Acrab67

Thanks

Hello, Thanks for the information. I see you have an AZEQ6 mounted on the Berlebach in ALTAZ mode. My concern is that the optical tubes I have hit one of the legs of the tripod. My SW tripod has the tubes replaced by others of greater thickness, and I have put some 2mm supplements in the head so that the legs do not open completely and there is a distance between them of 91-92mm, with a height of 88mm . In principle, with the medifas that you pass me I would have no problems. Was the change worth it? All the best. Victor

Hello, In relation to the long Berbelach Planet tripod, Would someone be so kind as to tell me what the maximum height is in its lowest position (with the legs folded up), as well as the distance between the tips of the legs?. Thanks Víctor

Ok, thanks

Thanks for the reply. I understand that you do not notice more vibrations in the visual use of the tube by having incorporated the extension tube to the mount?. Víctor

Hello again, Well, I have already solved the doubt and I have been able to set the upper and lower altitude limits for the mount. I have attached a photo of the maximum altitude at which the tube can work without touching the leg of the mount. as you see?. Is it worth thinking about an extension tube and losing stability to gain a few more degrees? Thank you

Hello, Can someone who is using an astromechanik extension tube tell me about their experiences regarding how the telescope behaves at the level of vibrations when using it? The truth is that it looks robust and well built Thank you

Hi, Would someone be so kind as to explain to me how to correctly set the altitude limits of this mount? I have already looked at the manual, but although I have found the option to change them in the synscan, it is not clear to me how to do it correctly Thank you

Hi, Would anyone be so kind as to tell me the exact measurements of the Telecat XL Sight Tube, ie unextended tube length, wall thickness, top height and width, and hole diameter. Thank you so much Víctor Martínez

Thank you. The ones from OO UK asked me £125 for a new tube, plus another £125 for shipping to Spain. A new lid £55. So I think I'm going to try to repair the two small dents.

Hello good, Over the years I have salvaged an Orion Optics UK 250mm f4.8 1/8 PV tube that I sold to a friend. The fact is that this tube, regardless of the horror stories we have all heard about some of these people's optics, once offered me outstanding optical performance, especially in planetary, where optical quality is put to the test. The fact is that the optics and the tube are in perfect condition, except for a couple of dents, and I was wondering if anyone has encountered this problem and was able to remove them and how they did it. I had considered mounting the optics in a carbon fiber tube, but they are excessively expensive and I only do visuals. Thank you

By the way, it seems that this man passes the email right?

Thanks.

Thank you for your appreciations. I understand that the tube has a larger internal diameter than the original, right? You reused your spider or mounted a new one. I understand that you also had to use longer screws to hold the mirror cell. Did you make the holes in the tube? Thank you

Hi, I own an Orion Optics UK 250mm f4'8 tube. It is the previous model SPX with 1/8 optics. The fact is that the tube already has a couple of buns and also suffers from the problem that it is very flimsy. I have been thinking of replacing it with a Klaus Helmerichs carbon tube, although they are very expensive. It would be to adapt the primary cell, a JMI EV-1n focuser, and the original spider. Has anyone had experience buying these tubes? Thank you.

Thanks for the info, that's something I didn't know.

Yes, but it cannot avoid the deflection caused by the tightening of the HG adapter by the focuser itself

Yes, but we are talking about the classic short Cheshire to collimate refractors. 2" Farpoint's model does not work.

Well yes, the Glatter Parallizer partly solves the problem from the point of view of the placement of the Cheshire, but there is still the deviation caused by tightening the adapter in the focuser. By the way, I don't understand why a Cheshire hasn't been made directly in 2"

Although to a lesser extent it seems that even Baader Click lock adapters also introduce some displacement in the optical axis

Thanks We agree, there would be no other option than to machine a specific adapter with the smallest possible tolerances so that the Cheshire would remain as centered to the optical axis. What I don't know is what tolerances in terms of collimation would be considered normal. In any case, for practical purposes when it is actually used, we would have a deviation in the optical axis, yes or yes.

Hi, I have found that the position of the Cheshire on the 2" to 1.25" adapter is very critical for the purpose of checking the collimation of a refractor. In the case of my doublet, a TS PhotoLine 125, if the adapter is fully tightened on the telescope's focuser, and the Cheshire is turned on the adapter, the reflections from the two component lenses are concentric with each other, but appear slightly displaced with respect to the silvery reflection of the Cheshire. If, on the contrary, I release the adapter and the Cheshire, and manually move the assembly, I achieve that the reflections of the lenses and the silver reflection of the Cheshire are perfectly concentric. This leads me to think that the ideal would be to be able to collimate the cell with the Cheshire perfectly aligned with the optical axis, but that is impossible given that with the simple tightening of the adapter to the focuser, there is already variation, and to that we must also add the tightening of Cheshire itself. Taking this into account and assuming that the focuser is square to the cell, does anyone know what pattern the major telescope dealers follow when they have to check/correct the collimation of a refractor? Thanks Víctor

It's not a diagonal problem, it's the first thing I ruled out. The same lack of collimation occurred with a Baader binoviewer. Right now I'm waiting for Markus to test it under a real sky. Regardless of the outcome, it's clear that the problem must be with the fit of the lenses in his cell. I can't find any other logic.

Also, if it were a focuser centering problem only, this defect would always be present.

Correct, but rotating the image to the right. I agree that it is a cell-lens issue, but when it happened to me the difference in temperature between the inside and the outside was around 4 or 5ºC. It has been working without problems with more pronounced temperature differences