- 9,864
- 4,896
Dad built an equatorial mount from plumbing fittings. A 2 inch Side Outlet Tee makes for sturdy leg mounts.
will post a photo if i can find one.
will post a photo if i can find one.
DennisN said:but what can I expect for $35?
I've bought quite a lot of items from China and had many good laughs reading "Chinese English" instructions... some have been almost impossible to decode. And this is a fun picture I remembered from an article about a small video camera (which I did not buy, though).Vanadium 50 said:The instructions are a hoot!
I think one inch is standard , 25.4 mm. OOPS TIL it's 0.965 inch, as Dennis pointed out below.Blank_Stare said:Is that a standard for sizing eye-pieces?
Blank_Stare said:if anyone has a favorite source for buying eye pieces that will fit this telescope,
No, no you use the lens as is.Blank_Stare said:Please explain how the PVC pipe, or sewing thread spool helps you grind down the lenses? It sounds like you may know a useful trick that I'd like to learn more about.
Blank_Stare said:There do not appear to be any model numbers on them, although there are some measurements listed on one end of each lens - 6mm, and 20mm. The diameter of the eye piece, where it fits into the angled telescope piece, appears to be about 25mm - but I am having a hard time measuring it with the tools on hand, so I might be off a few mm. (Is that a standard for sizing eye-pieces? If so, I am in trouble, because I don't see anything on Amazon that's even close...)
These seem to be the focal lengths of the eyepieces as jim hardy explained above, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyepiece#Focal_length.Blank_Stare said:6mm, and 20mm
There are different diameter standards, and yours seems to be 0.965 inches (24.5 mm), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyepiece#Barrel_diameter.Blank_Stare said:The diameter of the eye piece, where it fits into the angled telescope piece, appears to be about 25mm
I guess you mean there is a star diagonal mounted between the telescope tube and the eyepiece, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_diagonal. Check your telescope if you can unmount that piece if you for some reason would like to, and mount an eyepiece directly to the telescope tube.Blank_Stare said:but my eyepiece is at a 90 degree angle (perpendicular) to the barrel of the telescope
Go in loosen direction first? So as to not squeeze mirror.?DarioC said:I thought just recently that I might try a simple check on the adjustment. Just turn one of the three main mirror screws 1/4 turn and then check if a ground image is clearer.
look into pinhole camera and projection ideas.Blank_Stare said:I am loathe to spend money for adapters and such, i
Clever, indeed!jim hardy said:For a mid 80's partial in Florida our clever secretary at work taped her makeup mirror to a windowsill and reflected an image onto back wall of the office.
Do you know the f-number of both scopes? Reflectors tend to have lower f-numbers than refractors (except the really expensive apochromatic ones) if I recall, which can exacerbate any aberrations inherent in the mirror shape.DarioC said:I have a question about my Celestron 130EQ reflector. Previously I had a 70mm refractor and I remember being astounded at the sharpness and contrast of edge on views of the ridges on the moon that it gave. The 130 pulls in a lot more light; it is uncomfortably bright when looking at a full moon with the scope unrestricted but it's images don't seem to be nearly as well focused as the 70mm was at what I think is about the same magnification.
Makes me wonder what the process for making the 5 inch mirror is, but thus far I haven't really checked close enough to actually tell. Everything about the 130 is well made and works good, but I am a bit disappointed about the blurriness of the view.
DC
A lunar filter is a must for just about any telescope. I have an adjustible (two opposing polarized filters) and a stand alone that I think is 10% transmittance.DarioC said:I have a question about my Celestron 130EQ reflector. Previously I had a 70mm refractor and I remember being astounded at the sharpness and contrast of edge on views of the ridges on the moon that it gave. The 130 pulls in a lot more light; it is uncomfortably bright when looking at a full moon with the scope unrestricted but it's images don't seem to be nearly as well focused as the 70mm was at what I think is about the same magnification.
How "nearly black"? Can you see anything through them? A solar filter is so dark you literally can't see anything but the sun or a bare filament on a clear light bulb. Anything more and it isn't safe for solar viewing.Blank_Stare said:@jim hardy
By "Blacked out", I guess I mean they look like the lenses used in welding goggles. The glass is very dark, nearly black.
good point, i tend to forget details.russ_watters said:Also, the filters are almost always placed over the objective, where they intercept all of the light spread out instead of focused.
The resolution is poor then - back to the pinhole camera problem. The objective cover on Newtonians often has a 40mm (approx) hole for lunar viewing but I think the resolution could suffer a bit.jim hardy said:I've seen metal covers with just a little hole in the center to go over an objective lens , blocking probably more than 99% of the light.
russ_watters said:How "nearly black"? Can you see anything through them? A solar filter is so dark you literally can't see anything but the sun or a bare filament on a clear light bulb. Anything more and it isn't safe for solar viewing.
Also, the filters are almost always placed over the objective, where they intercept all of the light spread out instead of focused.
Standard practice for smallish solar scopes is to use what they call a Solar Wedge. It consists of a mirror at 45degrees with a dichroic reflecting surface which just reflects visible wavelengths into the eyepiece. The rest passes through and heats up a large heat sink, avoiding any localised high temperatures. A filter upstream of the eyepiece would be in a position where a fairly small diffuse image of the Sun would heat up a small area of it. It's only at the objective end that the power is easy to deal with.Blank_Stare said:However, this is a small telescope, having a lens just about 2-1/2 inches in diameter.
So if I understand you correctly...sophiecentaur said:Standard practice for smallish solar scopes is to use what they call a Solar Wedge. It consists of a mirror at 45degrees with a dichroic reflecting surface which just reflects visible wavelengths into the eyepiece. The rest passes through and heats up a large heat sink, avoiding any localised high temperatures. A filter upstream of the eyepiece would be in a position where a fairly small diffuse image of the Sun would heat up a small area of it. It's only at the objective end that the power is easy to deal with.
You can set fire to paper with 70mm lens!
As you cannot see anything else through them, I guess they must be, lol.Blank_Stare said:most likely made for viewing the sun