Ashraf AbuSara:
I am considering removing the primary mirror for cleaning. From what I have read it seems rather straight forward.
So to be clear, I will point the OTA down, and completely unscrew the philips screws, and attach the so called "attachment detachment" screws that came with the OTA? This will not release the primary mirror and have it crash down on the secondary while pointing down... right?
Also, what is everyone doing to combat dew on the primary mirror in very humid regions? I have the rear fan cell installed and running at full power. I still notice dew spots /water droplets forming. Anyone putting a dew heater band around the primary on the outside of the OTA? Any issue with tube currents / thermal issues doing that? I live in a very humid area (Virginia) and have never had dew on the primary. I use the rear cell fan and a dew shield.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jeff Ridder:
Ashraf AbuSara:
I am considering removing the primary mirror for cleaning. From what I have read it seems rather straight forward.
So to be clear, I will point the OTA down, and completely unscrew the philips screws, and attach the so called "attachment detachment" screws that came with the OTA? This will not release the primary mirror and have it crash down on the secondary while pointing down... right?
Also, what is everyone doing to combat dew on the primary mirror in very humid regions? I have the rear fan cell installed and running at full power. I still notice dew spots /water droplets forming. Anyone putting a dew heater band around the primary on the outside of the OTA? Any issue with tube currents / thermal issues doing that?
I live in a very humid area (Virginia) and have never had dew on the primary. I use the rear cell fan and a dew shield. I use both the rear cell fan and the dew shield, and last few nights were ridiculously humid (coastal Texas). I don't know if dew is the right term. You can see water droplets suspended in the air if you use a flash light at night. They were also forming on the primary mirror like something almost "splashed the mirror with fine spray".
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Ashraf AbuSara:
Jeff Ridder:
Ashraf AbuSara:
I am considering removing the primary mirror for cleaning. From what I have read it seems rather straight forward.
So to be clear, I will point the OTA down, and completely unscrew the philips screws, and attach the so called "attachment detachment" screws that came with the OTA? This will not release the primary mirror and have it crash down on the secondary while pointing down... right?
Also, what is everyone doing to combat dew on the primary mirror in very humid regions? I have the rear fan cell installed and running at full power. I still notice dew spots /water droplets forming. Anyone putting a dew heater band around the primary on the outside of the OTA? Any issue with tube currents / thermal issues doing that?
I live in a very humid area (Virginia) and have never had dew on the primary. I use the rear cell fan and a dew shield.
I use both the rear cell fan and the dew shield, and last few nights were ridiculously humid (coastal Texas). I don't know if dew is the right term. You can see water droplets suspended in the air if you use a flash light at night. They were also forming on the primary mirror like something almost "splashed the mirror with fine spray". Fog. Dan
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dan Brown:
Ashraf AbuSara:
Jeff Ridder:
Ashraf AbuSara:
I am considering removing the primary mirror for cleaning. From what I have read it seems rather straight forward.
So to be clear, I will point the OTA down, and completely unscrew the philips screws, and attach the so called "attachment detachment" screws that came with the OTA? This will not release the primary mirror and have it crash down on the secondary while pointing down... right?
Also, what is everyone doing to combat dew on the primary mirror in very humid regions? I have the rear fan cell installed and running at full power. I still notice dew spots /water droplets forming. Anyone putting a dew heater band around the primary on the outside of the OTA? Any issue with tube currents / thermal issues doing that?
I live in a very humid area (Virginia) and have never had dew on the primary. I use the rear cell fan and a dew shield.
I use both the rear cell fan and the dew shield, and last few nights were ridiculously humid (coastal Texas). I don't know if dew is the right term. You can see water droplets suspended in the air if you use a flash light at night. They were also forming on the primary mirror like something almost "splashed the mirror with fine spray".
Fog.
Dan I suppose that is the best description. It is still very transparent enough to have a very clear view of the sky to image.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi all,
Did anyone who upgraded to a Leo on either a 160ED or 130D have trouble recollimating their Epsilon? I am having a dog of a time getting mine recollimated since installing the Leo. Collimation looks near perfect through the eyepiece, but absolute trash when I actually set up in the field. I can’t for the life of me figure out why! I installed the Leo according to the instructions. I also have made sure both mirrors are tight and hold collimation, so I don’t think it’s just that they are moving. As far as I can tell there is also nothing wrong with my Tak tool.
My system is 2.8”/px and my stars are awful (triangular) so something is clearly way off.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dan H. M.:
Hi all,
Did anyone who upgraded to a Leo on either a 160ED or 130D have trouble recollimating their Epsilon? I am having a dog of a time getting mine recollimated since installing the Leo. Collimation looks near perfect through the eyepiece, but absolute trash when I actually set up in the field. I can’t for the life of me figure out why! I installed the Leo according to the instructions. I also have made sure both mirrors are tight and hold collimation, so I don’t think it’s just that they are moving. As far as I can tell there is also nothing wrong with my Tak tool.
My system is 2.8”/px and my stars are awful (triangular) so something is clearly way off. Need data, otherwise might as well draw a solution out of a hat... Full resolution images at focus and even better would be a saved focus run.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Dan H. M.:
Hi all,
Did anyone who upgraded to a Leo on either a 160ED or 130D have trouble recollimating their Epsilon? I am having a dog of a time getting mine recollimated since installing the Leo. Collimation looks near perfect through the eyepiece, but absolute trash when I actually set up in the field. I can’t for the life of me figure out why! I installed the Leo according to the instructions. I also have made sure both mirrors are tight and hold collimation, so I don’t think it’s just that they are moving. As far as I can tell there is also nothing wrong with my Tak tool.
My system is 2.8”/px and my stars are awful (triangular) so something is clearly way off.
Need data, otherwise might as well draw a solution out of a hat...
Full resolution images at focus and even better would be a saved focus run. Hi Chris, Best I can do for now is raw subs. Unfortunately I haven't run HF or saved any snapshots. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14iFv4GRZDxAfzyMKFEut0dxX2eFOLunM/view?usp=drivehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hk8bg_STm4I783KojUIQHgKB6b-MYvaY/view?usp=drive_linkFor the Horsehead I adjusted the secondary slightly in the field (I know you're not supposed to do this - but I had nothing to lose) and it actually slightly improved the image.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
So it turns out my Leo saddle was *not* secured as well as I thought, and needed to be tightened down quite a bit. Collimation finally seems to be holding now. I think everything was shifting when I took the Tak tool out and screwed my camera in.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hello All,
I currently have an Epsilon 160 ED with a Leo focuser, a QHY 268 M (CFW3M-US FW) and a regular Photon Cage on a remote observatory in Spain. Since the launch of the Hercules focuser/rotator I've been fiddling with the idea of getting one. The possibilities the rotator would give me in terms of composition, shooting remote, are very appealing. On considering taking this step I still struggle with a couple of concerns.
My first is concern is about tilt and collimation holding on rotation. I have manually rotated the Leo corrector holder once and have not noticed any issue in that respect. But knowing what is the real life experience on regular rotation with the Hercules would help appease my concerns.
My second concern is about balance issues that the filter wheel could introduce on rotation. I have used rotators on scopes where the camera+filterwheel is placed behind the tube, but on newtonians the consequences of rotation on balance are different. I am considering using a filter wheel counterbalance to neutralize this, but I might not be able to do this since my focuser is hanging down and the DEC motor housing would be on the way.
I'm sure most of you have gone through these issues while building up your setups, so any tips would be of great help on helping me make the decision.
Thanks a lot in advance,
Jose
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Hello All,
I currently have an Epsilon 160 ED with a Leo focuser, a QHY 268 M (CFW3M-US FW) and a regular Photon Cage on a remote observatory in Spain. Since the launch of the Hercules focuser/rotator I've been fiddling with the idea of getting one. The possibilities the rotator would give me in terms of composition, shooting remote, are very appealing. On considering taking this step I still struggle with a couple of concerns.
My first is concern is about tilt and collimation holding on rotation. I have manually rotated the Leo corrector holder once and have not noticed any issue in that respect. But knowing what is the real life experience on regular rotation with the Hercules would help appease my concerns.
My second concern is about balance issues that the filter wheel could introduce on rotation. I have used rotators on scopes where the camera+filterwheel is placed behind the tube, but on newtonians the consequences of rotation on balance are different. I am considering using a filter wheel counterbalance to neutralize this, but I might not be able to do this since my focuser is hanging down and the DEC motor housing would be on the way.
I'm sure most of you have gone through these issues while building up your setups, so any tips would be of great help on helping me make the decision.
Thanks a lot in advance,
Jose Hi Jose — My remote E160 uses the Hercules. I should do this more quantitatively by taking a few exposures at different rotation angles and comparing them via ASTAP. However, my qualitative experience is that the differences in tilt at various rotation angles are extremely small — well within the range of “correctable by BlurX.” This would also account for any error induced by filter wheel imbalance, which I think is pretty minor compared to the effects of gravity acting on that cantilevered beam of an imaging train as the scope tracks across the sky all night. All-in-all, very minor variations. I should note that I’m using a QHY600M—full frame. I don’t think you’ll have any issues with 268M on a Hercules.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jeff Ridder:
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Hello All,
I currently have an Epsilon 160 ED with a Leo focuser, a QHY 268 M (CFW3M-US FW) and a regular Photon Cage on a remote observatory in Spain. Since the launch of the Hercules focuser/rotator I've been fiddling with the idea of getting one. The possibilities the rotator would give me in terms of composition, shooting remote, are very appealing. On considering taking this step I still struggle with a couple of concerns.
My first is concern is about tilt and collimation holding on rotation. I have manually rotated the Leo corrector holder once and have not noticed any issue in that respect. But knowing what is the real life experience on regular rotation with the Hercules would help appease my concerns.
My second concern is about balance issues that the filter wheel could introduce on rotation. I have used rotators on scopes where the camera+filterwheel is placed behind the tube, but on newtonians the consequences of rotation on balance are different. I am considering using a filter wheel counterbalance to neutralize this, but I might not be able to do this since my focuser is hanging down and the DEC motor housing would be on the way.
I'm sure most of you have gone through these issues while building up your setups, so any tips would be of great help on helping me make the decision.
Thanks a lot in advance,
Jose
Hi Jose — My remote E160 uses the Hercules. I should probably do this more quantitatively by taking a few exposures at different rotation angles and comparing via ASTAP. But my qualitative experience is that the differences in tilt at different rotation angles is extremely small — well within the range of “correctable by BlurX.” This would also account for any error induced by filter wheel imbalance, which I think is pretty minor compared to the effects of gravity acting on that cantilevered beam of an imaging train as the scope tracks across the sky all night. All-in-all, very minor variations.
I should note that I’m using a QHY600M — full frame. I don’t think you’ll have any issues at all with 268M on a Hercules. Thanks a lot for your answer Jeff!! That is quite reassuring.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Jeff Ridder:
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Hello All,
I currently have an Epsilon 160 ED with a Leo focuser, a QHY 268 M (CFW3M-US FW) and a regular Photon Cage on a remote observatory in Spain. Since the launch of the Hercules focuser/rotator I've been fiddling with the idea of getting one. The possibilities the rotator would give me in terms of composition, shooting remote, are very appealing. On considering taking this step I still struggle with a couple of concerns.
My first is concern is about tilt and collimation holding on rotation. I have manually rotated the Leo corrector holder once and have not noticed any issue in that respect. But knowing what is the real life experience on regular rotation with the Hercules would help appease my concerns.
My second concern is about balance issues that the filter wheel could introduce on rotation. I have used rotators on scopes where the camera+filterwheel is placed behind the tube, but on newtonians the consequences of rotation on balance are different. I am considering using a filter wheel counterbalance to neutralize this, but I might not be able to do this since my focuser is hanging down and the DEC motor housing would be on the way.
I'm sure most of you have gone through these issues while building up your setups, so any tips would be of great help on helping me make the decision.
Thanks a lot in advance,
Jose
Hi Jose — My remote E160 uses the Hercules. I should probably do this more quantitatively by taking a few exposures at different rotation angles and comparing via ASTAP. But my qualitative experience is that the differences in tilt at different rotation angles is extremely small — well within the range of “correctable by BlurX.” This would also account for any error induced by filter wheel imbalance, which I think is pretty minor compared to the effects of gravity acting on that cantilevered beam of an imaging train as the scope tracks across the sky all night. All-in-all, very minor variations.
I should note that I’m using a QHY600M — full frame. I don’t think you’ll have any issues at all with 268M on a Hercules.
Thanks a lot for your answer Jeff!! That is quite reassuring. Ahhh! I forgot mentioning. I am using a 10 Micron 1000 mount and shooting unguided. I read that some of you are using the Epsi+Hercules on Astro Physics mounts with modelling capabilties. Do you shoot unguided or not? Is rotation afecting unguided performance? I exchanged a couple of personal messages on CN with an astrophotographer who is using the exact same setup I am planning to (excpet he is using the QHY 600 M and probably a bigger FW). He told me that he has no issues with unguided performance but, being mobile, he builds a new model every night. In my case the rotation dependent imbalance would not be big. The QHY 268 M with photon cage really dwarfs the CFW3 M-US. I tested balancing the thing on a pencil and the center of mass lies very close to the chip and, hence, the center of rotation. Still, my idea would be to have prebuilt models for rotations going from 0º (45º EAST from the N-S direction) to 90º (45º WEST from the N-S direction) on 5º or 10º increments and only use those pre chosen rotations for framing new targets. In summary, do you think unguided mono shooting with the Hercules is possible? Would I need to make, and every now and then remake, all those models? Thanks again for your feedback. Have a nice weekend, Jose
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Jeff Ridder:
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Hello All,
I currently have an Epsilon 160 ED with a Leo focuser, a QHY 268 M (CFW3M-US FW) and a regular Photon Cage on a remote observatory in Spain. Since the launch of the Hercules focuser/rotator I've been fiddling with the idea of getting one. The possibilities the rotator would give me in terms of composition, shooting remote, are very appealing. On considering taking this step I still struggle with a couple of concerns.
My first is concern is about tilt and collimation holding on rotation. I have manually rotated the Leo corrector holder once and have not noticed any issue in that respect. But knowing what is the real life experience on regular rotation with the Hercules would help appease my concerns.
My second concern is about balance issues that the filter wheel could introduce on rotation. I have used rotators on scopes where the camera+filterwheel is placed behind the tube, but on newtonians the consequences of rotation on balance are different. I am considering using a filter wheel counterbalance to neutralize this, but I might not be able to do this since my focuser is hanging down and the DEC motor housing would be on the way.
I'm sure most of you have gone through these issues while building up your setups, so any tips would be of great help on helping me make the decision.
Thanks a lot in advance,
Jose
Hi Jose — My remote E160 uses the Hercules. I should probably do this more quantitatively by taking a few exposures at different rotation angles and comparing via ASTAP. But my qualitative experience is that the differences in tilt at different rotation angles is extremely small — well within the range of “correctable by BlurX.” This would also account for any error induced by filter wheel imbalance, which I think is pretty minor compared to the effects of gravity acting on that cantilevered beam of an imaging train as the scope tracks across the sky all night. All-in-all, very minor variations.
I should note that I’m using a QHY600M — full frame. I don’t think you’ll have any issues at all with 268M on a Hercules.
Thanks a lot for your answer Jeff!! That is quite reassuring.
Ahhh! I forgot mentioning. I am using a 10 Micron 1000 mount and shooting unguided. I read that some of you are using the Epsi+Hercules on Astro Physics mounts with modelling capabilties. Do you shoot unguided or not? Is rotation afecting unguided performance?
I exchanged a couple of personal messages on CN with an astrophotographer who is using the exact same setup I am planning to (excpet he is using the QHY 600 M an probably a bigger FW). He told me that he has no issues with unguided performance but, being mobile, he builds a new model every night.
In my case the rotation dependent imbalance would not be big. The QHY 268 M with photon cage really dwarfs the CFW3 M-US. I tested balancing the thing on a pencil and the center of mass lies very close to the chip and, hence, the center of rotation. Still, my idea would be to have prebuilt models for rotations going from 0º (45º EAST from the N-S direction) to 90º (45º WEST from the N-S direction) on 5º or 10º increments and only use those pre chosen rotations for framing new targets.
In summary, do you think unguided mono shooting with the Hercules is possible? Would I need to make, and every now and then remake, all those models?
Thanks again for your feedback. Have a nice weekend,
Jose I shoot unguided on AP Mach2 with E160 + Hercules + QHY600. No issues. This is in a remote, permanent setting.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jeff Ridder:
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Jeff Ridder:
Jose Ignacio Sanchez:
Hello All,
I currently have an Epsilon 160 ED with a Leo focuser, a QHY 268 M (CFW3M-US FW) and a regular Photon Cage on a remote observatory in Spain. Since the launch of the Hercules focuser/rotator I've been fiddling with the idea of getting one. The possibilities the rotator would give me in terms of composition, shooting remote, are very appealing. On considering taking this step I still struggle with a couple of concerns.
My first is concern is about tilt and collimation holding on rotation. I have manually rotated the Leo corrector holder once and have not noticed any issue in that respect. But knowing what is the real life experience on regular rotation with the Hercules would help appease my concerns.
My second concern is about balance issues that the filter wheel could introduce on rotation. I have used rotators on scopes where the camera+filterwheel is placed behind the tube, but on newtonians the consequences of rotation on balance are different. I am considering using a filter wheel counterbalance to neutralize this, but I might not be able to do this since my focuser is hanging down and the DEC motor housing would be on the way.
I'm sure most of you have gone through these issues while building up your setups, so any tips would be of great help on helping me make the decision.
Thanks a lot in advance,
Jose
Hi Jose — My remote E160 uses the Hercules. I should probably do this more quantitatively by taking a few exposures at different rotation angles and comparing via ASTAP. But my qualitative experience is that the differences in tilt at different rotation angles is extremely small — well within the range of “correctable by BlurX.” This would also account for any error induced by filter wheel imbalance, which I think is pretty minor compared to the effects of gravity acting on that cantilevered beam of an imaging train as the scope tracks across the sky all night. All-in-all, very minor variations.
I should note that I’m using a QHY600M — full frame. I don’t think you’ll have any issues at all with 268M on a Hercules.
Thanks a lot for your answer Jeff!! That is quite reassuring.
Ahhh! I forgot mentioning. I am using a 10 Micron 1000 mount and shooting unguided. I read that some of you are using the Epsi+Hercules on Astro Physics mounts with modelling capabilties. Do you shoot unguided or not? Is rotation afecting unguided performance?
I exchanged a couple of personal messages on CN with an astrophotographer who is using the exact same setup I am planning to (excpet he is using the QHY 600 M an probably a bigger FW). He told me that he has no issues with unguided performance but, being mobile, he builds a new model every night.
In my case the rotation dependent imbalance would not be big. The QHY 268 M with photon cage really dwarfs the CFW3 M-US. I tested balancing the thing on a pencil and the center of mass lies very close to the chip and, hence, the center of rotation. Still, my idea would be to have prebuilt models for rotations going from 0º (45º EAST from the N-S direction) to 90º (45º WEST from the N-S direction) on 5º or 10º increments and only use those pre chosen rotations for framing new targets.
In summary, do you think unguided mono shooting with the Hercules is possible? Would I need to make, and every now and then remake, all those models?
Thanks again for your feedback. Have a nice weekend,
Jose
I shoot unguided on AP Mach2 with E160 + Hercules + QHY600. No issues. This is in a remote, permanent setting. Thanks a lot Jeff!!! You have just reduced my cognitive disonance regarding the Hercules  |
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Because I am a glutton for punishment (and I like shiny new things), Pavel from Moravian Instruments did confirm that they will be coming out with a centerline FW for 50mm round filters (they have one for the squares); and therefor, I MUST have one. If there're ANY balance issues with the Hercules rotator and the ZWO EFW (I can't see 'em so far), then that item should take care of it. Plus, it'll look more streamlined. I might even paint racing stripes on it!
MZ
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Because I am a glutton for punishment (and I like shiny new things), Pavel from Moravian Instruments did confirm that they will be coming out with a centerline FW for 50mm round filters (they have one for the squares); and therefor, I MUST have one. If there're ANY balance issues with the Hercules rotator and the ZWO EFW (I can't see 'em so far), then that item should take care of it. Plus, it'll look more streamlined. I might even paint racing stripes on it!
MZ I love you man...
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Because I am a glutton for punishment (and I like shiny new things), Pavel from Moravian Instruments did confirm that they will be coming out with a centerline FW for 50mm round filters (they have one for the squares); and therefor, I MUST have one. If there're ANY balance issues with the Hercules rotator and the ZWO EFW (I can't see 'em so far), then that item should take care of it. Plus, it'll look more streamlined. I might even paint racing stripes on it!
MZ Is that the type of rotator with two carousels inside? If so, doesn't that double the back-focus of it compared to a sing carousel model? Isn't back-focus really tight/small on 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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Because I am a glutton for punishment (and I like shiny new things), Pavel from Moravian Instruments did confirm that they will be coming out with a centerline FW for 50mm round filters (they have one for the squares); and therefor, I MUST have one. If there're ANY balance issues with the Hercules rotator and the ZWO EFW (I can't see 'em so far), then that item should take care of it. Plus, it'll look more streamlined. I might even paint racing stripes on it!
MZ We are a dealer for Moravian cameras and accessories. The standalone EFW is only currently available in 65mm square, with the 50mm square version coming. I would expect to see a 50mm round option at some point. If you do not need a guider, any of the Moravian cameras with this wheel will fit in the 56.2mm of spacing available. Moravian camera adapters have tilt correction available on them if needed (unlikely) so on a system with a Hercules focuser (we’re also a dealer for these) you would have one very nice and clean setup on the e160ED.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
John Stone:
Because I am a glutton for punishment (and I like shiny new things), Pavel from Moravian Instruments did confirm that they will be coming out with a centerline FW for 50mm round filters (they have one for the squares); and therefor, I MUST have one. If there're ANY balance issues with the Hercules rotator and the ZWO EFW (I can't see 'em so far), then that item should take care of it. Plus, it'll look more streamlined. I might even paint racing stripes on it!
MZ
Is that the type of rotator with two carousels inside? If so, doesn't that double the back-focus of it compared to a sing carousel model?
Isn't back-focus really tight/small on the E160? Backfocus distance is the same with the Hercules as with other focusers — 56.2mm from the corrector. The Hercules is thicker than the TCF-LEO and uses the same flange, but the adapter from flange to focuser is thinner. The focal point with my Hercules is almost exactly midway — about 60000 out of 112000 steps.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Because I am a glutton for punishment (and I like shiny new things), Pavel from Moravian Instruments did confirm that they will be coming out with a centerline FW for 50mm round filters (they have one for the squares); and therefor, I MUST have one. If there're ANY balance issues with the Hercules rotator and the ZWO EFW (I can't see 'em so far), then that item should take care of it. Plus, it'll look more streamlined. I might even paint racing stripes on it!
MZ
We are a dealer for Moravian cameras and accessories. The standalone EFW is only currently available in 65mm square, with the 50mm square version coming. I would expect to see a 50mm round option at some point.
If you do not need a guider, any of the Moravian cameras with this wheel will fit in the 56.2mm of spacing available. Moravian camera adapters have tilt correction available on them if needed (unlikely) so on a system with a Hercules focuser (we’re also a dealer for these) you would have one very nice and clean setup on the e160ED. There’s an external EFW for 50mm round filters, isn’t there? You could fit a C3-61000 with one of those? What would the backspacing be with that combo? Asking for a friend. Or maybe me if I ever win the 110gtx lottery.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jeff Ridder:
John Stone:
Because I am a glutton for punishment (and I like shiny new things), Pavel from Moravian Instruments did confirm that they will be coming out with a centerline FW for 50mm round filters (they have one for the squares); and therefor, I MUST have one. If there're ANY balance issues with the Hercules rotator and the ZWO EFW (I can't see 'em so far), then that item should take care of it. Plus, it'll look more streamlined. I might even paint racing stripes on it!
MZ
Is that the type of rotator with two carousels inside? If so, doesn't that double the back-focus of it compared to a sing carousel model?
Isn't back-focus really tight/small on the E160?
Backfocus distance is the same with the Hercules as with other focusers — 56.2mm from the corrector. The Hercules is thicker than the TCF-LEO and uses the same flange, but the adapter from flange to focuser is thinner. The focal point with my Hercules is almost exactly midway — about 60000 out of 112000 steps. Jeff, he's talking about the filter wheel carousels not the focuser rotator.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Jeff Ridder:
John Stone:
Because I am a glutton for punishment (and I like shiny new things), Pavel from Moravian Instruments did confirm that they will be coming out with a centerline FW for 50mm round filters (they have one for the squares); and therefor, I MUST have one. If there're ANY balance issues with the Hercules rotator and the ZWO EFW (I can't see 'em so far), then that item should take care of it. Plus, it'll look more streamlined. I might even paint racing stripes on it!
MZ
Is that the type of rotator with two carousels inside? If so, doesn't that double the back-focus of it compared to a sing carousel model?
Isn't back-focus really tight/small on the E160?
Backfocus distance is the same with the Hercules as with other focusers — 56.2mm from the corrector. The Hercules is thicker than the TCF-LEO and uses the same flange, but the adapter from flange to focuser is thinner. The focal point with my Hercules is almost exactly midway — about 60000 out of 112000 steps.
Jeff, he's talking about the filter wheel carousels not the focuser rotator. Ah. Got 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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Yes, it will fit!!! And, I have a set of 50mm round filters for my QHY600 cameras, so I am NOT buying new filters…hence my waiting for the centerline FW that comes out for those filters. I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid!!!
I've never used a double-wheeled centerline FW before (I think FLI was the only one I recall), but I assume that the discrepancy in where one set of filters are sitting and the other (depending on their wheel) wouldn't be problematic since I refocus at each filter change.
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I have had this on my bench for a while, having more pressing things to manage, but am nearly at a point where I can finish setting the system up for work outside.  The Pb counterweight nicely negates the FW. Photon cage on the C1x. Hercules in line with scope axis, on bottom. Before the photon cage, I tried quite unsuccessfully to use the Moravian tilt plate. The 10micron 1000 that it was on at the time has the expected issues with horizons when the system was rotated southward and low, and this was heavily dependent on rotation of the camera. After moving my larger scope to an AP 1100, I tried sliding this over to my available Mach 2, and found the mount far more forgiving space-wise. I did not at that time explore it in more than a cursory way though. That will come... Cheers, Kenward
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
You know, I always had a terrible time in arts & craft and shop…so I can't make ANYTHING on my own. Centerline for me!!! (But that's VERY cool!)
MZ
|
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.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
