Jkulin

6 minutes ago, souls33k3r said:

John, I have thought about it but i'm not sure i would be adding them for now but saying that this might change very quickly

Ahmed, I can't stress the importance of them, seriously I wouldn't use it without them as there will be too much flex. You need to stock any movement, otherwise it will be like a toilet roll in the wind!

Ahmed you need some fins on the base to make that tube rock solid, they can be ordered precut from https://www.lasermaster.co.uk/

They aren't expensive, but you really do need them

1 hour ago, Shelster1973 said:

Probably should have explained the question a wee bit better too.  Am just looking for a way to contain the concrete that comes out of the ground.  From looking this morning (busy day in work) I can simply screw together some pieces of wood to create a box and then hold that in place with some heavy weights on each side until the concrete has cured.  Will then just lift off and give me the look I am after.

Yes, that is what I did, I used formica boards screwed together and coated in Grease so they pulled away nicely, I kept the top of the block level with the ground so that I could still mow the lawn easily and didn't trip up in the dark

Ahmed, be prepared to regularly have to do a PA....why?

Because if I bang my head and cut it one more time in the dark on the CW Bar, then I swear I am going to take a circular saw to the d@mn thing!🤬🙄

Ahmed, mine is 75cm x 75cm x 75cm, I never thought about rebar, but it hasn't moved in the last two years of any note.

What ever you think you will need as a weight capacity, then double it at least, when I built mine I had an AZ-EQ6-GT and a lightweight Carbon RC8, now I have a much heavier weight 120EC, a 17Kg RC10 and everything that goes with it.

Oh another thing you might think that a hole that size is nothing, it took me 4 months to get ride of the waste soil, getting ride of 10-=20kgs every week in the waste, that was because my builder told me afterwards that he hadn't included a skip in the price to dig the hole.

Thanks Francis, your 4 year apprenticeship certainly shows that you haven't lost that talent, simply beautiful to watch a craftsman make something from a model to this.

Do you fancy coming up to build mine, free coffee and biscuits 🙂

Francis, from the moment I saw your model and now seeing the construction, you appear to be a perfectionist, are you a skilled carpenter, as you certainly are making a very fine job of this?

Thanks Robert, I have had a number of exchanges with Klaus and so far he is my choice to go with, thanks.

Beautiful image, but it makes my blood boil, another professional data image wins IOTD: -

https://www.astrobin.com/410359/0/?nc=iotd

11 minutes ago, alacant said:

Hi

A good way to learn different approaches is watch someone's TeamViewer session. Not so good when they then expect you to switch cameras at 03:30!

He was probably teasing you to see if you were still awake 🙂

I used to fish, but gave up because of my beliefs many years ago, but when I did, I made my own rods and bait, I wrote many articles for books and magazines and appeared on the front cover of the Angling Times and Anglers Mail a large number of times, but I would never have claimed a capture if I had not cast, hooked and landed the fish and tied my own rigs, this is me 27 years ago when I had hair!: -

Thanks John, I'm looking at this focuser to go with it, I already have the Pegasus motor to utilise from my existing one.

https://teleskop-austria.at/OctoPlus508N#m

Its custom made, and looks quite beefy, so will order one of them as soon as I have sorted out a focuser?

That's a good point about fitting across the backseats, so will measure up if it will fit with the front seat reclined.

Klaus came back to me and suggested to go oversize of the tube so that it can accommodate a full frame sensor and it will also make it easier to find a spider, a good point however if and when I can afford a full frame sensor then I would be changing the OTA anyway to a 656imaging one from Peter.

TS did come back to me and said they could make a spider to fit from this link: - https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p4142_TS-Optics-Spider-for-secondary-holders-from-TS-Optics-for-max--300-mm-OTA-diameter.html

I do wonder about the tube ring sizes though as that is a concern.

Hi Göran, lets agree to disagree, if he wants to process and practice with other peoples data then fine, but it should be classified totally separately from other peoples work and should never be included as an IOTD

Indeed it is not the first time that other peoples data has been selected for IOTD and a number of us have already suggested a review of this, it should be classified totally separately.

1 minute ago, bottletopburly said:

Does Claus say if he uses infusion moulding , 7mm is quite thick , I would have thought infusion would half that and be stronger and lighter 

Hi, I'm not a specialist in Carbon fibre, but if you have a look at his website he does manufacture a number of different carbon tubes. http://www.klaushelmi.de/en/hardfoam-cored-tubes.html

I have just seen this and it is the epitome of everything I dislike about remote imaging using other peoples data: -

https://www.astrobin.com/410459/?nc=iotd
 

Quote

 

Emil Ivanov is one of the most talented astrophotographers in the world...! He is also a brilliant opera singer!!!
http://www.emilivanov.com/CCD Images/_about.htm

Well, in addition to all his amazing skills, he was very kind and humble to share with me some of his stunning images done in Namibia!!
http://www.irida-observatory.org/Namibia-Tivoli/Gallery/Gallery.html

Information from his web page:

DCA 16"
Optic(s): 16" f3,75 Dream Corrected Astrograph (DCA)
Mount: Astelco NTM-500 direct drive mount
Camera: Apogee Alta U-16M CCD camera
Filters: Lum, Red, Green, Blue, Ha, OIII and SII Astrodon
Dates/Times: From 3 to17 of May 2013
Location: Namibia-TIVOLI ASTROFARM, S 23° 27' 40,9" / E 18° 01' 02,2"
Exp. Details: L: 12x10min, R: 5x10min, G: 5x10min, B: 5x10min, Bin 1
Total Exposure Time - 270 min (4:30 hours)
More details: Dark and flat frames reduction

Thanks a lot again Emil !!

 

It is indeed a beautiful image, but it should never have been selected above other peoples images such as Barry Wilson and Steve Milne who work hard to obtain remote images.

And to boot the images were taken 6 years ago 🤬

So lets recap with this: -

1. The submitter used someone else's data
2. From a remote site in Namibia
3. Using someone else's equipment at an Astrofarm
4. And they were taken 6 years ago!

Indeed a beautiful image, but it should never have been selected for IOTD above far more worthy images! 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

@Tubby Bear I've measured the inside of my VX10 and it varies from 271mm to 281mm, so when Klaus says 276mm I think he is bang on.

I popped round to Peter Shah last week  and he showed me how to remove the primary and there are plenty of adjustments to allow for the internal diameter, I don't think you will have any issues there.

On my primary cell it could be locked in position in two different places about an inch apart, I think to allow for visual or astroimaging.

Peter explained how much twist there was in the ally tube and advised getting a carbon one which would resolve the constant need for re-collimating and would resolve any issues you had with alignment as well.

Once assembled I would need to pop back to Peters (always a pleasure) as he would need to check the measurements and alignment again.

I looked at the curved vanes, but for me I love the diffraction spikes so it will need to be straight ones but thanks for the link.

First thing is to obtain a new R&P focuser and then the vanes, then I can send Klaus the measurements.

Thanks for the pointers Gents, had a very detailed reply from Klaus as follows: -

Quote

 

Hello,

Thanks fo interest.  The original inside should be 275-276mm.  My form 276mm works very good.

The original end rings won´t fit any more if i build a thick walled tube but there is no need for them. Anyway the whole mechanical construction is poor.  For example these endrings  go to the inside and cover even more of the to small inside diameter so the 100% illuminated field of view is with this end rings nearly 2mm

I add a photo of how a tube could look like at the ends and you see there is no need for the rings.

Then you have a free inside of 276mm that allows good photos with small to medium CCD cameras.  If you want to use bigger CCD like full format you should think of a bigger tube like 286 or 300mm inside diameter.  Of course this is more work adjusting the primary and secondary but maybe you should think of it.  The tube will cost the same.

So a tube 276/1150mm long with around 7mm wall  will cost 450 Euros.

Shipping to UK will cost 25 Euro.

Prices include 19% VAT for shipping within EU.

This tube will be stiff enough for direct mounting without clambs.  So you don´t need new clambs  if you don´t need to rotate the tube.

Greetings

Klaus

 

The quality and thickness looks superb and I will most definitely be ordering from him, I just need to obtain a new focuser so that I can give him the dimensions of the hole size, while I am at it I will also buy a new thicker Vane, I may go 15-20cm longer so that I have a built in dew shield.

If the quality is as good as the image and his replies, then I will be a very happy man. http://www.klaushelmi.de/en/

Thanks once again everyone.

Cheers Lads, really useful info, busy contacting them all at the mo.

I'm advised that the aluminium of the VX10 is fairly poor but as it has 1/10 wave mirrors it would be worth investing and perhaps get some new spider vanes as well?

@Tubby Bear is spacken de deauche (SIC) anywhere near good enough ...lol

I want to upgrade from the aluminium tube to a carbon one on my VX10, but I have exhausted all the searches on here and elsewhere without any luck.

Is it really that hard to source a Carbon Fibre Tube?

I've not got the time or skills to make a tube, so really need to buy one.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks in Anticipation.

Hi, sorry to sidetrack, but did anyone ever find a company that made carbon tube, I'd rather like to transfer the gubbins from my VX10 into a Carbon tube?

OK playing devils advocate here and I know @carastro will chuckle, at what point does an image hosted, captured and processed by one self compete against one setup remotely hosted but captured and processed by another versus data purchased and downloaded then processed compare. So in theory three methods, the first two as I mentioned early require considerably skill and patience, the third well....?

Should someone who spends days, weeks months or years even trying to capture sufficient quality data to produce an image compete for the accolade of "image of the day" for some one who buys their data and then processes it and enters into the same competition.

Should there be different classifications?

3 hours ago, Demonperformer said:

A response which nicely ignores the point of my question.

I note from your signature that there are a lot of scopes, mounts, cameras and accessories that you presumably consider to be "yours" because you have given money to the person who did the work of making them. You also presumably consider the results gained by using this equipment to be "yours" (despite having not manufactured the chip in the camera you are using?). Indeed, the question arises, did you write all the software that you are using to process "your" picture? If not, it isn't really "yours" ...

So where does one draw the line?

If I give money to someone who has done the work of setting up a scope to buy an amount of time on that scope, the time and the results gained (using my skill - such as it is - of selecting & framing my object, and selecting settings, including filter choice) are similarly "mine" as long as I do not claim to have done something I haven't.

Your suggestions are taking things to the extreme, so: -

Racing a car in F1 doesn't count if you haven't made every part!

Racing a bike in the Tour De France doesn't count if you haven't welded and made the bike yourself (although at one time you had to be your own mechanic)!

Archery doesn't count if you have n't made the bow!

And God forbid, flying to the moon doesn't count if you haven't made the rocket yourself!

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

One draws the line wherever ones wants to because the line's jurisdiction applies only to the person who draws it

Olly quantifies this nicely, you draw your own line and one of which you are comfortable with.

The OP asked for opinions and that is how I replied, I'm not going to string a noose around his neck and lynch him for using commercial facilities, it's just not for me.

Like many others, I spend hours, nay days making up everything to connect faultlessly, even more time capturing the image with my own equipment and then processing the image myself. I have a number of friends who have processed my images to show me the error of my ways, including my mate Peter Shah, but I have never published or publicly shown these images as they are not mine, as once they leave my control they cease to be. I could show you some absolutely stunning images I took, but was struggling to get the processing right and which my mates sorted, but I would never dare to show as it goes against my own line in the sand.

If I went to Olly's (Which I would love to do, then I would take my own kit and use my own processing, but would listen and learn from Olly to make my own images better.