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.

Zodiacal_Light

New Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Zodiacal_Light

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South Africa
  1. The way I understand it is that to get the same image quality with shorter subs compared to longer subs, you need a longer total integration time with the shorter subs. So you can't really compare 120x1min subs with 4x30min subs. The total integration time for the 1min subs would have to be much longer to match the total integration time of the 30min subs.
  2. How long ago did you have this problem regarding the incorrect puck size? Should it be fixed by now? This would indicate a problem with the dovetail and not the puck, wouldn't it?
  3. Do you mean that the puck provided by ADM is too large? Do you have the newer or older style puck?
  4. Yeah, I'm considering getting some Parallax rings later on. My main problem now is that the current dovetail only supports the middle part of the scope, so the tube flexes. A longer dovetail should support the majority of the tube.
  5. Thanks. Another thing I'm wondering about, what's the total weight of your setup like?
  6. Which scope are you using them with? I checked and my puck is the newer style.
  7. I'm thinking of getting one of these for my SkyWatcher EQ6 Pro mount: http://www.admaccess...ual_Saddles.htm It would replace the stock Vixen saddle. For the bar I was thinking of getting one of these: http://www.admaccess...s_Universal.htm (31") My current scope is a Orion XT10i reflector, but due to the thin Vixen bar it's wobbling quite badly when touched. I'm imaging using this scope and notice quite a bit of flexure on 5min subs. Would this replacement cure this and provide a more stable platform or am I just wasting my money?
  8. The theory about the mirror clips could be correct, but I have no way to rotate the mirror cell. It only fits in one way. I could do a test by removing the clips, but I'm too afraid of the mirror dropping out accidentally.
  9. Ok, thanks for the info. I was just worrying that it was due to a problem with my primary mirror or something. You can only really see it on very bright stars, so it's not that big of a problem.
  10. So you're saying that a double set of spikes is normal? If for example there were 5 vanes, there would be 10 spikes equally spaced? So now the question is, what's the logic behind the extra set?
  11. The mirror clips seems to cause the dark shades under the dimmer spikes. This is fine, but I still don't understand the extra spikes. I understand that vanes not properly aligned to each other could cause extra spikes, but at such great angles?
  12. Yes, it's a reflector. I know it's caused by the secondary vanes, but why are there another set? I've never seen it look like that on other peoples images.
  13. Hi I'm wondering what might cause two sets of diffraction spikes to appear on a bright star? One is dimmer than the other and rotated 45 degrees relative to the brighter set. Is this normal or are there something wrong with my optics?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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