Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_3.thumb.jpg.30e9b298c34c80517e8b443ce153fce3.jpg

Robindonne

Members
  • Posts

    1,009
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Robindonne last won the day on April 1

Robindonne had the most liked content!

Reputation

475 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ermelo Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

1,224 profile views
  1. people are getting more and more creative with old fire extinguishers
  2. It was a close race with the other contender. The astromaster 130eq
  3. Interesting read. But dont we have to admit that this isnt really debatable, or very debatable but open ended. So many theories where we just have to stick to the most accepted one. Dont mean to hurt every well explaining individual, on the contrary, I love any detailed explanation, but I can't stop myself from realizing after every explanation I read that I've read a possibility and not a fact. I sincerely hope we never find out and that we are all wrong for the reason the universe will be explored forever. Dont let it give away its biggest secret please.
  4. Wait for a pro-answer, but what I remember from my own c8/reducer/dslr setup, some Celestron reducers dont require the 105-110 backfocus, its mentioned in the description of that reducer. And the eventually needed extension could be useful filled with an oag. Mine was 35 mm thick, and a normal thickness eos t-ring made me reach the required backfocus with some small extension rings.
  5. Very useful thread! Thanks for that. While reading about the “not so small as described” central obstruction, one question came to my mind. When you overlap these two pictures, isnt the baffle way to wide manufactured? And probably give you more aperture when that thing is removed or replaced for a less conical one? It looks like they made the angle a 90 degree on the meniscus while the actual angle the light follows inside the tube is way less than 90 degrees.
  6. Hello Magnus. Was just carefully reading all the text again from your reversed engineering post (for the third time). I didn’t find it documented indeed. This one is something to pay extra attention to when i remove the retaining ring. Thanks. It does have some cork between that retaining ring and the glass, but i wasnt sure if these pieces of cork were part of an alignment or just to have a soft connection between the ring and the glass. And the way the glass (and so the reflective center) is centered will be visible when i remove that retaining ring. Yes i’ll post some pictures when all is finished, or maybe during this work when im stuck. thanks for replying and thanks for your initial reversed engineering post. Threads like that are forever helpful.
  7. Yes thanks. I read it twice but i dont remember the removal of the glass was mentioned. But ill go over it again. I might have missed it. Thanks again
  8. my right knee hurts so much that i decided to remo… No actually a question about a maksutuv. I kind of understand that the optics of a refractor cant be removed from its cell without the need of precise aligning/adjusting afterwards. But how does this work with the meniscus of a Maksutov? I need to remove the meniscus for some maintenance. I can carefully try to mark both items if necessary. I think, not sure, that the secondary is collimatible but the meniscus cant be adjusted once its mounted. Is it safe when done carefully? Or is it always needed to send it afterwards to a professional for alligning?
  9. I go partially with Knighty2112. We just dont know. And maybe thats the most exciting part
  10. I think the c5 is pretty good capable to do the job. Did you follow all the instructions to align the mount? When finished with the alignment you should be able to select a planet and slew to it. When nothing is visible in your eyepiece you might have to start with your 25 mm to check how far off the planet is from the center or your eyepiece, correct the mount until its centered in the 25 mm and swap that 25 for the 12 mm and check again if the planet is centered. The shorter the focallength of the eyepiece, the smaller the area you see through that eyepiece. The 8 mm will probably give the best view on planets but when the telescope is not perfectly aligned, your telescope is aiming on an “empty” part of the sky. Try to align the best you can at the start and adjust as much as you can to center the objects in the eyepiece. Oh and dont forget to remove that big black cap on the front
  11. You would say the more the better, but 3 is like a magic number to maintain stability whenever the ground gives away. Cant you reinforce the construction between the 3 “magic” points? Maybe remove the 3 legs and add a strong triangle shaped construction to the bottom, and mount the 3 legs under the triangle construction. 1000% that when one of the outer legs gets some clearance, you end up with a seesaw when all the weight moves to that leg.
  12. What about a used peli case? Although your dimensions are very rare, if you find one, you have a case that will survive everything
  13. How its explained to me on other machines using steppermotors is that its better to have too much voltage running through the drivers. They wont allow to send more than needed to the motors. A lower voltage can cause the motors to not work as they should and probably slow down, mis steps, get noisy and maybe even get damaged.
  14. Ah yes i didnt know its name. But that part looks kind of matte black already. I might just leave it like it is. Thanks for the lesson about this part
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.