How to write a 'first light' report

[franklypeter]

Hello everyone,

I've spent many weeks reading through this forum as I start my adventures in astrology (kidding) and I would like to thank you all for the wealth of information and advice you don't know you have given me.

This advice has cummulated in the purchase of a C100ED-R from Sherwoods, whom I have to say delivered with exceptional speed and answered the phone within two rings when I had a question with regard to setup. Impressive in this day-and-age.

I have two questions for the group.

Firstly, as I would like to write a first light report of the scope once the clouds lift I was wondering what exactly I should be looking for/write in the report. Sure I can write things like its shiny, black, nice to touch, mount made of iron reinforced with iron (cant believe how sturdy it is...) but - as a scientist - I can of feel I could do with a structure to my homework. As a total newb I'm interested in what things the seasoned astronomer would be looking at when assessing a scope, and whether you a structure in mind whilst making this assessment.

Secondly, do refractors such as these need something like collimation (dont really understand what that involves...). The reason I ask is that when looking down t'road with it I get the impression of a double image. Only very slight, but noticeable when compared to the finder scope which is crisper than a crisp thing. I've read that the supplied diagonal and EP are 'ok' and wonder if they are the cause.

Many thanks for your help

Peter

[Astro_Baby]

I think a firts light report should pretty much be your impressions, it doesnt have to be scientific as such just what you looked at, how the views seemed, what equipment was in use (ie scope and the eyepieces used with it). What your impressions of thge kit are, is there anything you like particularly or dislike etc.

As to collimation yes refractors do need it - I am not very expert with refractors but if you look at a star with it it should present a nice sharp dot, when defocused it should provide a perfect circular blob.

I was asking the same uestion recently and someone was kind enough to post this article Refractor Collimation

Personally I;d be disinclined to mess with it until you have had a look at a star with it. Terrestrial viewing can create a different view of things sometimes.

[franklypeter]

Hmmm a useful artical. I've removed the dew shield but am unable to see the described screw heads for adjusting.

Anyway I haven't even taken the thing outside yet so will cross that bridge later if things still dont seem right.

Thanks for your help

[John]

Hmmm a useful artical. I've removed the dew shield but am unable to see the described screw heads for adjusting.

Anyway I haven't even taken the thing outside yet so will cross that bridge later if things still dont seem right.

Thanks for your help

I belives that your scope, the C100ED, does not have a collimatable objective cell. I had a Skywatcher ED100 a few years back that was the same (same optics as well). Mine was in good collimation so no adjustments were needed - which is just as well !.

[ollypenrice]

You could first read up on star testing astronomical telescopes. Google that for a wealth of threads.

Don't for heaven's sake touch anything yet!

Just inside and outside focus you should get concentric dark and light circles when observing a bright star near the zenith at around 100x magnification. Maybe re-post when you have had a chance to try this?

In general refractors are not meant to be recollimated on anything remotely resembling a routine basis and some have no provision. Others are fairly friendly and still others need to go to the manufacturer. The only one I have ever touched had had an accident.

Olly

[Ant]

Anyway I haven't even taken the thing outside yet so will cross that bridge later if things still dont seem right.

Were you looking through a closed window? If you were, that could be the cause of the slight double image - as you'll be adding in two sheets of non astronomical glass in the view.

Ant

[legion48]

Hello everyone,

....Firstly, as I would like to write a first light report of the scope once the clouds lift I was wondering what exactly I should be looking for/write in the report. Sure I can write things like its shiny, black, nice to touch, mount made of iron reinforced with iron (cant believe how sturdy it is...) but - as a scientist - I can of feel I could do with a structure to my homework. As a total newb I'm interested in what things the seasoned astronomer would be looking at when assessing a scope, and whether you a structure in mind whilst making this assessment.....

Peter

Peter, you are over complicating this. For me, there are 3 types of first light reports:

1. The factual. These concentrate on performance and build quality, often comparing new kit against old.

2. The emotional. These tend to dwell on the sense of wonder, or wow factor a new piece of kit has given the user.

3. A mixture of 1 and 2.

Personally, I prefer no. 3.

[brantuk]

Hi Peter

Too late mate - you already did your first "first light" report - qoute:

"when looking down t'road with it I get the impression of a double image. Only very slight, but noticeable when compared to the finder scope which is crisper than a crisp thing".

It's a good start lol