Posts Made By: Tom Masterson

Steve:

Try this division of Edmund Optics. http://anchoroptics.com/
The Telrad lens is a single convex lens most likely uncoated. You'll need to figure out the focal length which should measure from the lens to face of the illuminated reticle.

Good luck.

Hi David,

My experience has been the DSI color should focus with a PST. The DSI-PRO has the additional height of the bridge that the filter slide goes into, and this moves the CCD sensor father back. The fix is to use a DSI-C faceplate - or custom flat faceplate to get to focus. The problem is getting the CCD sensor far enough inward to achieve focus.

One trick I used to get a little more back focus was to unthread the black anodized barlow element from a Meade #140 barlow from its tube. The threads are standard filter threads so the element housing threads into of the CCD. This gives enough without adding too much magnification. It looks like this is basically what the Siebert adapter is.

I've had CCD nose piece tubes that are a little too long to fit completely into the PST eyepiece holder. I've either made a shorter one or purchased a spare and shaved off some of the end so the housing fits right up against the top of the eyepiece holder. Does your DSI fit all the way in?

Hope this helps.

Jess,

Is there a way of removing the covers - if any - to get access to the prisms or mirrors? If so, you might be able to use a small soft brush to flick off dust, then a cotton Q-Tip moistened with lens cleaner to GENTLY clean off any film on the prisms. For cleaning lenses and prisms I use a "Safe for coated optics" eyeglass cleaner.

If you can remove the eyepeice holders for de-rusting that would be best.

I converted a Zeiss microscope head about 5 years ago and the results were great. I had to remove the 45 degree prism and housing and re-attach the nosepiece to the bottom of the housing. My unit had covers that pulled off each side revealing the optics. Another option is to contact Harry Siebert at www.siebertoptics.com I remember reading that he cleans and collimates binoviewers - and not just his own.

Good luck with your project.

Ivan:

Looks like an older Meade "Research Grade" Reflector.

Charlie:

The controller goes through a self test each time the scope is powered up. A normal start-up has the controller moving the RA motor a little. If the motor doesn't respond, the controller sits and waits, and waits. The failure could be as simple as a loose or broken connector, wire, or less likely, a component failure. A few capacitors are prone to failure in the LX200. Other weak spots are the IR emitters and sensors on each drive. Their "legs" break at their base where the leg enters the epoxy. The little wires that go to small boards on the motor/drives can break or can come loose from their connectors from repeated movement. I've had conflicting reports as to whether Meade will even repair these scopes anymore, but you could call.

Here's another place that says they will do electronic repairs on the LX200. You'll have to be brave and remove the electronics to send them in. http://www.astronomy-shoppe.com/repairs.htm One more thing to try, just for the heck of it.... With the power off (of course) unplug your hand controller and check the contacts on both the cord and the socket, then do the same for your dec cable - make sure they are clean. Holding the locking tab down, work the plug in and out of the socket a tiny bit to "scrub" the contacts, then click them into place and power up the scope. I doubt with will fix it, but its worth a try just DON'T do this with the power on!!

Good luck.

Steve:

One important question is, where is the second 90 coming from? It will have to be matched to your existing etalon (unless you are quite lucky).

Tom:

Congratulations on the purchase of your new toy. A couple bits of good news. The Intes Mak-Casses are excellent scopes - I owned a 6" and it produced razor sharp images. At f/10 they are VERY eyepiece friendly so super expensive eyepieces aren't needed for good views. You could get by with just one diagonal - a 90degree one. For terrestial viewing, stuff will be right side up, but reversed left to right. If you want, and the budget allows, grab yourself an inexpensive 45 degree diagonal. There are several choices at our sponsor's website - here http://www.buytelescopes.com/product_list.asp?t=54 Another place is here: http://www.telescope.com/control/category/~category_id=diagonals/~pcategory=accessories;jsessionid=50DA92D87612C93038BFDD879CB09F63.ivprod1 I'd go with a cheap 45 degree and pay more for the dielectric one in the 90degree version. That type is more durable and gives more light throughput.

As for eyepieces your options are pretty wide open depending on your budget. I agree a 40mm widefield type is a must for the widest possible field of view at low power. An eyepiece such as the one listed in the other post would give you 32x and a 2.1 degree field of view - over 4 full moons in width. Even though I have a case full of eyepeices, I use three primary focal lengths - 40mm for low power, 15 - 17mm for medium power and 8 - 10mm for high power. You don't need 2" for medium/high power 1-1/4" will do. Hope this helps.

Martin:

I don't have any direct experience with the Meade scope but something in your posting makes me wonder if it is even the lens. In the last part, you say the out of focus star is concentric on one side of focus and off on the other side of focus. First thing that comes to mind is the focuser not being square with the optical axis. If this is the case, as you rack the eyepiece in and out it changes its position with respect to the center of the light cone. Racking farther each way should have the bullseye moving back and forth from one side of focus to the other.

Is there any way you can rotate the lens cell and retest? If its the lens, the axis of astimatism will rotate an equal amount. If it doesn't change, I'd suspect the tail end might be the problem.

Just a thought.

Walt.

The simple answer is yes, and no.

You'll probably end up with both a moderate and a very low power eyepiece. Something in the 16 - 18mm ranger for moderate is perfect. In 40 years of observing with many different scopes and eyepieces, I've always owned and used an eyepiece in this focal range. I currently have the 17mm Stratus and use it a lot. BUT, you'll also want a very low power 2" eyepiece for those objects that demand the widest field possible in your scope such as M31, the Double cluster, M81 and 82 in the same field, etc. For that you'll need something in the 32 - 40mm range in a widefield design. You budget will determine the eyepiece design. The more you spend, the better corrected the whole field of view will be. That said, to get yourself started there are numerous 2 inchers in the 65 - 70 degree apparent field design in the $100 range. This will give you a good starting base while you learn what you like and don't like and will give you time to start saving you pennies in a jar for that future 41mm PanOptic or 31mm Nagler. 8O

Bill:

Well corrected and the other terms can truely be described in absolutes. Well corrected means any abberation its refering to is held at a very low level - possibly not noticeable to the average observer. Yet to an experienced critical eye, the abberation might still be seen. In your field the term "reasonable doubt" come to mind. One could define it in general, but as you know, what's reasonal to one group or individual may not be to the next! Think of "well corrected" as more of an advertising term than anything. Without knowing the exact case by case specifications it can be pretty meaningless.

I'd say these most terms must be considered when compared to the whole. Saturated or vivid colors in an object are relative to other objects in the night sky - the VAST majority of which are shades of grey. I've found that now that I've reached middle age, the "vivid" colors of blue or green in planetary nebulas are difficult or impossible to see, yet other observers will look in the eyepiece and say wow, that's really blue. My wife is a perfect example; after being around me and my hobby for 25 years, she still says we astronomers "make up" with our imaginations much of what we describe at the eyepiece. To her it NEVER looks like a swan, a hunter, a dumbell, nor does it show any color.