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_ep2_banner.thumb.jpg.e37c929f88100393e885b7befec4c749.jpg

AstroTim

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About AstroTim

Profile Information

  • Location
    Nottinghamshire
  1. Hi Julian, Thankyou for offering to print this for me. 1) it is for a Swarovski scope, and as far as I can tell should fit the model that I have, although ultimately I won’t know until I try it. The whole thing is a bit of an experiment to see if I can get away with using the spotting scope as an occasional astronomy scope, as I don’t possess a refractor. I find it very difficult to locate DSO’s or specific stars in the scope due to the angled eyepiece position and fixed magnification, hence trying to add a finder. 2) I assume (unless it’s hollow) that the one piece print should result in a stronger end product. 3) Black would be my preferred colour 4) I suggested PETG as from the brief 5 minute search I did, it looked to be stronger than PLA, and a bit more durable for outdoor use, but I have no experience with either material. Are there advantages to using PLA instead? Regards, Tim
  2. I have found a design on Thingiverse for a red dot finder bracket https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2989735. Unfortunately I don’t have a 3D printer myself, but wondered whether there is anyone on here who might be able to print one for me? I would be happy to cover the cost of materials, postage, and time. The design is in OpenCAD format. I don’t know much about the different filament types (although I was thinking PETG as it seems quite durable) so would be interested in any recommendations. Regards, Tim
  3. I’ve had a similar experience with Zeiss cleaning solution. Worked great on spectacles, but left streaks on binoculars. I thought maybe it was the cloth I was using (although it was a microfibre camera lens cloth) but hearing of your experience makes me wonder whether it just doesn’t work so well with coated lenses. Quite surprised given Zeiss’s reputation in optics. Tim
  4. The Celestron holder does look quite substantial compared to the Altair one
  5. @johninderby I’d be interested to hear how the Celestron nexyz compares to the Altair Astro phone holder, as I’m looking to get a decent phone holder myself, and these two were on my shortlist. Regards, Tim
  6. There were some issues when it first came out. It was incompatible with the 9.25” EdgeHD and quite a few people reported issues with it sticking or jamming. There was an updated version released around October last year that as far as I know resolved both issues. I don’t know if that is the update your specialist is referring to or whether there has been a more recent update.
  7. Just managed to see it myself too. White Light using Solar Film. View didn’t improve much with magnification so dropped back down, and it soon clouded over. First ever sun spot for me though so still happy. Tim
  8. Thanks for the heads up, as I’ve now just seen my first sun spot. White light with solar film, so not as impressive as your images, but I’m happy to have seen one never the less. Tim
  9. I’ve been thinking along the same lines, although more for covering the scope while it’s cooling down, or waiting for a target to come into view, on damp nights or if the weather is a bit changeable. i was going to explore the potential of using an all weather bicycle cover, or small car cover for this purpose. Alternatively, a garden furniture cover might be suitable although they can be quite pricey too. I’d be interested if anyone has had experience of using any of the above as scope covers. Tim
  10. Thank you all for the warm welcome messages. I have also signed up to the East Midlands site. Tim
  11. Hi Ed, Thanks, while I do often start observing while it’s still cooling down, just in case the clouds roll in, I left it outside for a couple of hours before checking and correcting the collimation. Tim
  12. Hi Geoff, thanks for the reply. I also suspect that there is little to worry about, but thought it worth checking. I’ve also read that angular rotation is less of a concern nowadays. I think in the more distant past they used to sometimes mount the secondary off centre within its mount in order to counter any error in the centering of the drilled corrector hole. Rotating the secondary would have more of an impact in that scenario but I’d hope that modern manufacturing processes can drill a hole centrally with much better precision. The only thing I was thinking is that if the secondary was too far off centre then despite being in collimation tilt wise, some of the light cone reflected from the primary would miss it. Using a slightly oversized secondary would give you some margin for error here but at the cost of increasing the central obstruction, so wasn’t sure if they would have done that. Hopefully I’ll get a clear night soon to check things out and put my concerns to bed. Tim
  13. Hi Ed, Thanks for the reply. I haven’t noticed an issue as such, but don’t seem to get as sharp a view as others have described with similar scopes, or the same level of magnification without it starting to blur. To date I’ve assumed / hoped that was just due to poorer seeing conditions. However, I made my first attempt at collimating the scope recently, as a star test had showed it to be slightly out. When I tried to turn one of the collimation screws the whole secondary moved very slightly sideways. It did move easily back to it’s original position and upon further examination I noticed that the secondary holder locking ring wasn’t fully tightened, so nipped it back up tight. This did then make me wonder whether the secondary had been off centre to start with and maybe that was why I’m not getting sharp views, hence why I wanted to check it’s position, or indeed whether it being exactly central mattered. Previous star tests did show the scope to be in rough collimation at least. I wasn’t sure if measuring to the tube edge would be sufficient as that assumes that the primary is also mounted dead centre. I know the corrector plate is shimmed to align it with the primary. I was able to complete the collimation just before the clouds came over and haven’t had a clear night since to check things out on a familiar target. Tim
  14. Thank you all for the welcome messages. I haven’t really looked into the use of filters at all, but reading up quickly on the HA filter and does sound interesting. Would it improve nebula for visual, or just imaging purposes? I have also seen a couple of comments that indicate a skyglow filter might be a worthwhile purchase, as it sounds like they might also help with planetary detail, but need to read up on how effective they are first. Tim
  15. Nice pictures. It’s amazing how good phone cameras have become over the last few years.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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