Posts Made By: Bernard Kean

Chris
The TV NP101 is an excellent scope and very much worth it, and would ride nicely on a CG5 for visual use. One of better parts of owning a Televue scope is that you can talk to the Al Nagler himself if you have questions. If you need cleaning or other maintainence, it is done here in the US at there factory in NY.
Hope this helps
Buck

Hi Ivan
I have used the TV8-24 along with Naglers in several scopes. The TV8-24 is a bit better than the other brands, mainly because TV inspects each one and rejects those that do not meet their standards. However, it does not compare to Naglers and I'm sure the Radians (never used Radians). The Naglers are better in almost every catagory except price..no suprise there. I started with a TV8-24 just to get started because I needed eyepieces and it will take the place of many. It is a fine starter eyepiece for those on a strict budget and need to get something to go along with a scope and mount. I did find out that the TV8-24 does do quit well as a terrestial eyepiece.
IMO the TV3-6 and TV2-4 do infact measure up to Naglers except in FOV.
Hope this helps
Buck

Welcome to the club Brian. I was about 45 when I needed glasses. Over a few years, it went from pretty good eyesight, to where my wife held the menu across the table for me to see. I went in to the eye Doctor and got glasses. I put them on the first day and have warn them every day since. Fortunately, I don't need them to view with a telescope. But it is a pain to do the on again off again to view then look at a chart. 8)
Buck

Michael
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you mean the Classified section in the Search Ads block select Advanced Search and set up from there. I agree, that's what I do to get a going rate for something I'm going to sell and adjust the price for the condition of the item, or condition of the sale.
Buck

The problem here is that there is no accepted standard that you can get everyone to agree on and much is still open to interpretation.
Buck

Hello Steven
You can google search Woden Optical Diagonal Calculator. Another program is NEWT which is a newton design program where you can load in your scope specs and play with different aspects and in your case the best secondary diagonal size.
Hope this helps
Buck

GM8 here. I've not used the Atlas so I cannot debate between the two. The one thing about the GM8 is that it is a machine in every sence of the word. It looks like one and it will work like one. You can add the Gemini GoTo if need be, but the learning curve is a bit steep (so many functions and so few buttons). However once you get the hang of it it works very well and very accurate. While AP can be done very well with the GM8, if larger scopes are in the future then the G11 is A LOT beefier. If the choice is that hard then they are both very well suited.
Buck

Hello Andrew
I tried BV and found it just wasn't for me. I had a Denk Premium Universal with Power Switch set up and used TV32mm P, 13T6 and 5T6 Naglers in a Televue NP101. While the 3d effect views of the moon and planets was pretty cool, the light loss far out weighed the coolness. Mind you this is in a 4" refractor albeit a very good one. The light loss with BV compared to cyclops was very noticable and detail went bye bye. I tried it in a 11" starmaster and the light loss was not a noticable but the weight became an issue. The Denk was heavy and made the scope top heavy. This could have been solved. The expense of the BV and twice the price for eyepieces was a bit more than I could justify for use in only one of my scopes. All in all I was unimpressed for the expense and sold the BV and extra eyepieces and have not regreted the decision. I think BVing is a personal thing and some like it and some don't.
Hope this helps
Buck

David
I don't think you can shorten the tube. The scope has a fixed focal length so unless you move the spider down AND install a huge secondary AND install a very tall focuser you are stuck with the current configuration. Two things you can try is to lighten the lower end and/or add some weight to the top end. This will shift the balance more towards the middle. However this may overload the mount. What is the problem with the dob configuration?
Buck

Hi Sam
Getting good collimation can be done many different ways using active or passive types tools. I used the cheshire and always had issues or sometimes doubt that I had good collimation. I tried the barlowed laser method and collimation became much easier for me. I highly suggest you get 2" tools of your choice. I can personally vouch for the Catseye tools and the Howie Glatter tools. I've settled on the Telcat cheshire/sitetube combo and Infinity autocollimator from Catseye and the 1.25"/2" laser and barlow attachment from Howie Glatter. I check with the sitetube to set the secondary so it is nice and round and centered. Then I use the laser with single beam to aim the secondary so the laser dot is on the primary center mark. Then I install the barlow attachment and aim the primary so the shadow of the secondary is centered around the hole in the target face. Then check with the autocollimator and make any final adjustments (usally not) and thats it. All this assumes the scope is correctly set up in the first place.
Hope this helps
Buck