Posts Made By: James Barnett

Folks:

I just wanted to let the refractor cognoscenti know that I've put my poorly-performing D&G 5" f/10 (most recent batch) up for grabs for "parts value."

http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=309532

NOTE: Ad Deleted pending efforts to send OTA back to D&G for diagnosis and repair. If I get no response or if the scope returns but doesn't meet expectations, I will re-list it for "parts value" as a project scope.

To make a long story short, I have no time to further troubleshoot the refractor with D&G at this point, and it is taking up a lot of space without being useful to me.

If you have questions or suggestions after reading my listing, I'd be happy to answer them on this thread or privately.

Regards,

Jim

Does anyone know the tube weight of the Meade 102 ED, 127 ED and 152 ED OTA assemblies?

Thanks!

In several online reviews (including Ed Ting's Pronto review) as well as photos from star parties including one featuring Al Nagler himself, I've noticed that many who mount small refractors on photo pan heads point the pan head control arm away from the observer (i.e., in the same direction as the objective.

My question is why? It seems very awkward to reach under the OTA and grasp the bar, and many photo pan heads feature 33-degree bent control arms that if you orient the bend outward to the side rather than down, are not in the way. Is it a balance issue maybe? Possibly the very heavy diagonal and eyepiece combo is heavier than the objective, and having the arm face away from the user toward the objective serves as a balance?

Thanks for the feedback,

- Jim

I recently purchased both the 16mm UO Konig and 16mm UO Super Er, mainly out of curiosity as to why UO would choose to offer two such similarly specified eyepieces. Both are advertised as having a 65 degree AFOV, both have a f.l. of 16mm, and both are identically priced at $79.95.

The comparison was done from my suburban back yard with a rising near-full moon low in the East. Limiting naked eye visual magnitude of maybe 4.0. The conditions were pristinely clear, but fairly turbulent.

Telescopes used were a Takahashi FS-78 on a modified Teegul alt-az mount with Takashi's 1.25" prisim diagonal, and a brand spanking new Televue Pronto on a Bogen 3011BN tripod and 3126 head with William Optics' 2.00" "New Generation" mirror diagonal. A Celestron Ultima Barlor was also used.

Subjects observed were the Double Cluster, Pleiades, M31/M32, M43/43/Trapezium, M57 and Alberio, but ironically not Luna (what was I thinking?!?!).

Without going into excrutiating detail from my observing notes, my general impression as to the differences between the two eyepieces in both side-by-side (Tak-Pronto;Pronto Tak)and same scope sequential observations of these subjects was that the Konig provided better contrast (for example, slightly more nebular detail in the Orion Nebula; more stars/darker sky background on the Double Cluster) and better edge definition, but much worse eye relief and comfort. Images in the Super Erfle were generally brighter, but indiscrimnantly so (i.e., the same satrs were a bit brighter, but so was the backgrouns sky.

The Super Erfle was a very, very comfortable eyepiece to use, and as Erfles go, had better than expected edge performance. Compared to my 20mm Meade Research Grade Erfles, for example, the Super Erfle had less field curvature. Contrast was better in the Meade (the Meade being on par with the Konig in this regard.

So who is the Super Erfle for? Eyeglass wearers and sharing a scope with the public such as at a star party as far as I can tell. Given the similar price, I personally would choose the Konig over the Super Erfle. Were the Super Erfle say $15-20 cheaper and were I on a budget, the Super Erfle would be more attractive.

for Friday will be?

Do you suppose that they will match Meade's RC announcement? Maybe offer scaled down astrographs based on the C20 design?

Let's hope it's interesting!

The recent introduction of the Meade Lightbridge line of truss tube Dobsonians got me thinking seriously about supplementing my collection of refractors with a mid-sized, low priced reflector. The Lightbridge itself looked nice, and early reviews seem positive in terms of quality of components, smoothness of axial motions, etc. The huge minus was Meade's decision to ship the components in flimsy, single-layered cardboard boxes with a mirror cover prone to dislodging during shipping and scratching the surface of the primary. Despite recent assurances from Meade (communicated second-hand on various forums) that Meade is aware of the problem and taking steps to remedy it, folks seem to still be receiving damaged scopes. One person on the Yahoo! Lightbridge group is on their third(!) replacement which also arrived damaged. There continue to be reports of long waits on the phone for support, broken promises by Meade support personnel that replacements will have the mirrior cover taped in place, etc.

So while the inspiration came from Meade's new line, I elected instead to go with the tried-and-true Orion XT line. Today I stopped by the Orion Cupertino store and picked up the three boxes that make up a Skyquest XT12 Intelliscope. The net-net of my deliberations that landed me with a Skyquest was the spotty customer service and shipping issues suffered by Lightbridge buyers and the fact that for about the same price as a 12" Lightbridge Deluxe I obtained a 12" Skyquest with digital setting cricles included, and was able to "throw in" an Orion Oxygen III filter to boot.

But all was not rosy with my Skyquest. I arrived home, eager to build and collimate it, but during unpacking I noticed that one of the Teflon disks on the groundboard had come loose. These disks are nailed (or stapled) into the ground board with 3 metal fasteners. Two if the fasteners were embedded in the groundboard and the third was in the Teflon disk.

At 2:52pm PST I sent Orion support an e-mail advising of the issue and asking if it something I could fix myself, or if alternately it was something they needed to help with. At apprximately 4pm PST I received a call from Nate at Orion advising me that I could not repair the groundboard myself as each disk has to be absolutely even with its peers, and that they will be Fed Exing me a new gorundboard with the Teflon disks properly affixed on Monday. They do not need for me to return the defective groundboard.

As disappointing as it is to find a defect in a new item, this is as good an example of customer service as I've ever experienced in the amateur astronomy world. I am very happy with Orion's diligence in responding to and undertaking a remedy for the issue. If you're in the market for an inexpensive import Dobsonian and are spooked by the Lightbridge customer support woes as I was, I suggest you take a look at the Orion Skyquest line. They certainly stand behind their product.

I've noticed some color scheme differences between examples of the FS-78 and wondered if anyone could describe when the color scheme changed.

The aluminum ring below the dew shield on some units is glossy, smooth and royal blue. On other units it is pebble textured and painted semi-gloss pale green like the focuser castings. I have one that has the glossy blue ring.

Here are AM photos showing the differeces:

See ad 356964 for a "blue ringed" example.

http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=356964

See ad 410326 for a "green ringed" example.

http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=410326

Which is older? Why was the change made? Etc.

Thanks,

- Jim

Folks, what do you know about this scope? Per Anacortes and a few other retailers, it's a 4" triplet with a 2.7" focuser and a focal ration of f/8. It weighs 11 pounds and sells for $2695. I found what looks like another variant on a Japanese retailer's site; the "TSA-102N." Don't know what the difference is other than the "N" version is cheaper by 30,000 Yen.

I'm interested in any details you have regarding lens design, amateur or professional reviews, and am also very curious as to why this isn't a "TOA" rather than a "TSA".

- Jim

Recently I purchased a set of four, 0.965" Takahashi Orthoscopics off of Astromart. I will be taking delivery shortly. The focal lengths are 7mm, 12.5mm, 18mm and 25mm. Photos were provided and the focal lengths listed are accurate.

Currently a handful of retailers list 0.965" Takahashi Orthoscopics for sale, but none offer a 12.5mm. There are 5mm, 7mm, 18mm, 25mm and 40mm units listed today. There is, however, a 12mm 0.965" "eyepiece projection" ocular from Takahashi.

So I have two "mysteries" here:

(1) What's the story on the 12.5mm Takahahsi Orthoscopic? Was it discontinued at some point? Availble only outside the US? Other?

(2) What's the story on the 12mm "eyepiece projection" ocular? What design is it? How would it be used and would it be suitable for visual, non=photographic use?

Thanks!

- Jim

You know, I think the proliferation of binoviewers and binoviewing is a conspiracy cooked up by the cabal of eyepiece manufacturers.

Why sell the halpless enthusiast only one megaglassmonster when he or she can be persuaded to buy two? Double the eyepieces, double the profits.

This perception could have *something* to do the fact that I have one good eye (left) and one very bad astigmatic eye (right) and really don't benefit from binoviewer set-up. Sour grapes on my part maybe.

Of course, Uncle Al, the chief conspirator, has a devilish plot to rope us mono-astigmatics into the binoviewer fold; Dioptrix!

Cyclopedly yours,

Jim