bluesilver

Thanks for the replies and advice, sorry also for the long delay in replying, been off researching this a bit. The scope is a new XTL C14, so it is the latest version of the C14 non Edge version. All this happened as i was replacing the original orange dovetail bar with a heavy duty Farpoint dovetail bar. I had a few issues with the radius blocks and while sorting that out i put the orange bar back on. I had a few issues getting the orange bar back on and this is where the screw stripped. It is only the one screw and it is at the front of the tube, not at the back. At the moment how it sits, i have the heavy duty bar back on and used a fair amount of light thread lock on it. I was looking at drilling the hole out and going for the next size screw, put just by visually looking in the tube front the front, I can't see any screws inside the housing. So i am not 100% sure how thick the plate is or if i decide to make the hole larger for the next size up if i should just drill all the way through so it comes into the tube itself. If i do his i would remove the front glass and have the tube sitting up so al shaving fall straight out.

Thanks for the replies and advice, appreciated. I did think about drilling a larger hole and putting a tap through it. But doing so there is a good chance of getting metal filings falling inside the tube, plus just real sure how thick the metal is where these threaded holes are. Not real confident yet enough to fully disassemble the scope to remove all the mirrors to prevent any damage, unless i can find a youtube video of a c14 being disassembled. The idea of just putting the dovetail on top and mounting the scope upside down could be the better option.

Hi, this is a bit of an odd question, it is in regards to the Celestron C14, With the standard dovetail bar, dose it matter if it is installed on the top and not the bottom? The end result will be that the scope will be upside down or mounted 180 degrees. Only asking as i have stripped on of the screw threads, I haven't been keen enough to fully disassemble the scope to see if it is fully stripped or how long these threads are. I am not imaging with it apart from doing some planetary imaging, it is mainly a visual scope. It is the black tubed version, the XTL version. Any advice on this would be appreciated, Thanks.

Hi, I am just looking to see if anyone has any recommendations for a crayford focuser to fit the Celestron C14 XTL Ideally i would like to be able to mount a ZWO camera to it, but not using the nose piece, I would like to have a M42 thread on the end of the focuser. It is only for planetary imaging, so i am not really looking at one of those super expensive moonlight focusers. But any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks heaps for those replies, very much appreciated and has explain a lot of things. Just one other thing if someone doesn't mid me asking, Instead of installing a crayford focuser, wouldn't you be better of installing a ZWO electronic focuser? These have very small adjustments as well as the course adjustments. Seams like it would be a easier solution, Just a thought.

Hi, I am hoping i can find out a bit of information in regards to the Celestron line of scopes, mainly the C14 XLT ( the non edge version ) I have heard that a lot of people are saying to install a grayford focuser on these scopes. So i kind of have a few questions that i am struggling to understand and was hoping someone might be able to help me out a bit here. 1. I see that they have their own knob type focuser on them that i am guessing adjusts the primary mirror to get focus? But by doing this, wouldn't it always be putting the scope out of collimation? 2. By adding a Crayford focuser, would this only be for very minor adjustments? 3. There is talk of mirror flop as the scope moves around, I take that is why the scope apparently get shipped with the mirror locked down with bolts? So are they designed to say collimate or focus on a star, then re install the bolts to stop the mirror moving? It just all seams a tad odd. I have only had refractors and Dobsonians, so just trying to find out what am in for if i get a C14 scope, what if anything needs to be improved and why people install grayford focusers on them if you could just put an electronic focuser on the original focusing nob? I hpoe all that kind of makes sense, Any advise or information would be appreciated. Cheers.

Thanks for the replies and advise, appreciated. The only reason i am not using the Esprit 150 for visual on the planets is that you basically have to just about lie on the ground to get your eye to the eye piece when the planets are up nice and high. The 150 is a long scope and anything over 45 degrees mean you are on the ground to get to the eyepiece. It is not possible to mount the scope up higher on a tripod to enable easy viewing, it would have to be mounted at around head height almost. But you are correct, is is a great scope, but i use it for imaging. I might have to look more into the GS0 8” Classical Cassegrain, can't say i have really heard much about these.

Hi, I am looking at getting a dedicated scope for planetary viewing, After doing a lot of research, I think i have come down to the Skywatcher 180/2700 Mak. So i was hoping i might be able to get some advise on here if this would be a good choice as a dedicated scope for planetary viewing. I have a few other scopes, a 16" Dobsonian with goto and a Skywatcher Esprit 150 The Dobsonian is a great scope, but it is a bit of a pain for a few to use due to having to stand on a small step ladder to see through the eyepiece. I don't mind myself, but it is getting to be an issue with a few elder people that like to be able to see the planets, and some of the younger ones that are just not tall enough. So long story short, the mount it is going on is a iOptron CEM120, so definitely no issues there weight wise. Mounting a scope like the mak on this would allow much easier access to the eye piece. Any advice on if the SkyWatcher 180/2700 is a good choice, or possibly look at something else maybe? Looking at astronomy.tools site, it appears the field of view from my 16" Dobsonian with a 10mm tele Vue Delos eye piece has a better view compared to the standard 28mm eyepiece that comes with the 180/2700 mak. Can the mak handle a 10mm eyepiece? Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hi, Sorry to jump in on this, But i have this same reducer and is going to be used on a Esprit 150 Just a quick question on that back focus of 55mm that is on the box, Where it says 55mm back focus with the standard adaptor, Dose this just mean to need to add 55mm of back focus from the end of the adaptor? So just basically add the standard 16mm and 21mm spacers that come with a ZWO camera?

Hi, sorry for the odd tittle there. I am looking at installing one of the Nexdome observatory kits on a wooden deck. I am going to be mounting a iOptron CEM120 in there, but at the moment i am just going to be using the 360 tripod from iOptron and letter on look at a solid pier. So, for the main center pier, i was looking at making it 300mm in diameter ( around 12 inches in diameter ) and then also put in three other 250mm diameter piers for the tripod feet. I am not 100% sure if i should be looking at going a tad larger in diameter with the main pier or not, the plan was to have all the piers sit just below the deck of the observatory, just below the floor boars. looking at iOptron site for a permanent pier, it looks like it's base is 240mm x 240mm square But the main question is in regards to the main pier and how deep i should possibly looking at going, the ground around here is pretty much clay based ground. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Appreciate all the replies and advice, Been doing quiet a lot of research on this, and i think that the final answer works out to be just to go with the standard CEM120 version, the ne without the encoders. It will work well with PHD2, the others, while they may work with PHD2 the encoders are not the best. I have found out that if you were to be looking at encoder versions, you are far better of going for the more expensive mounts like 10 micron and the like.

Hi, sorry to jump in on this, but i am also just looking to get a iOptron CEM120 mount, just the standard version not the encoder versions. I plan to use PHD2 for guiding. I just came across this post and was interested to find out a little more on what was meant by, The only real reason I see for that is if you can't fit an OAG/ONAG within the backfocus of your telescope. Is it just as simple as imaging / guide ratio that you can get from astronomy.tools the only real reason I see for that is if you can't fit an OAG/ONAG within the backfocus of your telescope. I have a Skywatcher esprit 150 with a ASI2600mc camera, guide scope is a Orion 60mm guide scope and the guide camera is a ASI290mm mini Putting this number into astronomy.tools i get a imaging / guide ratio of 1:3.37 If anyone can please clear this up for me, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hi, I am starting to look at upgrading my current mount, Skywatcher AZ/EQ6 What i have mounted on it is a Skywatcher Esprit 150, Orion 60mm guide scope, ASI guide camera, ASI imaging camera. So the weight is getting up there and also the issue of a long focal length. I am not in a permanent dome setup, So i cart all my gear out to the back year every time and should be an issue with these IOPTRON 120 mounts. I operate everything via a laptop outside, so i don't use the included hand controller at all. The programs that i use are: APT, PHD2, Stallerium So after all that, I think i have narrowed my options down to the IOPTRON CEM120 mounts, I was looking at the Skywatcher EQ8 line of mounts, but so far not much information on them and a lot of people seam to be using iOPTRON CEM120 mounts in this class rather than the EQ8 line up Would i be correct in saying that the IOPTRON would be a better choice that the EQ8? I am not sure if the IOPTRON has spring loaded backlash or not? So If iOPTRON is the way to go, which one CEM120, CEM120EC, CEM120EC2 ? A very broad question i know, But if looking at this class of mount, is it best just to go all the way to the CEM120EC2 ? I see that the base on has no encoders, the middle one with one encoder and the top one with dual encoders, will all three work with PHD2, APT, Stallerium ? I plan to mount either one on the iOPTRON Tri-Pier 360 Any advice ould be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Good to know, just wasn't too sure if i somehow messed up the order of things.

Thanks for the link, and good to know, at least that makes more sense as is in line with the 16.5mm adaptors that ZWO send with the camera. In regards to the filter, From what i understand it helps increasing the contrast of emission nebulas. I could b wrong, but i think that is what it is designed for and yes you are correct in saying that the ASI2600mc has it's own in built UV filter. The filter i don't think would do too much for galaxies though.

Thanks for the advise and the images, didn't look at it that way, i was just looking at my camera in particular. Well worth a try though. I was going to use the 16.5mm adaptor but after doing the calculations from the figures given by the Field Flattener, i cam up with the 14mm spacer to get the 96mm back focus, the 16.5mm worked out to be 2.5mm too long. But the connection theory is the same, so will try it out next time i get some clear skies here again. Might be worth while just trying the 16.5mm to see what happens though and compare the two.

Thanks for the replies and advise, Yes, sorry i kind of missed a few things out in the original question, so apologies for this. The filter is a 2 inch OPTOLONG L-PRO FILTER The filter draw is a ZWO FILTER DRAWER M42 I did notice a funny reflection when i was trying things out a few days ago at about 1/2 moon I was using a bahtinov mask on a bright star to work on focusing and while i got a good spike alignment, i did notice that i could see sort of a light ghosting of the entire mask behind the star I hope that make sense. I was using Astro photography tool to run the camera. Could this possibly be a refection form the filter and therefore try to put the spacers in front of the filter?

Thanks for the reply and advise, appreciated. Yes that 14mm spacer is a M48 thread, kind of looks small in the photo compared to the rest of the fittings / adaptors added to it. It basically just screws Straight onto the ZWO filter draw without any reducers and the 43mm adaptor is a M48 - M68 adaptor. I can see what you mean by adding 1/3 of the thickness of any mirror between the FF and the sensor. That is were the 14mm spacers comes in, The filter draw is 21mm, so i added .5m to allow for the filter that is inside it bringing the filter draw up to 21.5mm. I wasn't too sure if i had thigs installed in the correct order or not, but from what you are saying, it sounds like i have it all set up correctly? Or sound i be putting that spacer in front of the filter so that it goes camera, spacer, filter, adaptor, Field Flattener?

Hi, I am starting out trying to get my imaging train setup correctly. I am hoping someone might be able to advise me if i have this all set up correctly or not. The imaging train is to be connected to a Skywatcher esprit 150 The camera is a ASI2600mc The Esprit comes with its own Field Corrector. According to the manual, it tells me that the Field corrector back focus is 96mm ( measured from the outside edge of the casing or 100mm if measured from the actual lens inside the Corrector. So this is what i have setup and was hoping someone could please correct me or tell me if it is correct. Below is a diagram ( a tad hard to read ) and a photo of the setup. It should read as: Field corrector, Adaptor 43mm, Spacer, 14mm,Filter draw with filter inside 21.5mm, Camera with 17.7mm to the sensor. The specs on the camera say 55mm back focus, but i just can't figure out how that figure plays in with all of this, I thought that there would only be the one back focus figure, 96mm for the Field Corrector, so were dose this 55mm of back focus from the camera come into play?

Can i ask, how are you driving this mount? are you using EQMOD? Will be good to here what you think of this mount as i am looking at either the EQ8-R or the EQ8-RH

Thanks for the replies, appreciated. I wasn't aware of those discussion groups, and first time hearing of this green swamp server, I will take a look at these, Very much appreciated.

Hi, just interested to know if the EQ8-RH can be used with EQMOD at all? I have a AZ/EQ6 and might possibly be looking to move into a larger mount, but i like the idea of keeping the EQMOD setup that i am currently using with the AZ/EQ6 So just out of interest, is it compatible with the EQMOD at all? I have a bit of a search around and can't see any mention of it for the EQMOD, only the likes of the AZ/EQ6 and the like. Will the setup i currently have be a plug and play so to speak with the EQ8-RH I haven't see much talk on here about the EQ8-RH, so not sure if that is a good thing or not. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply, I have yet to do the test to see if i am too close or too far away, but good to know that i do need to take into account the filter thickness. Will work on getting some spacers to get the correct distance. Appreciated.

Hi, I am hoping someone might be able to help me out with this question in regards to using filters in the imaging train and working out back focus I have a field flattener / reducer and the manual tells me that the back focus needs to be 96mm. Now i am using a ASI2600mc camera and i have a single filter tray just in front of the camera. I have taken the thickness if this into account ( 21mm ) but do i actually need to add the thickness of the filter itself ( roughly 0.5mm ) even though it sits inside the filter tray? So basically with the filter tray being 21mm wide, do i also add 0.5mm to this to make it 21.5mm or dose it just stay as 21mm Hope i haven't made that question too confusing. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hi, Just interesting to here some thoughts on if it is worth while using a UV cut filter when guiding using PHD2 I am using an Orion 600 guide scope and the guide camera is the ASI 290mm mini Would it be worth while running a UV cut filter with this setup or would i not see any benefit from doing so? I was looking at one of the ZWO UV cut filters, actually it is the one that i use on my camera that i use when imaging the planets. Sky is a reasonably dark area, around Bortle 2-3 Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.