Astrokev

For my conduits I'm going to drill a small hole in the side of the tube at each end and simply tie the string off. At the moment I've got temporary strings tied to blocks of wood that are too big to fit in the tube

4 hours ago, RayD said:

? I know that feeling, Kev!

So the theory goes, yes, but with a decent quality linear supply there really shouldn't be any issues anyway.  I only split them as I already had the small one, so it does mean belt and braces, but it would all happily run off the larger one through the Pegasus hub (and has).

Great, thanks Ray

1 hour ago, RayD said:

Yes that's it essentially, Kev.  I have a different hub now and a slightly different arrangement, but the supply is the same.  I use the small one to power my mount only, and then the other one for the rest.

Under the desk I have my UPS, wireless access point and an IP connected switch which I connect to via 'tinternet and turn everything on and off (PC boots on power up).

All magic to me ? .

im guessing having a separate supply to the mount gives a more consistent supply without risking fluctuations caused by other kit? (As you can see, I'm slowly trying to assimilate knowledge for when I plan my electrics set up!)

1 minute ago, RayD said:

Yes, James is spot on.  They are 2 12v supplies, one small 8A one and one 30A one.  PC is under them.

My turn to be dim - so do these supply the hub I can see on top of your scopes, with the mount and everything else being supplied from the hub?

2 minutes ago, JamesF said:

12V supply I think, Kev.

James

Thanks. As I've said many times, I'm a bit of a numpty when it comes to electrics ?

If I can be nosey, In your warm room pic, what's the function of the electrics on the left?

3 minutes ago, RayD said:

Love it

Great to see your pics there Ray. Giving me some ideas. 

Yes, just to be clear, I won't be putting lighting in the roof. I can put it on the walls since they are quite high. It was@JamesF who is considering this. His obsy has knee-high walls ? so roof lighting may be a better solution. 

31 minutes ago, Rusted said:

 

Suits you, Sir!  

Too posh for me! It's @JamesFwho is considering this ?

I'll just nail the cables to the wall!

2 hours ago, Rusted said:

With so many colour options I could spend years just trying to make a decision. It beats cloud watching. 

Cables, or flex, and lots of movement are not a marriage made in heaven.

I have mains LED bulbs overhead in my dome and have to stop and unplug them all the time.

I've tried long and short runs and neither works without a hollow PA shaft.

The very long linear movement of an ROR might be much simpler running on battery LEDs.

With the battery in the moving roof along with the lights they power.

Rechargeable batteries could be "topped" up when the roof [or dome] is not in use?

Different coloured LED's to suit your mood!

Yes that's another good option for roof lighting.

While I agree that flex of cables is best to avoid if possible, drag chains are specifically designed to deal with linear moving parts. In the robots in my last work place, drag chain cable failure was measured in months/years and that was with them operating with a < 1 minute cycle time, 24/7. A ROR roof will only cycle a few hundred times a year at most (probably much less with British weather ?) and I wouldn't have thought would be a problem. 

13 minutes ago, Bizibilder said:

I use 12v LED strips on dimmer switches in the warm room - works very well.  I also have a red bulkhead light.  In the scope room i have a white bulkhead with the switch in the warm room.

Dimmers are these: Dimmer switch  (of which I bought four I think - useful to have a few spares! ),  LED's come in just about every shape and size imaginable!

Dimmer switches sound a great idea. Thanks for the link 

1 hour ago, RayD said:

Yes there is, Kev, but if you want super bright or very white then RGBW is better than just RGB as they have a separate white Led, but I've not had an issue. 

@Yawning Angel @RayD

RGBW - great thanks. Looking forward to getting some lights in. Installing some electric first would probably be useful then ?

1 hour ago, JamesF said:

I have recently been toying with the idea of putting some normal LED spotlights in the roll-off roof, so that if I want lighting in the scope room to work by then it can be from above rather than the side (because my walls are only 1500mm high).  I just need to work out how to allow for the movement of the roof.

James

James - thinking about your idea, you could use an energy chain cable carrier, sometimes called a drag chain? We used to use these in some machines in a previous place I worked and would work ok

21 minutes ago, RayD said:

I've used LED strip lights in my warm room and they work great.  Use the waterproof ones like these and they will be fine in the scope room too.

Thanks Ray. They look good. I assume there is a white option too?

3 minutes ago, JamesF said:

I have recently been toying with the idea of putting some normal LED spotlights in the roll-off roof, so that if I want lighting in the scope room to work by then it can be from above rather than the side (because my walls are only 1500mm high).  I just need to work out how to allow for the movement of the roof.

James

Yes, I briefly thought of doing something similar but decided against because my walls are pretty high. Thinking of how to wire it up will be really interesting

Great update James. Looking really good. 

42 minutes ago, Gina said:

I didn't bother lining the scope room in my observatory - only the warm room.

Yeah, I was undecided. In the end I opted to line it, really just to neaten it up and make it a little easier to clean. The nooks and crannies in exposed studding makes a lovely home for the creepy crawlies ?

19 minutes ago, JamesF said:

Looking very nice, Kev.  Have you had any thoughts about lighting yet?

James

Not in any detail. I want red and white lights -  thinking maybe an LED strip around the scope room. I think you can get them with selectable colours? If not then 2 strips. Not sure about warm room, but obviously need both red and white. 

Interested to hear what others gave done and any recommendations :) 

Few more pieces of the jigsaw put up this afternoon. The cold gets to you after a while though and destroys your motivation, so packed up while I was ahead. Only a few more bits to finish in the scope room, then will start on the warm room, which is starting to feel quite cosy now the internal wall is going up.  

3 minutes ago, Gina said:

I don't think I understand quantum mechanics - I know I don't!!   ?

You're not alone

55 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Honestly no, not that one anyway. I will admit that I am going by his TV appearances mostly, but he seems to spend most of his time saying the same thing in 50 different ways, so that if you got it the first time it gets annoying. I am a physicist myself so perhaps I am looking at it with a different perspective to the masses mind you.

Yes, I tend to agree with you for his TV shows - either that or staring into the middle distance from a mountain top. Still better than EastEnders though.

Of those I've read, his books are pretty well written in my opinion. The one I'm currently ploughing through is Universal - A Guide to the Cosmos. The one about quantum theory I've yet to complete is The Quantum Universe: Everything that can happen does happen. Maybe I should try Hawking; apart from Brief History... I've not read any of his work.

13 minutes ago, JamesF said:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Usually attributed to Richard Feynman, though he may not have originated it.  It might appear in one of his "Six Easy Pieces" books, but I'm not sure.  It's been a while since I read them.  It's certainly the sort of off-the-cuff remark he'd make.  I seem to remember another quote attributed to him about being asked to run some undergraduate lectures on QM and deciding that he couldn't adequately explain it, therefore we didn't really understand it properly.

James

Ah yes, Feynman. Thanks James. His lectures on YouTube are fabulous. I confess I haven't read any of his books. I'll add them to my reading list.

Was it Einstein who said - if you think you understand quantum theory, then you don't understand quantum theory!

Apologies if I haven't got this fully correct; I'm rubbish with quotes!

3 hours ago, Adam J said:

Brian Cox ? the BBCs expert in dumbing it down. 

You would be better off with Hawking I think. 

Have you read his book for the masses on quantum mechanics?  If that's dumbed down then there's no hope for any of us. I've started it twice and still can't get more than half way through before my brain throws the towel in. 

Thanks for that. Don't necessarily disagree with any of what you said, but not sure it answers my question and confusion! ? Maybe I'm thicker than I thought ?

2 hours ago, Dr_Ju_ju said:

Well that's the thing, from what I've read & seen, there was no big bang per se, apart from an initial 'pop', which was followed by subsequent 'enlargements', but these took some considerable time to occur.

And as there doesn't appear to be enough mass in the universe, everything is still spreading outwards...

Without wanting to derail my own thread (and at the risk of declaring myself an idiot) -

The bit (amongst many other bits!) I currently can't get my head around is - the most distant objects visible are c. 13.5 billion l.y. away, the light having taken 13.5 billion years to reach us. From the red-shift and Hubble constant etc, they reckon the BB occurred 13.5 billion years ago. But, approaching that long ago, the universe was much smaller. So, speed of light being a constant, how come it has taken 13.5 billion years to traverse a comparatively smaller distance?

Please can someone put me out of my misery?

Theres probably a better forum on SGL to discuss such things.....

Meanwhile, back on the subject of my build - the thaw has already set in and the observatory no longer has a white roof. All being well, I may get out there tomorrow ?