marcelteaching

Apparently, all I needed to do was loosen the two bolts slightly.

I just got a new eq3 and extension and dual axis drive. Before I do any drives on there, just checking it manually and I am not really happy... I am trying to understand the slow motion tension and whether it is normal? There is a difference in tension between the two slow motion controllers one is quite firm, the other one is too tight and is jerky. Can they be loosened? How can this be done? IMG_8538.MOV IMG_8539.MOV

Ah! That makes sense. It would be great to have a m8 rod, and then thread both ends m6. Attach the handle on one end, and this on the other. Does anyone know how I can reduce a m8 rod to m6 on it's ends?

Okay, so this is resolved for now. I have an m6 threaded rod. I can shorten that or lengthen it as long as I want. I am going to attach that to a nice handle (https://www.oceaniaic.com.au/products/fixed-revolving-and-fold-away-handles/series/i-222/) Hopefully that will sort it! A nicer solution would have been to use an m8 version handle, attach a m8 threaded end to attach it, but have it a plain shaft, then reduce it down to a m6 thread somehow, but this will allow me to test the operation of the mount properly, and confirm. Plus, the $4 part, plus $12 shipping is not bad!

Ah, interesting. I also found this part: K0179.608X65 But... the thread is not 20mm - I wonder what effect that would have. Otherwise - perfect.

Hmm, with the machining a new thread on it, I am worried about the length when I look at it there in the diagram. The thread is 20mm - so, a corresponding reduction in the handle length would become 20mm also, which could be a problem. Another possibility might be to use a m6 thread bar, and attach on a m6 female handle.. Peter - thanks, that was a kind offer. I wish you were closer.

One though - a threaded rod? It would fit. Russians are metric. Now, what kind of a head could I put on it? Is there a way to make it look nice? A plain threaded rod won't look so great... Another crazy idea, what if I got it machined back a bit, then rethreaded it? Would a shortened handle really be noticable?

To my credit - It's not entirely my fault. I managed to aquire a used one, but someone tried to use the long handle as a lever, and of course, bent it so severely it could barely rotate anymore. DaveL59 was kind enough to help me get it apart, but at precisely the wrong moment, it gave way and broke off. Now I have a problem. Is there any source of these? Might anyone have it as a spare from a broken elsewhere TAL-M? Could anyone machine a replacement somehow? Not expecting a giveaway, more than happy to send a bit your way to help me out! I would absolutely hate to lose such a fine mount. Thank you friends

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.