Posts Made By: Philip Canard

I went to the local hardware store and bought large corks to seal my 2" openings in my scope and diagonal. They can be clamped harder with the compression ring than the flimsy plastic plugs you get with astro gear. The price is right as well and they are hard to lose and quite tough and resilient.

Phil

Floyd,

If I were strapped for money, I would put the difference between coatings into a better diagonal or better eyepieces or ANYTHING where the $100-$300 really made a difference. The $125 difference paid between UHTC and standard coatings doesn't give you much as far as visual observing goes in my SN8, but it would cut down long photo times a bit. So for photography, possibly worth it. It does nothing for resolution, and your eyes don't know 10% difference in light levels unless switching back and forth quickly and repeatedly. Also, most dielectric reflective coatings that I have checked out get rid of IR, which would hurt photography that needed IR wavelengths. I think that the difference between a cheap $50 diagonal and a $175 diagonal is easily noticeable, and I put the $125 difference into a Stellarvue 2" dielectric diagonal for my LOMO Mak-Cass. I can't tell the difference between straight in and with the 2" Stellarvue dielectric diagonal in place at 400X, but with a cheap prism diagonal it is very apparent there is something else in the optical path. When I can clearly and easily see a difference, plus upgrade to 2" EP capability, then it's worth paying for. You can always get mirrors and lenses recoated down the road if you really like the scope and decide to keep it long term.

Some people buy the enhanced coatings only for resale value later on, and it's a valid point if you like to play around with different scopes and end up trading often. I just see my SN8 as a cheap workhorse that has to stay portable, and if I wanted more light all that bad, I would have spent the extra money for an SN10 for about the difference in coating upgrade price. I spent money on a 2-speed JMI focuser instead, and it is a HUGE difference in practical utility. Driving a short distance to a dark sky site gets me AT LEAST as much performance boost as 4 extra inches of aperture. Most people would do well to upgrade their mount before thinking about fancy coatings, because most mounts can't handle much wind at all before getting shaky. Get in the dark, get focused/collimated and get steady. Then you will start to see things. Installing fans on a big Newtonian will do more for visual observing than fancy coatings, and it costs a lot less. Fancy coatings in astronomy is somewhat analogous to "magic wire" in audio. Wire has to be garbage before it really starts degrading sound. Connectors are where much more audio signal is lost, as it is where breaks take place in the signal. Eyepieces and diagonals represent breaks in the visual signal, and it's best to spend money there first and get it compatible with your scope.

Also, getting a good laser collimator that's actually collimated is more important than fancy coatings if you own a reflector scope, and especially a fast Newtonian. I also used my precision American built laser collimator to align my Mak corrector into the best position. LIGHT THAT IS FOCUSED TO A POINT IS BRIGHTER than light that is spread out over a larger area. I have seen the central star in M57 with my 8" SN8 on one particularly clear and steady night. It's rarely possible, but doable if the scope is well collimated, which my f/4 SN8 is. Nearly a textbook perfect star test,and collimated totally indoors with my old AstroSystems laser collimator built back sometime in the 90's and bought for a lot less than a coating upgrade for a small reflector. A small miscollimation will cost you more light than going from enhanced to standard coatings when looking at very small and dim stars.

Also, lucking out and getting near perfect optical figure is better than fancy coatings on second rate glass. My SN8 has managed to do things that only the best 8" CAT's have done, and it shows a near textbook star test, so why worry?

Phil

To all devoted cyclops viewers,

The binoviewer movement is no fad and no hype, when taken for exactly what it is. For one thing, Tele Vue does not have the nicest binovs for sale, although they have been at it longer than most. Lightness is a real asset here, and Siebert Optics has the lightest binovs and matching EP's to be found from anybody. The SO range of OCA's isn't even remotely matched by anybody else. For only about twice of what you pay for the cheap and flimsy Chinese binovs, you can have a Siebert BN22 that is a very definite step up in quality. $300 is dirt cheap compared to a Tele Vue binov, and the light weight will not cause diagonal/focuser sag nearly as much as with TV's and Denks. Especially if you also use Siebert Optic's featherweight eyepieces. I own a LOMO Asele 150, and since it needs no OCA to bring a binov to focus, this scope kills with my Siebert BN22. I run 375X mag (the theoretical maximum) with a pair of 6.4mm Star Splitters, and on a night of excellent seeing, the LOMO Astele 150 MCT begs for more mag on bright objects. Gary Hand told me it would easily run 400X and more and defy the rule-of-thumb of max power (2.5 times the aperture in mm) when properly outfitted and collimated. The Siebert BN22 really allows a comfortable viewing experience when running at such high mags. A moon filter is not needed at such high mags, and the binov alleviates my eye floaters which were very bothersome through a single EP.

My second Siebert BN22 is on order and due to arrive shortly. The Chinese binovs are gone for good, never to return. I have a Power Mag Wheel on order for my Meade SNT and refractor. I have another pair of Siebert Optics Star Splitters in 4.4mm FL on order to back up my 6.4mm and 8.9mm pairs when the seeing permits. I can honestly say the Star Splitters are my best planetary EP's, no matter if using them singly or in a binov. The Star Splitters and BN22 are always grabbed first when viewing through the LOMO at high mags. I ordered a single 38mm Observatory Series EP from Harry Siebert when going as wide as possible with the LOMO. Low power, wide field deep sky viewing is the only area where I feel that binoviewing takes a back seat to cyclops mode, but probably only because I don't have the proper scope and money for Harry's 2" Elite series binoviewers. I use cyclops mode in my terrestrial scope for quick looks and quick setup. The Echelon and Elite series of binoviewers with their advanced mirror design that gets rid of prism effects will probably kill the idea that binoviewers cause a marked degradation of image at very high powers. I'm not seeing the high power image degradation even in my BN22's, probably because the floater reduction counteracts the prism effects. That makes my opinion user dependent, but for older people with eye floaters, binovs are more than a nice accessory with psychologically positive effects. The effects are very real and very noticeable and make for a much more comfortable viewing experience.

Some important point to remember: No scope that needs an OCA to bring the binov to focus will equal an MCT, SCT or long focus refractor of very high quality that needs no OCA in the light path. A fast Newtonian is not the ideal scope for a binov, although my f/4 SNT with 1.8X Maxlite OCA from Siebert Optics does a pretty good job on deep sky anyway. Panoptics, Naglers and Axioms will NOT equal the performance of Star Splitters, Ultimas, TV Plossls, or UO HD Orthos in binovs. You want SIMPLE EP's to get the most out of binovs, unless a wide angle spacewalk is your big thrill, and that is problematic as binovs are not conducive to rolling your eyes around without blackouts. You look straight ahead and slew the scope around, just like when using binoculars in terrestrial viewing. I use my Axioms quite a bit on deep sky with my BN22, but they really fall down in comparison to a good planetary EP when running high mags on bright objects. Get some good Ultimas, Star Splitters, TV Plossls or UO Orthos before blowing big money on heavy and expensive wideangle EP's from Pentax, Tele Vue, Meade, et al. The Star Splitters have the widest AFOV in the economical eyepiece world, and they are my favorites for that reason and more. They were designed in the beginning for binoviewers, and their constant eye relief across the series is a BIG plus; although too short for eyeglasses, you will never need eyeglasses at the tiny exit pupils that are the realm of planetary viewing. If your eyes are that bad, no eyepiece at any price is going to seem much better, I would suspect.

Get a good, steady mount for high mag binov work. The best for the money is the Synta Atlas mount sold by Orion and others. I got in just under the wire. The price recently raised to $1200 and $1430 depending on whether you need the GoTo computer or not. I would spend big bucks on a VERY steady mount before spending big bucks on expensive wideangle EP's for binoviewing. At least get the Synta Sirius mount if using a 6" or smaller MCT or SCT. You can chain the tripod to the ground for additional steadiness, with a turnbuckle for tension adjustment. Don't get Chinese binoviewers unless you REALLY cannot pay the $300 for a Siebert BN22 or $400 for the Denk Big Easy. Neither of my Chinese binovs were critically collimated as my BN22 is. You want a tough binov that has good collimation to begin with and holds it through bumps and rough handling.

Clear skies and open eyes,
Phil

It uses a pulse width modulation circuit with a one second window. Therefore, at 50% power the current is fully on for half a second and cut off completely for half a second. This means there is no heat wasted in a series resistor as it's the same as if you turned a switch on and off. It's very efficient way of controlling power, but you will hear your scope mount motors speed up and slow down as the current increases and decreases as the circuit switches power on and off to the heaters, especially if your battery is rather small. This is most noticeable on the fastest slew speed on my LXD75 mount and 10 AH battery pack. I use quiet slew mode anyway, and since the motors draw much less current that way, the effect is much less noticeable.

You can get a 555 timer circuit cookbook from Radio Shack and rig up your own similar circuit. The timer will switch a solid state relay which lets current flow in the heater circuit. A potentiometer controls the on/off cycle during the timing window as it is a variable resistor used to control charging current into the timing capacitor which allows a trigger voltage to rise, after which it discharges and the cycle repeats. Really simple stuff.

An improvement would be to put the LED for each channel in the current path and let it light when heating current is applied and turn off when current is off, so that an instant check of power percentage is available without turning on a light to check the setting of each control knob. An easy thing to add to the circuit for anybody with elementary electronic skills. If the light is on and off half the time, you have half power. For full power, it's on all the time.

I'll probably make my own controllers in the future rather than buy any more. I can get my hands on much better parts than Kendrick or Thousand Oaks uses in these things. For one thing, an RCA plug and jack is junk as far as a high current application is concerned, especially one exposed to dew and the elements. You need o-ring sealed AMP connectors and such, if you really want it done right and not give trouble later on. This is for serious people that need equipment that works, not guys out for occasional thrills and looking for low end consumer electronic prices. The RCA jack and plug is an old cheapo consumer audio connector that is practically never seen in pro level audio gear. It has no place in a low impedance, high current heater circuit. That is the sorry low grade state of affairs in much of amateur astronomy. The vinyl plastic used in scope heater cabling is also a sore point with me. It becomes very stiff on cold nights, and rubber insulation that stays very supple at low temperatures is used in electrical cabling in many other types of products. Amateur astronomers need to demand better electrical design and materials. Electrical problems are my biggest equipment complaints on cold nights. My hand controller goes nuts when it gets too cold, and it would have been simple to install an internal heating element.

Phil

I don't know how TMB Planetary compares to Radians, since being even heavier and much more expensive than the TMB, I have no desire to try them out.

I own a pair of 9mm TMB Planetary and three pairs of Siebert Star Spliters in 4.4mm. 6.4mm and 8.9mm. The Star Splitters get almost all the planetary use in my binoviewer these days. I haven't used the TMB's in at least two months. I think that says enough as far as I am concerned.

The Star Splitters are lighter, slimmer, more comfortable to view through, and much easier to heat to prevent fogging up. I paid $89 each for them (Siebert binov owners get a discount), and they are made in North Carolina, not China like the $99 TMB's are. I don't believe stories about how hard it is to get good $99 eyepieces built in China when I am getting American eyepieces that work better for less money. Celestron sells 15x70 SkyMaster astro binoculars for $129 full retail price that work quite well, and I picked up a pair today from my local astro dealer for $89, all inclusive special price. That's $10 less than a TMB Planetary eyepiece.

Also, I have had to get the loosey-goosey rattles out of one of my 9mm TMB EP's already, and quite a few of my other Asian EP's as well. I own nine Siebert EP's and not one of them has developed a rattle and tried to screw itself apart. Harry fixes his EP parts with set screws, and I guess that keeps the EP's from coming apart.

Phil

I'll take a Siebert Star Splitter over a Burgess TMB any day, and that goes double if it's to be used in a binoviewer (or double-double, since it would be bought in pairs).

A Celestron Ultima is as good, if not better, than a Tele Vue Plossl. Comparing the Celestron 50mm Axiom (which behaves like an Ultima) to the Tele Vue 55mm Plossl, the 50mm Axiom even costs quite a bit more! I have the 50mm Axiom, and it's a killer EP. The Ultima was once made all the way out to an 80mm, I think. There is a 60mm for sale on eBay right now.

Don't forget Baader Planetarium and their Ortho, Eudiascopic and Hyperion series. Buyers in Europe probably won't get a better deal from anybody else when quality is figured in. All Baader gear is top shelf stuff, and I own quite a few of their filters and accessories.

Phil

Dmitri,

I like my Ultimas the best, because of their lack of rectilinear distortion and great color correction, sharpness, contrast, yadda yadda.......

However, the GSO Plossl really does a good job for the price in the 15mm to 32mm focal lengths where they are the most comfortable.

There is generally not a real need for short planetary focal lengths in daytime viewing even with an f/6 scope in most instances. Thermals get rid of any need to go over about 50X most of the time.

Phil

FWIW, I own Suiter's book, and after studying the star test images I determined that the baffle tube might be causing the aberration I was experiencing. Heat from the LONG baffle tube (my scope is f/14.2) causes a long vertical heat pattern that dances around a bit as it rises to the top of the OTA. Pointing the scope at zenith and letting the heat rise straight up the baffle tube reduced the problem. To prove my theory, I put a 2" eyepiece heater strap around my 2" visual back. That fed heat directly to my baffle tube. The distortion of my star test image came back like gangbusters.

There you have it: the baffle tube has a VERY long cooldown because it is inside the middle of the scope and is always chasing the OTA which cools down the quickest of all because it is thin and directly exposed to air and has a direct radiation path to space at the top (the coolest part of the OTA at night). The slightly warmer baffle tube will always generate a rising heat wave that runs almost the entire length of the OTA as long as any cooling of the OTA exterior tube is taking place due to falling night temps, which almost always happens to be the case.

Case closed as far as I am concerned, and I am back to enjoying my LOMO 150 without needing to see a perfect star test pattern, which is what Suiter tells people to go do if you happen to read that part of his book. The effect is minor after 30 minutes of cooldown on most nights. If you run an eyepiece heater, enough heat will feed through the diagonal and visual back to the baffle tube to keep this phenomenon alive all night long if you go back and check it out. Turn up the heat, and it gets worse.

I once worked in failure analysis in microchips, and finding this phenomenon was a piece of cake for me.

Phil

The size, weight and price tag are the grandest part of Naglers. Other EP's have better light throughput, linearity and contrast due to simpler construction. Naglers are optimized for fast Dobsonian scopes of f/6 and faster. For those of us who prefer slower scopes for visual observing (as long as you can get a big enough exit pupil, slower is generally better for visual use), the old Axiom and Ultima series EP's by Celestron are not only just as sharp, but have far less rectilinear distortion, weight, bulkiness, etc. That's besides the big cost savings. I see no reduction in build quality at all. My scope for high power viewing is a LOMO 150 Mak-Cass with 1/8 wave optics and primary mirror made from Astrosital glass. It's basically a research grade instrument. It clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, shows you the difference between different EP's. Ultimas and Axioms reign supreme in it, and Celestron being a major long focus Cassegrain scope manufacturer, it's only natural they would sell EP's optimized for f/10 or slower scopes. At f/6 in my Stellarvue refractor, the Axioms especially experience image quality reduction at the edges (Ultimas hold up better in this regard). The Naglers would excell at the edges for sharpness in that situiation and even moreso in a fast Dobsonian, but for daytime viewing the rectilinear distortion would cause a headache and possible nausea if you looked through them for long. Simpler designs like Orthos, Plossls and Ultimas will yield image contrast and orthoscopic view that Naglers cannot match. If your scope is f/8 to f/16, a Nagler will NOT win the image quality contest if you put it up against EP's optimized for slower scopes, unless you think widest possible apparent field of view IS image quality. Serious observers usually get over that aspect of eyepiece performance and settle on something between 50 and 70 degrees AFOV that really tells it like it is, especially if daytime terrestrial use is part of the viewing agenda. EP's with the rectilinear distortion of a Nagler will be no fun for such use. I am one that DOES NOT equate Nagler ownership with experience and knowledge in amateur astronomy, unless the owner uses the Nagler in a fast Newtonian or Refractor that the EP was designed for. Using them in an f/14.2 Mak-Cass or f/16 Fraunhofer achromat would mean you are throwing something real away for gah-gah spacewalk thrills. Plus, you will need longer FL EP's like a 50mm Axiom or 55mm Plossl or 60mm Ultima to get max brightness out of those slower scopes that excell for high power use.

If your thing is big fast Dobsonians, deep sky observing and max FOV, then a Nagler is what you might want and actually need. My 50mm Axiom will challenge a 31mm Nagler for max true FOV, and beat it for overall image quality in f/8 or slower scope. The true purpose of a Nagler is to get max FOV out of scopes with very fast focal ratios under f/6 that cannot use focal lengths over approximately 30mm. The max AFOV that the human eye can take in at once is about 70 degrees, so anything wider than that is basically a gimmick to me. And paying for wider AFOV than that is not reasonable in my situation, so I stop at 70 degrees AFOV at the most. Also, the blackouts that the superwide EP's exhibit are not there in Ultimas, nor in my 70 degree Axioms.

I don't see what the Nagler flag waving is about either, except to get max FOV out of a fast Dobsonian that cannot use the long FL classic EP's without getting into exit pupil diameter issues.

I have serious doubts that this battery pack will last many deep discharges. Deep cycle batteries work much better in that regard, but you must pay for them. It will be much more than $19.95, especially after a decent charger is figured into the final cost. An extension cable to run a scope off your car battery is even less money and usually a better alternative. If you have a 70 AH car battery, then you can safely take 7AH out of it repeatedly without getting into any reliability issues, PLUS, you don't have to tote a second battery around. Car batteries usually come with a pro rated warranty, and if you were to knock one out prematurely with many deep discharges, replacing it would be cheap. If your battery holds up, it costs nothing extra, and if it does not, the warranty pays a lot of it. Sounds like a deal to me.

Phil