Vega

[Jimmyj]

Im trying to get a closer look at the stars, using the barlow lens but get nothing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronin]

You will not get a closer look at stars, they are point sources and remain point sources whatever the scope.

It is the "nothing" that is the question, do you mean blank or the stars do not get bigger ?

If blank then way out of focus or it is pointed at nothing. Way out of focus may mean the barlow is faulty or something.

As you up the magnification then getting something in view is harder and the focus is more critial. Also when found they run off out of view quicker.

[Jimmyj]

Ok so just a further update moon was out sky was clear thought id have a look through the scope, i made sure everything was all correct, when i put my barlow lens in its blurry i try to adjust but doesnt work? Should this happen? The moon was behind just peeping over some leaves, by the looks of it it made the leaves more sharper, does this sound like a faulty barlow?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John]

So the image of the moon with the 20mm and 10mm eypieces was sharp but when you put the barlow in, it became blurry, with either the 20mm or the 10mm eyepiece. Is that correct ?

Did you re-adjust the focus once the barlow lens was installed ?

[Moonshane]

Vega is a double star by the way.

[BeanerSA]

Vega is a double star by the way.

Really? I didn't think so.

[Stu]

Really? I didn't think so.

Yes it is, secondary is +9.50 at 80.2"

[Moonshane]

Yep.

I did a sketch somewhere

[BeanerSA]

Yes it is, secondary is +9.50 at 80.2"

I didn't see any mention of that in the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega

[Stu]

Don't always trust Wiki!

SkySafari lists it like this:

[Moonshane]

This was at 50x in a 6" newt

[Jimmyj]

So the image of the moon with the 20mm and 10mm eypieces was sharp but when you put the barlow in, it became blurry, with either the 20mm or the 10mm eyepiece. Is that correct ?

Did you re-adjust the focus once the barlow lens was installed ?

yes even after adjusting it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dave In Vermont]

Jimmy; May I ask what your telescope is exactly? You said a Skywatcher refractor with a 10mm & 20mm eyepiece included. And the problematic Barlow. What I'd like to know is the aperture of the objective lens(es). And the focal-length (FL). This will tell me how much magnification it's trying to achieve with the Barlow installed. 

What I'm seeing here can be one of two possible/probable causes: 1. It's too much magnification for the scope to handle. This can wash-out the view into a mess. 2. You don't have enough travel in the focuser to reach focus. This would need the use of an extension to reach focus. There is also a 3rd. possibility: The Barlow is defective - or of very poor manufacture. Who makes the Barlow? What does it say on it?

There is nothing worse than a bad Barlow,

Dave

[Jimmyj]

Jimmy; May I ask what your telescope is exactly? You said a Skywatcher refractor with a 10mm & 20mm eyepiece included. And the problematic Barlow. What I'd like to know is the aperture of the objective lens(es). And the focal-length (FL). This will tell me how much magnification it's trying to achieve with the Barlow installed.

What I'm seeing here can be one of two possible/probable causes: 1. It's too much magnification for the scope to handle. This can wash-out the view into a mess. 2. You don't have enough travel in the focuser to reach focus. This would need the use of an extension to reach focus. There is also a 3rd. possibility: The Barlow is defective - or of very poor manufacture. Who makes the Barlow? What does it say on it?

There is nothing worse than a bad Barlow,

Dave

Its a sky watcher 607az2 d is 60mm f is 700 mm barlow was just the standard x2 that came with it, the missus got me it as a starting point as she new i was into all things space [emoji3]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmyj]

Its a sky watcher 607az2 d is 60mm f is 700 mm barlow was just the standard x2 that came with it, the missus got me it as a starting point as she new i was into all things space [emoji3]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Made in china as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dave In Vermont]

Okay - your maximum magnification you've been trying to reach is 140X. 700 / 5mm = 140X.

You might be able to use that - on a night of exceptionally good 'seeing.' If there is turbulence in the upper atmosphere, or you're looking at objects near the horizon where the atmosphere is thickest, you're likely to get poor results. Couple this with a no-name brand Chinese Barlow, and you're likely to get a view similar to looking into a running blender. My personal recommendation is to retire that Barlow. For good. Junk-Barlows are likely responsible for making many aspiring astronomers to take up skydiving or some other activity.

You have no problem coming to a sharp focus without that Barlow, so go with the two EP's (eyepieces) for the time being. Many beginning astronomers place too much belief in high magnification. It's not the mag. that a telescope truly excels at - it's the light-gathering ability of the lens. And this is regulated by the aperture of the scope's lens or mirror or both (in a SCT or Maksutov). At 2.4" or 60mm, you'll be able to see a vast number of stars and nebula and galaxies, etc, that would otherwise be invisible to you. Or barely visible objects becoming quite distinct. And it is this pursuit that I would suggest one focus - pun somewhat intended - upon. So to that end, I again will shamelessly plug Stellarium.

With what you have now, you should be able to learn your way around the night sky quite well. And, with practice, be able to locate many fascinating objects with the combination of that scope and good star-charts. Meanwhile you can start tossing your pocket change in a can to fund some better EP's and, maybe, a good Barlow lens that won't puree your view.

Have fun,

Dave

[Jimmyj]

Okay - your maximum magnification you've been trying to reach is 140X. 700 / 5mm = 140X.

You might be able to use that - on a night of exceptionally good 'seeing.' If there is turbulence in the upper atmosphere, or you're looking at objects near the horizon where the atmosphere is thickest, you're likely to get poor results. Couple this with a no-name brand Chinese Barlow, and you're likely to get a view similar to looking into a running blender. My personal recommendation is to retire that Barlow. For good. Junk-Barlows are likely responsible for making many aspiring astronomers to take up skydiving or some other activity.

You have no problem coming to a sharp focus without that Barlow, so go with the two EP's (eyepieces) for the time being. Many beginning astronomers place too much belief in high magnification. It's not the mag. that a telescope truly excels at - it's the light-gathering ability of the lens. And this is regulated by the aperture of the scope's lens or mirror or both (in a SCT or Maksutov). At 2.4" or 60mm, you'll be able to see a vast number of stars and nebula and galaxies, etc, that would otherwise be invisible to you. Or barely visible objects becoming quite distinct. And it is this pursuit that I would suggest one focus - pun somewhat intended - upon. So to that end, I again will shamelessly plug Stellarium.

With what you have now, you should be able to learn your way around the night sky quite well. And, with practice, be able to locate many fascinating objects with the combination of that scope and good star-charts. Meanwhile you can start tossing your pocket change in a can to fund some better EP's and, maybe, a good Barlow lens that won't puree your view.

Have fun,

Dave

thank you dave for replying, the barlow lens came with it, you see all these beautiful images that people post and you want to look at these through your telescope, obviously this is just a starting point for me, i can pick out the constellations, up above now but when i am stargazing im in the heart of a city so lighting does effect, what other eye pieces do you think i should get, ive shown my son the moon with the 20mm and the 10 mm but would like to have an even closer look at it. I dont wanna pay out too much on this scope as i know in a years time i assume i will be looking at upgrading and getting a more powerful one.

Your a fountain of knowledge and i appreciate your help.

Regards

James

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bamastar]

I'm not really into doubles, but after reading this yesterday I tried it last night. I was impressed with the view in my 10" dob. I may be tracking a few more doubles in nights to come.

[Special K]

Hi Jimmy, I was helping a friend get his Celestron 80mm refractor on its feet earlier this month and we were messing around with the optics. His kit comes with a 20, 4, and a 3x Barlow. We had the scope trained on a TV aeriel and were examining the different EPs. I put his Barlow in with the 20mm and I couldn't get it to work!!!! I used the whole focus travel and just saw emptiness. I told him at the time that the Barlow was a waste of time and the 20mm was the best bet.

This reminded me of a terrible Tasco kit I had as a teenager which also came with the same kind of Barlow.......perhaps even the same one! Try as I might back then, I couldn't see a darn thing through it. I suppose my point is it just might not work with the scope, though I'd be amazed they are allowed to include it in the box if this is the case.