Posts Made By: Dan D DuBal

As always, Carlos, a fine report. (Hey, you're not the Martian for nothing! )

I realize you're not one to yack too much about this scope versus that scope -- you've been observing far too long to get mired in that discussion, so I'm going to try and make my question quite simple and "unloaded."

Are you still as pleased and happy with your Maksutov now, as you were when you first got it? Sounds like Mike did a great job.

Cheers & best wishes.
-Dan

You noted 2 inches, but are you looking for a 2-foot threaded rod? -- just wanted to double-check. If needing just a 2-inch section, you could simply get an M4 brass machine screw and cut it to length. Of course, if you're looking for a 2-foot rod, well, that's a tougher order... :S (but I'm guessing you meant inches).

Brass metric thumb nuts -- at least here in the states -- are practically nonexistent. If I needed some, I'd just use a 3.3mm drill bit, bore a 6-32 thumb nut, and use an M4 tap on the bore. You can pick up the metric bit & tap for about $6-7 total (both are available at McMaster-Carr).

Hope that helps.
Best wishes.
-Dan

I thumbed through my old S&T collection...

Appears the Comet King was introduced in early 1976 and was apparently gone from the UO line by 1979 if not sooner (no mention of them in my '79 issues; my collection includes no issues from '77 or '78). According to the UO ad, the Comet King was waterproof and cost a healthy chunk o' change -- a whopping $795, back then. The photo in the ad was quite small and unclear, leaving little or no impression as to the Comet King's looks & construction. No mention of BK7 or BaK4, so I might assume BK7. In this application -- high-power large-aperture binoculars with moderate-field eyepieces -- BK7 might be the better choice, so long as the prisms aren't undersized. (I'm guessing they're not undersized.) The edge-of-field aberration you're seeing is likely either eyepiece astigmatism or field curvature (overwhelming the astigmatism). If field curvature is dominant, you should be able to obtain a "best focus" for both the center field and the edge (i.e. two different focus positions).

I'm guessing they're unit-body ("Bausch & Lomb" or "American" style -- one-piece objective barrels and prism housings). I'm also guessing they utilize individual eyepiece focus (not a center-focus knob & bridge).

Based on both the fact that they were advertised as waterproof and the fact that their price was very high, they may very well be "military-spec."

Can you locate a manufacturer code? -- Check around the front end of the center hinge, on either side of the tripod-socket cap. You should see a "B" or "J-B" with 3 or 4 numbers to its right. The code may also be located on the hinge itself.

They sound excellent. Congrats!
Cheers.
-Dan

I continue to believe that Keanu's finest performances involve movies that include the words "Bill and Ted's" in the title. "I Love You to Death" was good, too.

Keanu should relax and do more comedy. He's really quite good at it.

I'll hold my tongue on the trivia answer and allow other members to post their, uh, reactions, first.

Cheers and minimal "dudes," dude.
-Dan

Actually, the brand was Gailand (Gailand Company), and yours is a true Abbe orthoscopic. "Galoc" is an eyepiece design, which Gailand offered in a 16.3mm focal length. Gailand Abbes were offered in 4mm, 6mm, 7mm, 10.5mm, 16.8mm & 28mm. As far as I know, Gailand eyepieces first hit the market in the early 1960s. Telescopics later included a few Gailand eyepieces in their lineup (including the 16.3mm), as did Cave (not sure about the 16.3mm). According to Gailand ad copy, each optical surface was pitch-lap polished and MgFl coated.

Gailand specified apparent fields of 45 degs. for the Abbes and 90 degs for the "Galoc," but owners of the 16.3mm have noted an apparent field closer to 75 dges. Further confusing things is the fact that Gailand ads included a cross-sectional diagram of the "Galoc," and the diagram clearly shows a 1-2-1 Konig, not a 3-2 Galoc. I suppose it is possible that the diagram in the ad copy was simply an error/oversight and that the eyepiece was a true 3-2 Galoc. However, the diagram seems quite specific to Gailand, and the indicated field stop does correspond to an apparent field of ~70-75 degs. I've read no reports from any disasemblers confirming or denying either design (Galoc or Konig) as being that of the 16.3mm Gailand.

That's enough babble from me.
Cheers and best wishes.
-Dan

If you have little or no difficulty with well-aligned standard binoculars, you should -- in theory -- have no problem with a binocular viewer. Higher magnifications require essentially perfect collimation/alignment within the viewer, but the finer models should indeed be very well collimated.

Screw-activated collars can be a little finicky with regard to eyepiece alignment. Users may have to readjust one or both of the eyepieces to get them well aligned. If your previous encounters with binocular viewers involved screw-activated collars, that may well have been the cause of your difficulties. Self-centering collars (assuming they're well implemented) will be less finicky and more prone to accurate eyepiece alignment.

As for eyepieces, I'd personally start with those that I already like and/or those that "feel right" (comfortable) in "cyclops" mode. If you have a favorite in the 15mm-to-20mm range, that might be the best place to start. (One which I find very comfortable and "right" for my own eyes is the Meade 18mm Superwide.) If you like a particular single eyepiece, you'll probably like it as much or more when it's paired up with a twin in a binocular viewer. Likewise, if a particular eyepiece is a little frustrating to you for one reason or another, it might not be the best candidate.

I'm sure other members will relate their own favorites.

Cheers and best wishes.
-Dan

Pretty [edit]ing good for "ho-hum," Jim.

Very nice work -- thanks for sharing.
Cheers.
-Dan

8O
Holy...
8O
moly...

Outstanding shot, Mike. When the image started loading, "all" I saw was the upper left corner and a kabillion little pinpricks of starlight.

I'm guessing you're kinda-sorta' OK with it, huh?

Thanks for sharing, and cheers & stuff.
-Dan

Since I'm hardly an expert, I decided to hold my opinion until I'd seen more examples from other imagers and re-familiarized myself with the Martian surface features and topography. I've done just that, so now I'll offer my pair-o'-pennies' worth...

Methinks, Ron B[ee], that your image as relayed by Light Cup Senior does indeed include Nix Olympica. The fact that the feature was found on multiple frames fairly cinches it, in my book.

It's a fine image, sir. Your skills are obviously developing nicely, and I look forward to seeing more of your work (or maybe not work so much as fun, yes?) in the future.

Congratulations!
-Dan

I'm not aware of any diagonals with built-in alignment adjustment mechanisms.

Many of the generic prism diagonals out there contain misaligned prisms, but they're usually fix-able by way of resetting one or more of the following: spring clip(s), barrel, collar. Beyond that, alignment might require some shimming. Of the nine different diagonals I've owned -- whether prism, mirror, .965-, 1.25-, & 2-inch models -- only one of them was misaligned when received (a Celestron prism diagonal). The aforementioned spring clip/barrel/collar "reset" was all I needed to do to realign the diagonal.

Do you have a misaligned diagonal, or are you just concerned about a future purchase?

Cheers & best wishes.
-Dan