Thank you, Chris. I did have the draw tube snugged up but I will try this again. And is it best practice to have the scope horizontal for any collimation adjustments as well? Just want to understand what's best from the experts. Eager to get Bill's input.
I collimate with the scope horizontal and the focuser pointing up. Agree with Chris do not fight gravity. Also make sure things are snug and that the mirrors cannot move around as the scope slews. That is a mistake I saw one user make. They nailed the collimation but did not ensure both mirrors were secured well.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Just a heads-up. I just received the below information from Pegasus directly :
- The Indigo OAG is not ready yet. They are expecting to make it available in a few weeks and most of the dealers should be able to spread it by mid-September - October
- I got a confirmation that they will release a filter wheel for 36mm filters.
So, if you're interested, stay tuned  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Some results from last night:
I generally keep images 0.5 or under, so these all made the cut. Lots of very good frames in here with very low FWHM and Eccentricity values. CCDI reported curvature of mostly 5-6% with a few coming in at 7%.
Not bad at all!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bill - that data looks fantastic. I'm not being very patient waiting for my Optec - I cant wait to get everything setup and start getting the 160 dialed in. Almost every image I've seen with the 160 has looked amazing.
I do have several questions for you guys - has anyone had any experience with the Epsilon's older slower brother the MT-160? It is a Newtonian made by Takahashi in the 80s and 90s I believe. It has a focal length of 1000mm at f/6.1 without the corrector. They made a corrector (1330mm at f/8.3) and a reducer (776mm at f/4.8) with what I believe was an image circle of 36mm. I acquired one (at what I thought was a great deal for a Takahashi Newt) and it is in transit.
The previous owner said he thinks the collimation is off so I have to figure out collimation on this thing once I get it. It is also not a lightweight newt at roughly 25 pounds (so...normal weight range for a tank...oops Tak). Does anyone have any information about collimating this thing? I would assume it would be like a classical newtonian but with Tak I wasnt sure. Also, the scope is shipping with the corrector but not the reducer. Would a reducer made for a modern newtonian work with this scope? How about something like a Baader MPCC for coma correction without changing the native focal length? The scope came factory with a 2" focuser.
I need to see if I can track down the manual and system chart to figure out correct backspacing. I wasnt looking for this scope - the opportunity just popped up and I couldn't say no.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
May i ask you gusy something. can be installed a pegasus falcon rotator on a Optec focuser?
Thx in advance
Cheers
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
Bill - that data looks fantastic. I'm not being very patient waiting for my Optec - I cant wait to get everything setup and start getting the 160 dialed in. Almost every image I've seen with the 160 has looked amazing.
I do have several questions for you guys - has anyone had any experience with the Epsilon's older slower brother the MT-160? It is a Newtonian made by Takahashi in the 80s and 90s I believe. It has a focal length of 1000mm at f/6.1 without the corrector. They made a corrector (1330mm at f/8.3) and a reducer (776mm at f/4.8) with what I believe was an image circle of 36mm. I acquired one (at what I thought was a great deal for a Takahashi Newt) and it is in transit.
The previous owner said he thinks the collimation is off so I have to figure out collimation on this thing once I get it. It is also not a lightweight newt at roughly 25 pounds (so...normal weight range for a tank...oops Tak). Does anyone have any information about collimating this thing? I would assume it would be like a classical newtonian but with Tak I wasnt sure. Also, the scope is shipping with the corrector but not the reducer. Would a reducer made for a modern newtonian work with this scope? How about something like a Baader MPCC for coma correction without changing the native focal length? The scope came factory with a 2" focuser.
I need to see if I can track down the manual and system chart to figure out correct backspacing. I wasnt looking for this scope - the opportunity just popped up and I couldn't say no.
No direct experience with that scope, so I cannot comment on it.
Kaptas Attila:
May i ask you gusy something. can be installed a pegasus falcon rotator on a Optec focuser?
Thx in advance
Cheers
You certainly can, if your system has the free space to do it on the E160. You have 56.2mm and filter considerations.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
If you have the backspace, the Pegasus Falcon rotator takes 18mm of back space. If you use the included M54 to M48 adapter it adds 1mm.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
If you use a rotator, do you have to worry about diffraction spikes being in different positions if doing a mosaic?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
If you use a rotator, do you have to worry about diffraction spikes being in different positions if doing a mosaic?
You should only have to rotate one time to position your mosaic panel set. Do not rotate the camera after that. Also do not rotate the camera after the meridian either.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
| @Bill Long okay that makes sense. I had been curious about that. I wonder if the Falcon would cause issues with tilt at different rotation angkes?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
@Bill Long okay that makes sense. I had been curious about that. I wonder if the Falcon would cause issues with tilt at different rotation angkes?
If it causes tilt, I would not use it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
@Bill Long okay that makes sense. I had been curious about that. I wonder if the Falcon would cause issues with tilt at different rotation angkes?
Depends on where the source of tilt is. If the tilt is between the rotator and the corrector and you fix tilt with a device on the other side... your rotation would nullify your tilt mitigation.
If the tilt is on the camera side of the rotator and your tilt device is on the same side... Rotating is no problem.
Of course it also depends on how precise the rotator is. Ask Pegasus what their spec is.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
That makes sense. However, as nice as having a rotator would be - I doubt I could cram that and an OAG with the EFW into the available backspace. Now if I was shooting with an OSC cam I could see getting the rotator in there but I prefer shooting mono personally.
Too bad the Gemini won't fit on the 160. I did hear from Optec it would work on the 180 though.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
That makes sense. However, as nice as having a rotator would be - I doubt I could cram that and an OAG with the EFW into the available backspace. Now if I was shooting with an OSC cam I could see getting the rotator in there but I prefer shooting mono personally.
Too bad the Gemini won't fit on the 160. I did hear from Optec it would work on the 180 though.
A litecrawler might fit.
I've got the LEO. I plan to just rotate manually using the upper flange.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
A litecrawler might fit.
I've got the LEO. I plan to just rotate manually using the upper flange.
/me Gets his popcorn ready.... ;)
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
| @Chris White since I have the LEO on order I'll have to defer to someone else using the Litecrawler. I wouldn't ming getting one for my 9.25" Edge though. Since I'm not imaging remotely I don't have an issue rotating manually. Those 5 steps out into the backyard are rough though...
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
@Chris White since I have the LEO on order I'll have to defer to someone else using the Litecrawler. I wouldn't ming getting one for my 9.25" Edge though. Since I'm not imaging remotely I don't have an issue rotating manually. Those 5 steps out into the backyard are rough though...
Ron has already come out saying the Litecrawler wont work.
@Chris White - I went over this with Ron before getting the Leo. It is a hard no.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
@Chris White since I have the LEO on order I'll have to defer to someone else using the Litecrawler. I wouldn't ming getting one for my 9.25" Edge though. Since I'm not imaging remotely I don't have an issue rotating manually. Those 5 steps out into the backyard are rough though...
Ron has already come out saying the Litecrawler wont work.
@Chris White - I went over this with Ron before getting the Leo. It is a hard no.
Oh! Well thats good to know. Lets nip that bud now then so people dont waste time looking into it.
Sorry everyone! Litecrawler WONT work with the e160!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
@Chris White since I have the LEO on order I'll have to defer to someone else using the Litecrawler. I wouldn't ming getting one for my 9.25" Edge though. Since I'm not imaging remotely I don't have an issue rotating manually. Those 5 steps out into the backyard are rough though...
Ron has already come out saying the Litecrawler wont work.
@Chris White - I went over this with Ron before getting the Leo. It is a hard no.
Oh! Well thats good to know. Lets nip that bud now then so people dont waste time looking into it.
Sorry everyone! Litecrawler WONT work with the e160!
For sure bro.
Its basically the same reason why the Gemini is fine on the 180 and not okay on the 160. I would imagine the LC is good on the 180.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
So it looks like the popular choices for stock focuser replacements would be either the Optec LEO or the Moonlite 2.5" Newtonian focuser. Moonlite makes flanges for the 130, 160 and 180 Epsilons. I wonder if I could get one for the MT-160??? Sorry...squirrel...
Has anyone used the Moonlite Focuser on their Epsilons? From everything I read it sounded like Optec was the more solid choice but I've always had good luck with the Moonlite focusers on refractors (I've used both the Nitecrawler and the 2.5" refractor focuser).
Don't get me wrong - I'm not second guessing the Optec at all - just curious as to options for anyone else out there who may want to change out their stock focuser.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
So it looks like the popular choices for stock focuser replacements would be either the Optec LEO or the Moonlite 2.5" Newtonian focuser. Moonlite makes flanges for the 130, 160 and 180 Epsilons. I wonder if I could get one for the MT-160??? Sorry...squirrel...
Has anyone used the Moonlite Focuser on their Epsilons? From everything I read it sounded like Optec was the more solid choice but I've always had good luck with the Moonlite focusers on refractors (I've used both the Nitecrawler and the 2.5" refractor focuser).
Don't get me wrong - I'm not second guessing the Optec at all - just curious as to options for anyone else out there who may want to change out their stock focuser.
I would not put one of those Moonlite Crayfords on any telescope dude, no disrespect to Ron but they are bad.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
@Bill Long I don't currently own a scope with the crayford moonlite on it actually. It was on a Stellarvue 80mm refractor I ended up selling. The previous owner installed it.
In regards to their Newtonian flange focusers - I've read that people had alignment issues with them on their Epsilons. That's partially why I went the Optec route - that and the praises I've seen on this forum.
I have a Gemini on my AG 12.5 iDK (which is sitting on the floor and hasnt seen the stars yet) and I am really impressed with the build quality. Once my MX+ gets in off back order I'll have it up and going. From bench testing it I'm sold on it.
So in short it looks like the main option for a replacement for our 160s is the Optec LEO right? I've seen adapters 3D printed that allows people to use the Tak focuser with a Pegasus Focus Cube or a ZWO EAF so that is an option for people wanting to autofocus but don't want to go the Optec route.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Daniel Carter:
@Bill Long I don't currently own a scope with the crayford moonlite on it actually. It was on a Stellarvue 80mm refractor I ended up selling. The previous owner installed it.
In regards to their Newtonian flange focusers - I've read that people had alignment issues with them on their Epsilons. That's partially why I went the Optec route - that and the praises I've seen on this forum.
I have a Gemini on my AG 12.5 iDK (which is sitting on the floor and hasnt seen the stars yet) and I am really impressed with the build quality. Once my MX+ gets in off back order I'll have it up and going. From bench testing it I'm sold on it.
So in short it looks like the main option for a replacement for our 160s is the Optec LEO right? I've seen adapters 3D printed that allows people to use the Tak focuser with a Pegasus Focus Cube or a ZWO EAF so that is an option for people wanting to autofocus but don't want to go the Optec route.
The stock focuser is bad, when it is not locked down. You cannot lock it down and use a motor. So, the stock focuser is okay from a certain point of view. How we use the telescope is not aligned with that, so we need another solution. The best of those solutions is the Leo.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
What a night of testing, and tweaking. After running the fan for 26 hours straight and covering the scope to shield it from the sun, there were a few tweaks I needed to make in NINA with the Octopi to get back to my ideal state of 3 micron or less correction. That is a horizon I have already overcome though and was not the pivotal point I wanted to dig into. After all of this work, and trust me, I have been on a long journey with this scope -- the last thing I wanted to figure out, with data in hand -- was the ultimate question!
How do I focus, this system, in the best way possible. This is the new mission for me!
For me and the system I use to run my telescopes (Voyager) there are three realistic options:
1. Single Star with Robofire
2. LocalField with Robofire
3. Single Star with Robofire + a small offset (suggested by Chris "The One Who Knocks" White).
When I thought about this logically, I assumed Heisenberg (Chris) was wrong. I thought Local Field should offset as well, so why would I need to manually do so?
Well, thoughts and assumptions are one thing, let's look at the data:
Looks like the -125 offset, as the master of meth-like Vermont Maple Syrup suggested, seems to be quite good. A little better than local field focus (which did pretty well, IMO).
But let's test this with less pressure on the CFZ (HA). Single star focus vs Single star with a -125-step offset:
Remarkable difference. I visually inspected all of these deltas, and the -125 step data was better. It seems that Mr. White is not only good at making Maple Syrup (he is - buy this stuff: Organic Pure Vermont Maple Syrup- Glass Jug) he is also very good at figuring out ways to solve field issues.
I would be remiss if I just sat here and mumbled.
Data here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s470zobje8ynrhw/AACYWTrZ1jSIov0XT-hAfr9ya?dl=0
Lots of it, so go through it yourself. Draw your own conclusions. For my next project I will try Maple White's suggestion and see what the project shows. Based on this testing, I think it will be optimal for this telescope.
Cheers,
Bill
PS -- I made jokes and references to the television show "Breaking Bad" here.
Sorry to broken your ideas about ...
LocalField is an average focus, like all the system running in this way. This kind of focus is useful when you want to make field flat as more as possible loosing focus precision. If you need an offset this means you have something not working fine in your system, defeact on primary mirror ... miscollimation .. tilt .. focuser sag/slippage or backfocus wrong distance.
Robostar works on a spot, you will get the best HFD possible.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Sorry to broken your ideas about ...
LocalField is an average focus, like all the system running in this way. This kind of focus is useful when you want to make field flat as more as possible loosing focus precision. If you need an offset this means you have something not working fine in your system, defeact on primary mirror ... miscollimation .. tilt .. focuser sag/slippage or backfocus wrong distance.
Robostar works on a spot, you will get the best HFD possible.
Good call out Leo, I actually tested all of these after this post, and I believe this offset is not actually doing anything other than worsening the center of the field at no real true benefit to the outer portion of the field. Not at least in terms of what I was trying to solve, which turns out to be a bottom left to upper right residual tilt, that the NINA solution could not detect.
The true fix, will be to adjust that pair, and get the field better corrected.
I will say - LocalField did do a good job of field balance.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
11.02
4.88
3.58
1.51
20.43
0.00
