Recently Browsing 1 member
Hello! i am being offered this 100ED at a price which is hard to resist by an acquaintance who inherited it and doesn't plan on "checking out galaxies" as he put it LOL, it looks like a well built scope and a good frac is a scope for life, anyone have/had this scope?
By Ben the Ignorant
Do these lens edges look black to you?
Uuh, yeah, sure!
That was the blackening applied to my new Astro-Professional doublet. Bear in mind that the light exiting at the front first had to pierce the layer of blackening on the other side, but it remained pretty intense, right? Good commendable will on the scope maker's part, and job done, but a second layer of felt marker paint was in order. Yes, paint, felt markers actually apply a kind of paint mixed with a solvent that evaporates very quick. Thus it's quite natural that a second layer is needed for opacity.
Stray light will take any path that's open, and bounce off the rough side of glass that has the ideal texture to spread it in every direction, so I also treat bevels. Look at the previous pics, they were not covered at all.
The real black distinguishes itself strongly from the mere factory gray. If you knew the lens' specs, and the angle of vision, you could reconstruct an image of that room with a specialized software, but that's another story.
While I had the lenses out of the cell, I made permanent rotation marks. A ghost of the factory inverted "V" is visible, I made scratches with a needle the first time I opened the cell, but during the first reassembly I suspect the lenses have rotated because a miniscule amount of paint at the wrong place made the rings sticky. Turning them made the lenses turn, I suppose, based on some loss of snap at the eyepiece, while the star test seemed similar. For future maintenance I dug two notches with the edge of a diamond-coated knife sharpener. Thanks to diamond hardness the job was done in seconds.
But what happened to those unblack edges, you ask?
That compact led flashlight is viciously powerful but not enough for two layers of black paint at entry and two at the exit. An optician wrote that paint (or ink?) hardens and shrinks enough to compress a lens out of ideal shape, that could be detectable in sensitive tests. Maybe, because the tolerances are only several dozens or hundreds of molecules; 500 nanometers in wavelength of light divided by a good lamba/20 wavefront would amount to only 25 nanometers, we're talking layers of molecules, here. But I still don't figure if the claim is far-fetched or not.
The two rear rings have been painted with ordinary blackboard paint. It can chip, I know, however unlike lacquer it dries fast enough to not interrupt the work session, and it's so easy to reapply. The black lens edges coupled to the matte rings produce this effect: the lenses seem to vanish. Direct light from two lamps, a white ring under the cell reflects light at the same angles as intrusive light during real-world observation, but only an extremely faint ghosting occurs. Do you see it?
Why two locking rings, by the way? Because a single one could make the lens it touches turn, and ruin the critical rotation alignment. The second buffer ring prevents that. A little not-yet-dry paint that bleeded between them may have caused the problem for a while.
Of course, at shallow angles the lenses reflect some light, but the rings behind them remain discreet. It took a white ceiling and a white column (plus a Strat) to make these reflections.
Some blackboard paint bled inside the cell scribing, which is not bright ink but an actual etching done into the aluminum with an interesting pointy tool, that's why it's shiny gray. Instead of spending time trying to scrape it, I filled all the letters and numbers; it created a nice, unique variant. Turns out, I always wanted a cell with dark engraving, and it's not lazyness talking.
The bevel and the inside of the outer cell is matted-painted, too. If you own an Hyperion eyepiece, the hard, dull black finish in the barrel is the ideal finish but I don't konw how to do it, unaware if it's a paint (doubt it) or some chemical process. I often stargaze from my city, lamps everywhere, so I don't want any shiny areas. Everything but the optical surfaces should be dull black. This will also be useful if I do astrophoto one day - uh, one night - because cameras are so sensitive, and exposures so long, any stray light could damage contrast.
But, Ben, but Ben! What are those white dots on the outside of the cell? I never liked the velours that barely puts the brakes on the dewshield's motion, and lets it wobble. The solution is those simple foamy rubber adhesive pads. Trial and error determined the right number was eight. A ring of pads at the very rear of the cell, and another at the very front suppress wobble completely, and they keep the dewshield in place even with a 700 gram tilt-lock (my invention so I get to name it) counterweight attached to it, with the scope pointing vertically.
A strip of tape takes marks at the screws' location. I remove the strip, measure the separation of the marks while it's on a flat surface, put it back on the cell, and voilà! Perfect centerline for the rubber pads.
Removing lenses means recentering them but their screws are not standard, so I recut a damaged mini screwdriver...
...and quickly glued pieces of any tubing I had to repair the handle and make it more ergonomic. The two notches in different shapes at the screwsdriver's collar help me keep track of turns and half-turns. This slot shape is not standard, a non-matching driver would damage the plastic:
The tolerance between cell and lenses was nicely tight, but thanks to the extra thickness of paint, they almost self-align. After inserting them, and driving the screws at the same depth, I did an artificial star-test, found only one screw needed 1/8th turn to get near-perfect centering. The lenses require a gentle push on the side with a toothpick in order to be seated in the cell. They just slide against the cell walls without rubbing, and exit the same without catching. If they were too close to the walls, centering screws would be disabled, and thermal pinching could occur.
It seems to have turned out pretty okay. The semi-apo quality shows in the very pale lime, almost white disk, and the purple ring. Intrafocal thru Explore 4.7mm eyepiece (120x). The Explore 4.7 increases chromatism in this refractor and in my achro, but the Myriad 9 reduces it, however it does not magnify enough for star-testing.
That rounds up my first line of defense against stray light. How does it perform? Well, with the dewshield retracted, and two lamps shining into the cell from less than two meters:
The glass edge and its retaining rings don't shine, and they cast a nice black shadow. The two baffles down the tube are not enough, though, I need to add a couple more, that will be for a later date.
I am thinking of adding one of these to my Christmas list. I want it primarily for astrophotography with my aps-c Canon on the Star adventurer mount, with a sturdy photo tripod (I have all of those already). For £399 it seems like the best combination of value and performance to me, but what's your opinion?
I recently posted about my first successful collimation experience (an SCT). I'm sure we all have our stories, of those moments when we perceived optical clarity. Come on everyone tell us of those collimation 'eureka' moments and your experience of your first observing session immediately following.
By Some Dude With A Mak- Cass
found a $40 refractor at a goodwill today. will include some pictures, is it worth the money? has a EQ mount included, and for just 40 I'm seriously considering it. tips? it has no eyepeices included, but the mount looks sturdy and the i don't yet have a refractor so i really want it.. if its worth it. pretty sure its worth over $200 but idk 4 sure.
remember that i know so little about refractors that i had to google how they worked.. again. but that mount alone would be worth it, even if the optical tube isn't. please feel free to tell me its not worth it, i don NOT want to waste money on this.