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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_30_second_exp_2_winners.thumb.jpg.b5430b40547c40d344fd4493776ab99f.jpg

marcelteaching

New Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About marcelteaching

  • Rank
    Vacuum

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brisbane
  1. Also - just thinking... would the original hole in the tube be blocking some of the deflected light from the secondary now that the primary has been moved up?
  2. Thanks for clarifying, so Yes, a larger secondary is good given I've moved up the primary and more light is hitting it now. Does anyone know what the optical quality of the early TAL is like?
  3. The GSO mirrors are good - but I do still think the Antares is better - I wonder though how silly it is worth going? (They range from 49.95 to 99.95) I wonder what the original TAL mirrors are like? I suppose if the primary is very good, it would be worth putting in a very good secondary? It sounds like going to a 1.3 (from the TAL’s original 1.1”) will be fine - especially since the main mirror has moved up even though it will slightly reduce the light hitting the secondary.
  4. Thanks for the comments so far, a UK mirror would be good, but I was going to put in something better than a GSO... >but having moved the primary up the tube (I've done the same), you're effectively intercepting the cone of light earlier at a slightly wider point. So a slightly larger secondary might make a bit more of the image the primary is projecting, no? This is exactly what has made me confused... Has my moving it up meant that the secondary could now be bigger or smaller?
  5. My wonderful TAL-1 (original), that has had it's primary raised by 28mm to achieve focus with modern eyepieces (no longer the original 32mm eyepieces) in the focuser. It is of course, a 110mm f/7.3 primary, with a 27mm/36mm secondary. Sadly, it has a damaged secondary (scratched, sides degrading). I would like to replace it, and frankly, as I love this scope so much, I don't mind getting an upgraded quality Antares mirror to do it - but the smallest they come in is 1.3". So, I am wondering, will that improve the quality of the view, or is the light gathering going to be poorer? To be clear, I want to use this more as a deep sky scope and less of a planetary scope - so a fuller Illumination sounds good. I'm not good with maths and am struggling with the instructions on Gary Seronik's page. Can someone who is familiar with the scope go through the numbers and tell me the minimum secondary size, so I can make an educated guess on whether a 1.3" secondary would be worth it? Incidentally, I also need a replacement TAL focuser, so if you have one spare, let me know.
  6. Thank you everyone so much! I know it sounds like such a stupid thing, but this isn't exactly described anywhere. It makes sense. I remember when I looked into my first Dob when it was out of focus and I couldn't see anything but a blur. Thank you.
  7. Hi, I am a new user with this camera and have just connected everything up for the first time. Everything is connected, it is located, but I can't get an image from it. Instead, it is showing me shades when I move the camera around (light and dark). (See the pictures) Is that supposed to happen? Is it only when I connect it to a scope, point it at the sky and focus it with the scope that I will get an image? Just very confused.
  8. Hi all, I would be interested in one of these, let me know if your looking to sell yours. thanks
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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