Posts Made By: Philip Canard

In WWII, RAF bomber pilots that flew the night missions were fed bilberry jam to increase their night vision. I have read in alternative medical literature that bilberries are good for improving night vision. This must be an English thing, as I have never eaten or even seen a bilberry.

I do know that eating wild blackberries that grow in the Ozark National Forest make me feel better, but I don't know if they help vision that much. Chigger bites are the main negative side effect with them.

The main thing to remember with berries is that the brighter and darker the color, the more antioxidants are packed into them. No berry is darker than a blackberry, and the juice leaves very vivid stains, more than any other berry I can think of.

Phil

Not all laser collimaters are collimated themselves. Check colimation of your laser before collimating anything else with it. I have an American made laser, and it came collimated and guaranteed beyond question by the dealer. He bought up the entire supply when the manufacturer ceased pruduction.

Spin the laser in the EP holder with the thumbscrew slightly tightened. The laser dot should stay in one spot instead of making a circular motion when spun around. The thumbscrew may be cocking the laser sideways. Hold the laser tight against the stop with the thumbscrew loose, then see if the spot shifts when the thumbscrew is tightened. I suggest buying a Baader Click-Lock EP Holder which guarantees centering on lockup. Rack and Pinion focusers are themselves often causes of image shift, as well as floppy mirrors in old SCT's and MCT's.

You must ALWAYS be centered when using a laser collimator, or you will always show miscollimation every time you check it. You must have standard reference positions, such as a R&P focuser solidly against its inner stop and solidly locked, mirror focuser against its stop and locked, EP always in the same position on star tests, etc. A Crayford focuser with Click-Lock EP holder is a zero tolerance system for aligning EP's, binoviewers, lasers, etc. Mount the Click-Lock with the nosepiece and thus the Click-Lock is the same orientation ALWAYS. I set the Baader emblem on the 2" nosepiece next to my JMI thumbscrew. Unless you go through such persnickety setup procedures, YOU ARE NOT DOING A PROPER COLLIMATION. Period. R&P focusers typically show collimation shift every time you slew the scope to a much different orientation. They are not a stabilized focuser design, and are usually cocked over when you lock them up. My JMI NGF Crayford focuser took care of that issue.

The weight of a long and heavy optical chain shows some decentering at high mags on star tests when hanging horizontally and bent by gravity. Binoviewer owners know this one, and ignore it unless serious. Any miscollimation below the diffraction limit is no concern to me. As long as I get good Airy disks on nights of good seeing, all is well.

For those who use a backup helical fine focuser like I do, at high mags you will see a star do a circular motion as the helical focuser is spun around, as the two thumbscrews decenter the EP to one side slightly. Do not have a rotating helical focuser or EP holder with thumbscrews in the optical path if you can help it. It's better to hold the laser against the stop while checking collimation than cocking the laser with a thumbscrew. You should spin the laser in the holder after laser collimation adjustment and see that any circular movement is concenctric with the mirror donut. You can then adjust out the miscollimation in your laser if possible. There will always be a slight circular motion if you spin a perfectly collimated laser in an off-center helical focuser EP holder. I know this is being persnickety, but little tolerances add up in a long chain of variables. Airliners often end up being several inches longer or shorter than the last one through the assembly line due to very slight tolerance shifts during assembly that add up.

Do NOT keep collimating your SYSTEM to a changing variable in the system. Get a routine down with solid reference points and guaranteed centering of ALL components, or you are like a puppy dog chasing its tail and never reaching the goal. I am shocked at star parties at just how miscollimated most scopes really are. My used LOMO 150 was fairly well miscollimated when I bought it (the collimation screws told a tale of a ham fisted previous owner, so I replaced them with better screws), but my new LOMO 102MN had the best collimation I have ever seen in a new scope, even better than my Stellarvue NHII, and the LOMO had been hauled around in the dealer's van for quite some time, and was a month shy of being 7 years old when I bought it, and had traveled halfway around the world though various shippers to get to me. The LOMO 102MN spinning finder scope is FAR more complicated than a simple Newtonian spider that does not move. I doubt I will ever touch the collimation unless severely shocked by a hard fall. Also, my Meade SN8 now holds collimation VERY well, so most of the Newtonian collimation problems are probably induced or allowed by their owners or built in at the factory, I would assume, from what I have seen so far. My LOMO 150 collimation has not shifted one iota since I took care of previous ham fisted dinkerings. I have a padded JMI hardcase for my SN8 (and a Pelican case for my LOMO 150), but I doubt many Newtonian owners buy hardcases for their water heater sized OTA's, if such things exist for them. My SN8 collimation was star test checked the other night, and had not changed one iota since I installed the JMI Crayford focuser over three months ago. With the junky Meade plastic focuser, it changed every night and on almost every slew to a new target.

There is also a wonderful product called Lock-Tite that can prevent collimation screws from backing out. Use it if necessary. A drop of Super Glue can work wonders as well. If miscollimation keeps popping up, you have movement going on somewhere, unless you stress your gear so hard that you are always bending things. Lock up your SCT mirrors, and use a microfocuser, Crayford, etc., for fine adjustments. My LOMO 150 has no mirror shift when focusing, but Meade SCT owners are rarely so fortunate. On Newtonians, the spiders are shifting in their mounting holes or other such nuisances caused by sloppy build tolerances or undersized and overstressed components. The spider is shifted over one way when you collimate, then after a bumby ride to a observing site with the spider hanging the other way against gravity, it migrates over across the mounting hole and stops where it contacts the opposite side of the hole, and things such as that.

I found locking compound on my LOMO 102MN adjustment screws throughout the scope. Do you think those crafty Russians might be on to something here? Might the builder of some of the world's best professional observatory scopes and military optics know a thing or two about maintaining collimation in a demanding environment? The scope seems built as if to go to war (the dovetail is machined steel with safety stop groove, not extruded aluminum with no provision for a safety stop as on many Chinese scopes, on a 6# OTA no less!) and if necessary it certainly would, judging by past Russian appropriations of technical gear when under foreign attack. Most amateur scopes seem built as if to sit in a showroom and nothing more. An Orion XT8 Intelliscope Dob has a street price that the LOMO 102MN optical tube alone sold for when new. You get what you pay for. I took care of MANY issues with my Meade SN8, and you probably will with your 12" Dob as well. Were it not for the excellent matched USA glass in the scope, I would have dumped the entire SN8 LXD75 outfit. Good luck with your Dob!

Phil

P.S. My star test has to be quite a bit off at high mag before I ever see it in a focused image when observing. Misfocusing, or sorry cheap Chinese EP's, have been a bigger problem with me than miscollimation. Also, cooling down an MCT, SNT or MNT shows a much bigger improvement than correcting a slight miscollimation. My Star Splitter EP's, for instance, will clearly show an Airy disk across the entire FOV, on both colors of Albireo, even in the fast f/5.5 LOMO 102MN. Such EP's are good for your star testing of your collimation. If you get Airy disks across the entire FOV, I would say LEAVE THAT SCOPE COLLIMATION ALONE!!!

If they are like their close relatives, the Celestron Ultima, they will have multicolored coatings that are quite different from Chinese multi-coated greenish coatings.

They will be one of the sharpest and contrastiest EP's you ever looked through when you view with them.

These have come on the market lately, and you would probably need a new one since I haven't seen any used ones.

For $600 you can get a used LOMO, Intes Micro, or Orion Argonaut Russian scope that is in a different league altogether. My Russian LOMO 150 OTA was $500 and came with a killer 40mm 10x40 right angle finder that is the sharpest I have ever seen. It easily outperforms my 50mm right angle Stellarvue F50 finder.

That gives you no in depth info on the Orion, but it is Chinese manufacture and they are not there yet in competing against the Russians in Mak scopes. There are plenty of used Russian Maks for sale out there, and your smart money will be grabbing those while they are available and very reasonably priced.

If you buy a used Russian scope, you can get your money back when you sell it. That isn't going to happen with a new Chinese Mak, and you are far more likely to want to get rid of the Chinese Mak for any optical quality issues. My Russian Mak is not only built like a tank with killer 1/8 wave optics, the tolerances are very tight with zero image shift when focusing, etc.

If you have a focusing issue with a used Russian Mak or American SCT, a Borg helical or JMI Crayford made for that purpose fixes the problem. If I wanted a Chinese scope, I think I would be looking at a new Celestron 6" SCT. Reports are very good on it, and it's a much better deal with the included mount in the scope package. The f/10 speed is better for all around use. You will not be stuck with an orphan later on if you get the Celestron SCT.

Phil

Newbies need to consider many things before buying an expensive apo refractor for astronomical viewing. What I write is for them.

If using a Contrast Booster filter that essentially removes blue light and using a good 1/10 wave dielectric diagonal, a much cheaper achromat will basically perform as an apo that is similarly filtered, and save a bunch of money. If you want the full color spectrum, it's a different issue. I use filters anyway when doing high power planetary work, so an apo is not an essential upgrade. The tiny bit of residual astigmatism in my Stellarvue NH II probably does more image damage after being minus blue filtered than the fact it isn't apo. Also, upgrading the diagonal gave a HUGE gain in image quality. If observing from town and using Broadband, Contrast Booster, UHC or similar radical filters anyway, an apo is extra money down a rathole, like a Ferrari doing a heavy traffic urban comute. My 80mm NH II with Contrast Booster shows the Cassini Division very clearly when observing in town.

I love my refractor because it is small, light, rugged (for banging in the brush, ruggedness is an absolute essential) and works well as a long range terrestrial scope when filtered for that purpose. Minus blue filtration is necessary to cut through haze in the daytime. I always use at minimum a Fringe Killer, but usually a more radical Contrast Booster. Birding fanatics doing short range work at high power have a different need entirely, and an apo works better for them. My NH II goes lower power than a Mak and does not cause blackout problems in daytime with big exit pupils (you generally go lower, not higher mag, for long range terrestrial work). A big Mak or SCT scope is lighter and cheaper than a refractor, so you can buy more aperture for deep sky. My LOMO 102MN Mak-Newt actually is less affected by stray streetlight glare than my NH II, and that's WITHOUT a lens shade on the 102MN and using the lens shade on the NH II, so the old saw that refractors always have more contrast is pure horse manure, at least in my high glare situation. The NH II has internal baffling, and the 102MN does not. In direct glare situations with stray light hitting the lens directily, optical figure, polish and coatings are all important, not tube baffling.

I bought my Stellarvue refractor based on views of refractor lovers, and in real world use against excellent LOMO Mak optics in astro use, their opinions of refractors vs. Maks has not panned out for me. My preferred use of a refractor scope remains with daylight terrestrial viewing, where I see real solid and easily differentiated reasons for using them instead.

For any newbies out there, before you drop a load on an apo refractor because of what you read, know that most EXPERIENCED astro observers use reflectors or CAT's of some sort that do better overall for less money if any deep sky work at all is factored into the mix of targets.....and it usually is. Also know that a Mak is a "semi-refractor" and that thick meniscus lens may actually have more glass in it than a two-element ED or achromat refractor. Small central obstructions reduce contrast and resolution losses to insignificant levels in real world conditions with high quality Mak scopes. The greater aperture you can buy usually more than makes up for that anyway. If you have enough aperture in a refractor for true general purpose astro use, it will be bigger and/or heavier and/or costlier than anything else you might buy. Remember, as you raise magnification relative to aperture, contrast goes down in refractors just as in any other scope. The extra aperture you get in nonrefractors for the same price should more than make up the difference in lost contrast since you will be running a lower mag relative to aperture and have a bigger exit pupil with a brighter image. So in a dollar for dollar situation, the lost contrast by using something besides a refractor doesn't really exist. It's hogwash promoted by apo refractor lovers and manufacturers that compare aperture to aperture, which for any set amount of money spent will be VASTLY different anyway. So in the end it's often BS, except in certain situations where cost has little consideration. A fool and his money are soon parted. I have major cost considerations. I'm a refractor user, not a refractor lover.

In the end, I have seen higher quality of construction generally win out over type of scope for astro use. Witness the LOMO 102MN over the Stellarvue NH II. They are similarly priced on the open market, but the optical quality and aperture are quite different. I can usually get more quality for less money in a reflector or CAT of some sort. I'm not against apo refractors, but be very, very careful before parting with any money and know the few areas where they actually excel over other optical types. It isn't in general purpose visual astronomy at anywhere near the cost and practicality of other types. Astrophotography can be a different issue, and if you do that you know why that is.

I took my new Mak-Newt down to the river and observed water birds to compare it against my refractor. Except for the fact the birds were upside down, there was no contrast loss in the Mak-Newt that I could tell. I used a star diagonal in the refractor, not an Amici prism, in order to make it a fair test. Outside of the fact the Mak-Newt produced inverted images, I liked its images better for optical quality just as with my Mak-Cass scope. However, I will be using the refractor for general terrestrial viewing because of it's erect images and ability to do low powers better than a Mak-Cass. You CAN buy image erectors for Newtonians, and Siebert optics sells them. The view through the LOMO Mak-Newt finder was erect and quite good. Before the refractor guys cry foul because I did not use an apo in comparison, this was more a dollar for dollar value comparison, which is more real world in nature. A guy with mainly astro intentions that did birding occasionally on the side with limited funds would be better off with the Mak-Newt and a Newtonian image erector.

I have found that ordinary image erector prisms cause such noticeable loss of image quality that buying an apo for birding and using one on it would be more money down a rathole. Baader is said to make a good 1/10 wave erector prism for around $300 with adapters. I use a star diagonal on my Mak-Cass for occasional birding and got used to the left-right reversed image. You soon get used to it when scanning and never know the difference until written text is in the view. This is a poor man's way to get apo quality at a reflector price point. An 80mm triplet apo (doublets are NOT true apo refractors) at 100X will never have the brightness and visual punch of my 150mm LOMO Mak-Cass at that mag, which I probably paid considerably less for.

I use a Siebert BN22 almost straight through with a 1/10 wave 2" dielectric diagonal on a 1/8 wave LOMO 150 Mak-Cass. I placed the BN22 straight through and really saw no improvement, just got a stiff neck and back from bending over and straining.

Phil

Unless that 2X Orion Shorty Barlow is the 3-element version similar to the Celestron Ultima Barlow, I would ditch it and get something better.

Otherwise, your collection is a lightyear ahead of what I started with.

Phil

Buy a Siebert Telecentric or Tele Vue Powermate and find out for yourself. It's an obvious and self explanatory experience. Harry and Al figured it out for you already. What anybody else thinks doesn't change that one iota. It's HIGHLY doubtful you will regret the purchase one itty bitty bit. I love my Tele Vue Powermate and my Siebert Telecentric. The numbers and facts don't quite explain the performance, so quit looking for reasons and make the jump and hope your parachute opens..........it probably will, like it did for the rest of us.

Enjoy the view.

Phil

I use a LOMO Astele 150 f/14.2 Mak-Cass of 1/8 wave quality with 1/10 wave Stellarvue dielectric diagonal and Siebert Black Night binoviewer. When using single EP's, a Borg nonrotating 1.25" fine focuser helps me easily find focus and raises the EP a comfortable way above the OTA. I use it on a Meade LXD55 or Synta Atlas mount. It star tests to near perfection, thus I easily discern differences in my EP collection. All types of EP's work to their maximum ability on this instrument due to the long focal ratio and complete lack of false color. I generally use a Baader MSG filter to knock out any light pollution and increase contrast. It's the best lunar and planetary scope I have been able to use on a regular basis, and it is equivalent to the best 5" APO refractors such as those that Stellarvue produces with LOMO triplet cells, and that is per Vic Maris of Stellarvue who is very familiar with the instrument, as he tried to get LOMO to reintroduce them. I'm never letting go of mine, as it is easily my finest instrument. Lunar views are to die for.

The Burgess TMB 9mm is nice for eyeglass wearers because of the adjustable eyecup, but I prefer the simpler Siebert 8.9mm Star Splitter. The 8.9mm Star Splitter is a nicer binoviewer EP. I also use the 6.4mm and 4.4mm Star Splitters in this instrument, when the seeing conditions permit. They are as sharp as a 7.5mm Ultima, but more comfortable to view through and with a wider FOV. An Omni Plossl of 4mm, 6mm and 9mm doesn't even come close in comfort and noticeably falls behind in optical performance. The Ultima/Ultrascopic and Star Splitter EP's have been very favorably compared to the best UO Ortho EP's and came up to that optical level while adding FOV. The SS and Ultima EP's have very good color balance and colors pop out very well in stars and planets.

For wider viewing of deep sky objects, I use the 12.5mm Ultima, 15mm Axiom, 18mm Ultima, 23mm Axiom and 30mm Ultima. I have all FL's in binoviewer pairs. They are all excellent EP's, with the Axiom's giving more FOV and a space walk experience while the Ultima's excel in sharpness and contrast. They can all be used alone or in the binoviewer with equally fine results. The 30mm Ultima will have a slight cutoff in the FOV with the Black Night BN22, but in no way spoils the view. There is little more to desire with any of those EP's, and they easily surpass my Celestron Omni Plossl's, Burgess 20mm Bino Lite and William Optics SWAN 9mm EP's. The TMB 9mm EP also surpasses the 9mm SWAN, especially in faster scopes. The TMB is bulky in a binoviewer and doesn't heat very well, tending to fog up in colder weather.

When I really want to go wide, I take out the binoviewer or Borg 1.25" focuser and insert my Axiom 34mm into my 2" Stellarvue dielectric diagonal. This allows my widest FOV without any cutoff of image induced by the scope. The Siebert 38mm Observatory will produce a litte bit of image cutoff at the extreme edge, but sees the same amount of sky as the Axiom 34mm in case a little extra brightness is desired. Both EP's I can highly recommend for deep sky, with my preference going to the Axiom 34mm, but at a bit higher cost.

You should get similar results in your 6" Russian Mak as I get in mine. They are similar instruments and far above the cheap 6" reflectors and fast 6" achromats that have become popular. I would stay away from Ortho EP's (unless your interest is strictly planetary viewing) as they are no better than an Ultima and don't come close to the speacewalk feel of the 70 degree Axiom or Panoptic type of EP's. The Panoptic and Axiom are very similar designs and direct competitors. I would buy whichever was available at the best price. Of course, a Nagler will work, but a Pan or Axiom will allow a bit more brightness at the max FOV while the Nagler will allow a bit more magnification. Those are the three best bets for maxing out your FOV.

I have internal mirror focusing, so my scope easily accommodates a binoviewer without adding an OCA. I get the clearest image possible with binoviewers, probably surpassing the best refractors that need an OCA added to achieve focus. When adding a Siebert focal length reducer to my binoviewer, I can clearly see the contrast degradation it adds, but it does allow me to get down to around 45X with a 30mm Ultima. That is adequate FOV for most deep sky objects. Remember, I have 2134mm focal length. Your MK66 is probably a bit faster with a shorter FL.

I cleaned the inside of my LOMO Astele 150 Mak-Cass. No big deal if you go slow and work carefully. I used Zeiss lens cloths and Zeiss lens cleaning fluid. First blow off dust with syringe, wipe lightly with first cloth, extra cleaning fluid and another clean cloth for deep cleaning, a final clean cloth for removing any resudues and polishing it all up.

Be sure and do a star test and recollimate the mirror if necessary. It shouldn't be necessary if you mark the position of the corrector and mount it back in the same position. You can also buy a high quality laser collimator and rotate the corrector for best alignment if it has been tampered with by the previous owner, as my LOMO had been. I also installed much higher quality push and pull screws in the mirror cell, hex drive so I could spin the screws in the dark without applying forward pressure like necessary with slotted or Phillips screws, and thus allow use of a ball head Allen key.

Only remove the corrector to clean up any residues on the corrector. Heavy dust and residue reduce contrast, but a few paint flecks do absolutely no harm to the image. Those flecks you mentioned do not warrant any cleaning unless they become very numerous. Don't be afraid to clean the corrector when it really needs it, however.