Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep15_banner.thumb.jpg.34f8495864951c81ec35e285b4d7b2e0.jpg

MarcusH

Members
  • Content Count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About MarcusH

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    Finland
  1. Neither. The reluctance to call a project finished, even though said project already had met it's design goals or even surpassed them, is something that I can easily relate to.
  2. If I understand your original question correctly, you are pondering if you should buy the optional StellaMira M42 / T Adapter for your flattener/reducer or if you just should replace the T / M42<->Nikon adapter that you currently have with an M48<->Nikon. Correct ? Imaging-vise that really doesn't matter, both will work on your current setup (APS-C). What you might want to consider is possibly future proofing your setup. Do you see yourself buying a dedicated astro-camera at some time in the future ? As @vlaiv said those are usually T2 (except the big, full frame ones) so you then would need a way to reduce the M48 to T2 anyway. As the backfocus is only 55 mm, any possible addition to the imaging train (filterwheel / OAG / adapters / etc.) is going to have preciously little room so a "drop down" to T2 right at the reducer might be a good choice. The best advice would probably be to have a chat with the guys at @FLO. Once they know your current setup and your long-time goals, I'm sure they can suggest the best solution for you.
  3. No rush, but please do, or a video. Seeing sub 100u movements sounds intriguing...
  4. This was my initial thought too, espescially as the mount started to have guiding problems. It sounds like you have (inadvertently) introduced a slip in one of the axis by loosening the bolt. The motor tries to move the axis but something is slipping giving you the "star didn't move enough" error. And when it finally manages to move, it can only do that for a little while before slipping back to the original position, giving you the "mount slewed" error.
  5. Should be available, but a quick Googling showed that for some reason the shielded bearings in the 10 mm bore range are usually double direction (e.g. double row). So you might have to accommodate for a slightly wider and larger bearing. But if you are going to make significant changes to the worm bearing holders anyway this might not be an issue for you. Aaah, a true kindred spirit. A work of art is never truly finished now, is it...
  6. Could an angular contact bearing be an option ? Much easier to find with a 10 mm bore, if that's the only critical measurement. Can take both axial and radial load, but don't know if it's much inferior to tapered roller bearings. I think I've read somewhere that the tapered rollers were preferred in slow rotating assemblies whereas the angular contact was preferred in fast rotating ones (think it was on some CNC-forum....)
  7. It sounds like much more has been given up than just an elderly machinist….
  8. Perhaps the test could be reversed to find out. I.e. clamping the laser to the bottom of the tube and apply pressure to the jig. If the bottom is immovable the laser dot shouldn't move. If it moves any added rigidity to the pipe itself would be a moot point.
  9. If the hand controller is V3 or newer there should be an option to change the illumination level of the polar scope in it. The instructions how to change it is in the Synscan manual. Also make sure your polar scope is in focus. Try to focus on a distant object in daytime so you will be close and can do the finetuning when you see Polaris.
  10. Your absolutely right, making assumptions without enough knowledge of used equipment is sketchy at best.... My assumption was the 414Ex paired to a filter wheel and the Imaging Star at F/5.8. Anything beyond the filter wheel would be too much out of focus to be that pronounced in the image.
  11. If it's in the same spot on every image regardless of filter used -> sensor.
  12. Looks like you finally found your dust bunnies. Couldn't find the single flat subs, but found the master flats made from them. First one C11 / F6.3 / Astrodon L / 20 x 7s / -15C, second one C11 / F6.3 / Astrodon R / 20 x 9s / -15C Processed as recommended by Inside Pixinsight / Light Vortex Astronomy.
  13. Also lapping should only be done as a finishing touch to polish out the very last imperfections of the wheel, not correcting a run-out. And when lapping make sure that your worm is made of a much harder material (e.g. steel) that your wheel (e.g. brass) as you really do not want to deform your worm - at all. Lapping a brass worm against an aluminum wheel is a no-no as the two materials might be too similar in hardness.
  14. Wow, Simon, simply WOW ! That mount would be very unproductive in my hands, though. I would just stare at it the whole night, mesmerized, and forgetting all about imaging.
  15. The Finnish customs have taken this to a whole new level. Over here you get the pleasure of paying import duty and VAT on the value of the repair done to the item (including insurance + shipping + any additional fees.....) Mindboggling...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.