theskyisthelimit99

Thanks that makes total sense and a fantastic summary.. i mean i guess if the 678 can avoid the barlow, then perhaps it takes some glass out of the equation. I gues You mentioned to not drizzle.. i was talking about the advanced settings of as3, has off, 1.5, 3 etc, i thought i read someone with the 678 was drizzling 1.5x, though i didnt realize that as3 was doing it by default during stacking?

I believe its been said the new 678mc is good with the edge 11 (maybe without a barlow too).. can anyone explain in general terms how this is? Im guessing less noise with this iteration, but the pixel size is 2.0 vs 3.75 which goes against the grain i thought for imaging planets. I wouldnt mind losing the barlow however and i guess doing drizling Any thoughts

I've searched high and low but cant find the answer on this one.. I believe the rough estimate is actually 9mm but cant find confirmation. this is the part: Trying to work out the math to see if im at 146.05 or so (plus or minus 0.5mm), from a rough caliper measurement i "think" im dead on but the math doesnt add up when i add up all the parts, for instance here: start: F7 reducer threads end 9 SCT adapter plate?? 25.4 blue ball spacer 25.3 celestron sct adapter 29mm body oag 12.5mm male 48mm adapter 17.5mm starizona drawer 1mm filter 11mm ring on asi294mc 6.5 to sensor Finish: asi294mc pro 137.2 (so short by this definition but by rough measurement with everything attached and guestimating threads of f7 end in the ring of the adapter, i'm at 146) My guess is that the celestron oag sct adapter at 25.3 is not the right value (i should measure it direct to confirm) Thanks for any input /info

Having acquired an upgrade to my 8se in the 11 edge and a used hyperstar v3 along with the color asi294mc, i'm trying to figure out which set of filters i should get to start off with. I had initially ordered the Orion Skyglow 1.25" filter for f7 at least (direct attach to the camera, 1.25"s). I stumbled onto threads about using the combo O3, Hb, Ha, light pollution blocking Optolong L-enhance filter which appears to do Ha at 10nm (i was considering an optolong or astronomik at 6 or 7nm for ha only) this to help with full moon times. It seems to be half the price as buying 2 separate ones? I've seen it mentioned the optolong uhc filter as well, but maybe just for generic imaging not specific to nebula as a night pollution alternative to the orion skyglow? There is also the L-pro, confused on which does what. I think many are getting good results with this filter? But would it also be appropriate once i switch to the mono asi1600 camera? Couple this with f2 considerations. I read somewhere that the zwo filter wheel might be able to take 36mm unmounted filters which would reduce any vignetting at f2, though i know of some that use 1.25 + the zwo Mini wheel at f2 with success but take flats. Anyone have any experience at f2 with the mini wheel and can comment if it takes 36mm? Maybe not the mini version, in which case i'd probably opt for 1.25" for now at f2 as well, meaning the high speed baaders Ha there which are more expensive? (edit: i think this was 31mm unmounted, though i'm not sure if it really helps reduce vignetting or not, being unmounted?) In any case, just doing a straight color shot without the L enhance, i would probably still need some model IR cut filter? Thanks for any suggestions here

This is my first GEM, the cem120. I've literally just unboxed it and set the latitude. I was given the stat from ioptron for 40.5 lat. that its about 9.40 in height from the mount plate to "center of OTA". Now i'm trying to confirm this. I'm not sure what position that stat comes from, is it the "parked" position, zero position, counter weight straight out (not aimed down) one? What i'm wondering, is if i change telescopes (from 8se) to say edge 11 or even 8se with a piggyback refractor, that height is still considered 9.40 to center, but center of where exactly. How do I target a 53" wall height (and adjust my pier that i'm creating, concrete in the process)? If adding piggy backed equipment really has no barring on that wall height position, then I guess i can just go with 53-9.40 to get the pier height I need to make and not worry about things being too high? Thanks in advance for any clarification

Yeah will do sorry i usually do that. And i have actually modified plans slightly, dropping back to 10" pvc and the double plate option, lower plate to jbolts and lower plate connecting to upper via m10 bolts and the upper being the connection to the telescope mount, most likely 4" from the pier top to the mounting area at the top.

I checked around on just having the cement delivered, the best i can find is $280 for a 1 yard minimum (should be just under 1 yard), which isnt a bad price being as i'd pay around $220 for lowes to deliver everything inclusive of a mixer rental. So ill probably do this option, but i imagine i just wheel barrow it from the street, so they probably wont help.

I have a cem120 inbound, and in the preplanning phases for a concrete 12" wide pier (inside of pvc for the form). I'm at latitude 40.5, so i think the CW's will clear the 12" (i think) The issue is the template for the mounting plate at 8.25x8.25 and 11.67" diag. puts the j bolts or anchors too close to the edge of the concrete. (1.5ish) (also unsure how i go about printing a scaled photo of this to use as a template) So my thought process has me bolting together two 3/8" a36 steel plates off ebay and putting the jbolts closer to center (via threaded/tapped holes though) and tapping holes in the top mounting plate for the mount. I'm assuming a36 steel (like this off ebay) is ok to use and 3/8" seemed thick enough though maybe 1/2" to be safe. My jrods i'm shooting for will be 5/8" across or 3/4" and maybe 13" long (rebar in the tube etc down to 4 feet below grade). I know there a few 120 users that have custom made a piece that can basically extend the pier to avoid this, but i'm having trouble finding local fabricating shops that do this or do it economically (steel city you would think more do). At first i hunted for aluminum options for plates (3/4" thick) and most for two 12" ones are $150-$270 Has anyone gone through this with a cement pier and multiple or single plates and found a solution for the cem120? Thanks in advance

Any concerns with vibrations with the metal pier route? Either way quite a few bags still needed for an 18 to 24 square footer

Yep I was considering the steel pier option because I may move one day. I'm trying to save coin though so probably sticking with concrete if I can figure out where to get material for the pier adapter that will be above the 12 inch round concrete pier

Well i was able to find the hole pattern and the rough estimate on the height of the cem120, i'm definitely on the cem120 bandwagon, but i should probably get my pier created (10-12" sonotube) prior to ordering so i have a way to get it connected and tested (or after the nexdome arrives)

Back to the ap900 possibility, I did find out that the one in question is from the year 2000, he claims never an issue with it, no noises or anything along those lines, however he's never greased it or had to. I dont think the price was flexible, if it were it might be a consideration, though the age concerns me. Does anyone know how long these can last (for that one its already at 19 years)?

Look i'm sure these are isolated instances, however if you dig around you will find plenty of discussion on these and the issues "some" have had, its not gossip, unless they are making up stories or dont know what they are dealing with. I know someone first hand that went through several cem60's before they had one that worked and from another forum someone directly i spoke to that went through three of the cem120's. I also have talked with folks that have the 120 and no issues and love it. Take it with a grain a salt here. No one is trying to spread gossip here, but merely trying not to end up with a $4000 brick or go through the pain of repeated swaps if thats really what it takes to get a good one.

Ok, i think that makes sense to me at least. Yeah then im guessing going for the ap900 probably wont benefit me, at least not in the medium term. The ap900 in question is around 6500 (vs 4k for the cem120 new). The person says its a cp2 upgraded to cp4, gave me the serial number as well. Comes with the cp4 controller, hc, cw shaft and 20lb weights, 18lb and 10lb weights and another 7lb one. Has the saddle and polar scope too along with the software licenses.. not real sure on the age, comes with a custom grease kit to regrease. I guess on paper it sounds good, the seller is reputable. I could probably still do just as well going hdx110 i would imagine if not the cem120

What about differences in PE, ie: one rated at say 5 arcsec/pixel (i forget the data point) vs another like the cem120 at say 0.15.. how critical should i be in comparing those stats.. ie: for someone like me doing minor astrophotography or even mid duration subs 5-10 min, would such figures make much difference in the final images.. i dont understand these stats so i'm not real clear if there is an advantage.. ie: cem120EC vs even an ap900 used, let alone cem120 vs cem120ec