Rusted

I believe the correct procedure is for "the model" to stare lovingly at The Precious.
Staring at the camera makes me think of a kidnap victim holding up a Help Me! placard.
Do all amateur astronomers have the same appearance? Except for the ladies of course.
Then why do I suddenly feel like a clone! 🥸

 All that glisters.. The alleged prop would have a wilful desire to head nose up or tail up entirely at random. The geometry is terrifying! The absence of a humble cog only the last straw. In the battle for damages. When the heroin is summarily decapitated and then catapulted out of the nearest window by said prop.

 There used to be saying that authors should write only about what they know. To avoid hideous and hilarious mistakes transparent to all those in the know. Somehow the entertainment arts have forgotten this solemn lesson. Wilful ignorance is only the least of their sins.

 They had only to ask the local photography shop for expert advice. To avoid the zillionaire, bent on world domination. From performing with a cast-off from the props department. More reminiscent of the finest wares in the 10p jumble tub. At the local, backstreet, charity shop. 🙃

Breathing on a lens is likely to deposit fat droplets full of bacteria, viruses and who knows what else. My fuzzy logic suggests that imbibing a spirit alcohol prior to spitting on the lens would be beneficial. The timing of said consumption, prior to the act of deposition, is crucial to the longevity of one's pride and joy. Too soon, and wayward behaviour including false confidence in one's mechanical dexterity are at serious risk. Too late, and the precious fluorite element may simply dissolve before your very eyes.  Or appear to do so.
 

Poorly PST ITF.

Nice image!

You captured incredible detail in the major spot active region for a full disk! Light bridges everywhere!

No need for close-ups when a few clicks expand the image in all its glory!

Congratulations on truly exceptional images.

Not here. Unsupported file type.

Great set of images Nigella.

That is pretty remarkable!

You even managed to cram it full of spots this time!

These rings show a difference in radius between two closely spaced lens elements. Provided they are central I'd ignore them, or admire them, according to personal taste. Even if they were off centre this might only be the result of your viewpoint relative to the optical axis.

Newton's rings are used by optical workers to compare radii and to measure the flatness of plane surfaces under monochromatic light.

Monochromatic light used to be easily available under every orange street lamp. Now less likely with updated tech and different spectra.

 

You can easily tell that astronomy is a science: Unlike astrology. Which is a faith based religion. Every new probe or instrument reinvents our understanding. You could say that, if you live long enough, almost everything "up there" is further misunderstood. Teaching astronomy is best done virtually. By the time a book come out it is only of historical interest. It's lucky we no longer imprison the last generation for blasphemy when their theories prove inadequate. We were and always will be, working in the dark. 😉 Our constant progress is an insider joke within the broad subject matter. We should acknowledge this with a wry grin. Because every newly published paper ought to begin and end with a . That emoticon which best describes a visual astronomer whom is in on the joke. Whether they favour their right 😉 or their left eye. By next week the object of interest in our eyepiece, or camera, has already changed and has been changed by our constantly advancing wavefront of knowledge. 😉

20 minutes ago, LondonNeil said:

Rusted, the usual way to do it is a threaded bar screwed into one of the existing tapped holes in the mount head near the front ring attachment and kinked so that it extends down and forward at about 30 degrees with the tube horizontal.   Fine balance is achieved at any given altitude of target by cw size or position on that bar. So yes,  it can be modded to work and I should have a play and give the head another chance. 

For lightweight OTAs the single weight on a kinked arm makes sense.
Tripod clearance is only an issue pointing near the horizontal.
The steeper the altitude pointing angle the more clearance is achieved.

Some Manfrotto camera heads have a torsion spring.
I found mine totally inadequate away from the horizontal.

The so-called gimbal heads are vastly better with heavier loads.
The OTA carrier can usually be fine adjusted vertically to be neutrally balanced in the vertical plane
Ironically the gimbal head creates clearance problems with increasing altitude.
I used my gimbal head for solar with my very heavy Lunt 60MT and 90mm spotting scope.
The gimbal heads do not provide slow motions but have dropped considerably in price.
FLO does not list gimbals heads but I recommend them where slow motions are not needed.

At a glance the AZ3 has all the GEOMETRIC weaknesses of most altazimuth heads.
Including the expensive garbage sold for DSLRs with telephoto lenses.
The advertising crooks lie about fluid heads having enough friction to balance any load. Garbage!

The mass of the telescope and/or camera rides well above the load bearing pivots.
The slightest change away from horizontal will result in a greatly increased vertical moment.
[mass x distance around the pivot point] Maximum moment or imbalance is with the OTA vertical.
Which load is very poorly accepted by the weak, built-in design of most of these heads.
Including the crap "techno" friction designed into garbage camera heads like Manfrotto. 

How to overcome the problem?
Screw, fix or trap a piece of plywood or scrap aluminium/ CF across the OTA mounting plate or dovetail.
Then add weights on long stalks to the crosspiece, well below the instrument, until vertical balance is achieved.
Eventually you will find a neutral moment [mass x distance] below the mountings pivots.
For your chosen OTA or DSLR big lens setup. It should then swing effortlessly up and down in altitude.

The twin weights should not contact the tripod because the OTA isn't ever titled sideways. 
It remains upright. The longer your weight stalks the lighter the counterweights can be.
Use common sense here to avoid tripod leg contact or unwanted bulk. 12mm hardwood dowels would probably do.
Just avoid flexure causing vibration or catastrophic breakage. Or weight detachment! Eek! 😱
Aluminium tubing is widely available. 12mm or half inch Ø?

My childish drawing exaggerates the distance from the OTA to the heads vertical pivot.
The weight bearing cross plate is shown as a grey line just above the pivot.
You need twin counterweights, one on each side, to clear the tripod.
I missed the Thursday class in sophisticated 3d animation.

1 hour ago, Peter Drew said:

Stargrazer?      🙂

As most of us use an optical instrument of some sort, usually involving glass, perhaps we should be called starglazers?
I'll get my coat.

I used commercial, straight seamed, steel, dust extractor tubing for my 6" and 7" iStar refractors.
This material is no heavier than aluminium being very thin 0.3mm but very stiff.
The seam is neat and easily placed in the gap in typical, hinged, Skywatcher style, tube rings.
Tube rotation is no longer possible but refractors rarely need this.

This ducting is used in woodworking factories and similar. Where dust build up is a fire risk.
Unlike the spiral tubing it looks like a professional telescope. Being smooth and thinly galvanised.
Little risk of rust even after years standing outside in the rain. It could be painted if you like.
I get mine in sizes up to 40cm diameter from the scrap heap of a local furniture factory.
It costs me about £2 per 2m length donated to the Friday cake fund.

It comes in two meter lengths with a very subtle [trumpet like] flare on each end. 
These flares are used to join the tubes end-to-end in extractor systems using a simple, ring clamp.
Hack-sawing off only one end flare allows you to slide a plywood or aluminium counter-cell along the tube.
Without the risk of it falling off the far end of the tube. I use rings and counter-cells of laminated marine ply.

Years ago I made a lightweight tube out of thin marine ply glued and layered around a series of ply rings.
The rings must be halved so they can be knocked out without damaging the lightweight tube.
This was for my 5" f/15 refractor where I made the lens from BK7 F2.
I converted a classical ray tracing book to BBC Basic to design the lens.
Finding several errors in the original tome and identifying errors in the first Astro-Physics triplet prescription.
This was before the availability of ray tracing software on the InterWeblet. 

Refractors are long and heavy at each end where it matters. Moment!
The heavy objective in its cell at one must be matched by the focuser to balance.

To get it off the ground I suggest a plywood, altazimuth, counterbalanced, offset fork mount.
Known as a Berry mount. Because he published on it in last century. It uses Dobsonian principles and bearings.
Don't sneer. There are those who love their Berry style mountings for their high end APO Triplets!
You can add an equatorial platform just under the Berry head if you want tracking.

My home made equatorial mounting has 2" stainless shafts in self aligning bearings.
It is entirely made from scrap aluminium. Using studding to compress and stiffen the box sections.  

Some nice detail! Good first effort! Keep at it!

I liken a decent white light image of the sun to a hen's egg. Subtle but just visible surface texture. Your image is leaning just a little too far towards over-sharpening. IMO. The uniform texture is the clue. The texture should vary across the disk and be finer at this scale.

I am not familiar with waveSharp. You might try ImPPG. A free software much loved by solar imagers everywhere. Again it has the potential to seriously over-sharpen when used clumsily. A gentle touch will astonish with the real, solar detail which can be brought out.

 Despite the availability of the vital equipment. Only a handful of imagers repeatedly produce such high quality results as Dave Smith and a few others here. It takes real dedication, patience, endless practise and multiple skills to become one of these few.

 Just going out there, when conditions are not ideal, is what separates the great imagers from the rest. This is not a criticism of those who try to emulate these expert imagers. Merely pointing out that mere money will not raise you to the ranks of those who regularly and repeatedly astonish us with their results. 

 Astronomical imaging is not like owning a custom or sports car. You can't pay a garage to produce your dream set-up and then bathe in the glory of "your creation." You actually have to do most of the work yourself. Even then, bathing in mist, dew and sudden showers is far more likely.

 This is not a criticism of those who want to succeed at imaging. By all means share your results. Then ask for sincere and honest advice on how to improve. Remember that there are often thousands of identical imaging set-ups to those of the real experts. Which never, or rarely go outside. Not after the initial excitement and pride in ownership dies down. Owning the nice kit is only just the beginning. The rest really is up to you.     

Does the roughness occur in the absence of the wormwheel? Let's assume you are talking only about the worm in its housing. [As pictured.]

Ease off the end pressure adjustment [if any] on the worm bearings until you obtain shake-free smoothness of turning.

"Cogging" is extremely commonplace where ball bearings are overtightened. Typical of an overtightened bottom bracket bearing on a bicycle or headset. [Forks] Though much less common after journal bearings took the place of loose balls in cups.

I am concerned about the broken casting just above the worm in your picture. Is there any debris in the worm grease? 

Nice mages Steve!

Is it just me? Or are the coloured images much sharper? More detailed. Contrast effect? Old age?

8 hours ago, Bugdozer said:

All good suggestions, I will see if I can track down any of these as the culprit. Interesting that I have only begun to notice it as it's got colder, but also since my diagonal fell off the scope into a plant pot. 

Were you hoping your 1.25" would grow into a 2"?

I'm with Peter on this. You are photographing from too close.

A quick check of my Nikon 8x42 showed central exit pupils at arms length visually.
My phone camera showed a similar appearance at arm's length.
Individual exit pupils should be central in the eyepiece when viewed separately on axis.

May one assume you have folded the hinge of the binos to your normal eye spacing? (Pupillary distance.)
Try closing one eye alternately with the binos held to your face and then at arm's length.
The viewing circle should be round and crisply defined. Too wide and you get a soft oval and eye strain.

What a tragedy! My sincere condolences.

I'm afraid it's a little late to be offering advice, but there may be those in the crowd who risk following your example.

A suitable weight, hung low from a cord or chain, under the centre of the tripod has been used for centuries to resist tripods from tipping.
Commercial weights are offered but a sandbag or barbel weight are often used instead.
Leave the weight attached during observing for greater stability.
Use hooks in case you need to quickly detach the weight to easily move the kit elsewhere.

Do an image search for "tripod stabiliser weight "for lots of useful ideas.

Barbel weights could be threaded over the lower tripod legs if these are easily detachable.
You could avoid rust staining the tripod legs by sleeving them with PVC plumbing pipe and big plastic washers.

I have always preferred four legged stands rather than tripods.
The tipping radius between any two feet is greatly expanded with ever increasing numbers of legs.
Until the ground support ring becomes the full radius of a true circle. i.e. a round plate.

I once used a massive, cast iron pier from a drawing board stand. Far too heavy to lift!
Even that failed to resist toppling my anemometer mast in a storm.
So I added massive scrap metal weights to rest on the plate.

Any permanent cover for a telescope should be bound with cords to minimise wind drag and area exposed to the wind.

Guy lines from the top of the tripod down to the ground, following the slope of the tripod legs might be another idea.
Suitable ground anchors should carefully avoid tripping risks. Bent wire tent pegs would be rather inadequate.

My final suggestion would be a 4"-6"Ø steel pipe pier set in concrete. Not always doable.

BTW: Love your superb view! 

Nice set.

We were promised three flavours.
I can see orange and blackcurrant.
But no strawberry?

Thanks. That's a nice touch for binoviewer users.
Most APO owners will avoid shortening the main tube with a hacksaw! 😱
Having to rely on optical devices, just to reach focus, usually results in unwanted magnification.