would have an obstructive area of 68cm meaning only a 7% obstruction by area.

At 7% this seems more reasonable

Astronymonkey

Let's say will be about 2300. What is your opinion? Worths the extra?

hmm.. I thing this is not a good idea. Even if the box is really watertight, damp will stand on the walls. The wood of the base is not solid wood, and is very easy to absorb humidity. I beleive after a little time will start inflate. Take care and ask a pro, first.

With this I suppose it will depend on if the drive is good and how accurate the drive is with regard to tracking. I think this would make the scope more useable when showing others the sky rather than having to keep nudging the scope to keep things in view. Goto isnt essential but I would hope it woud allow me to see some of the faint fuzzies that have always eluded me, but then again Ive spent 25 years star hopping with a driveless homemade dob so maybe I just fancy spoiling myself

For £500 extra over the lightbridge it would be getting expensive , and at £1200 over a second hand LB Id have to have a good think... and consider making a platform drive- but that would raise the eyepiece height to the point where a step would be needed at the zenith which wouldnt be ideal

As for keeping the base outside, ive been thinking about if I kept the base in a garage or Observatory then it would still be undercover and unheated In a similar way to if if I made a bespoke cover/ Box to protect it. Although I understand what you mean about damp and dew that may have formed on the base during use being a potential problem once coverd back over.

Astronymonkey

Ive been contemplating these scopes myself but im waiting for the price of the 400p to be released first.

My main priority is light grasp, meaning the 400p may fit the bill but I would need to compare the price with the lightbridge 16 and factor in if the goto is worth the extra.

As for size, well I think it may be on the limit of what I can carry but as long as it fits in the car then Im sure I could manage and as for home use I plan on making a watertight box to cover it so I can leave the base outside ready for use.

At f4.4 though I know its going to punish eyepieces so Ill probably buy something like a WO UWAN 28mm to get the most from it.

Astronymonkey