Posts Made By: Barry Simon

Nils,

Your speculation sounds like a reasonable conclusion based upon the information.

Barry Simon

Well, it is not labeled that way, but it sure has potential. It is an Ottoman Recliner covered in black (faux/fake) leather. It sits on a ringed base that allows for 360 degree rotation. A lever on the right side allows one to recline the back. In this position I think you can probably comfortably use handheld binoculars up to about 75 degrees, maybe a bit more. I found it very easy to turn the chair 360 degrees with my feet a la Fred Flintstone. The arm rests are nicely padded and there is a pocket on the right side, maybe the left side too, which I am sure an astronomer could put to use. The matching foot stool also swivels.

I tried to find a picture on-line but could not access a K-Mart catalog. Maybe someone else will have better luck. The catalog number is 87-8333 and it sells for $129.99.

It is not too heavy and should lift up easily into a mini-van, SUV or pick-up.

If anyone else can find a photo, please post it. Other opinions on it's use as a binocular chair are welcome.

Barry Simon

Of course one of the real nice things about solar observing in either h-alpha or white light is there is no need for a long trek to the country in search of dark skies.

Unfortunately however it is still somewhat cumbersome to set up in a great location close to home. For me, the easiest thing to do is to go right out the kitchen door to the driveway. Unfortunately concrete and the surrounding homes and carport roofs do radiate heat and this degrades the images. Mid-morning observing is pretty good, especially looking out over my swimming pool and surrounding hedges as the air is not degraded by the radiated heat as much. Better still is an open field, but that means loading everything in the car and driving to a nearby park.

Do others have any suggestion for improving viewing conditions from home and what are your favorite times to set up for solar observing and/or photography?

Barry Simon

I have been mulling over whether I need to double stack my Solar Max 60 the past few months. I am still not convinced that the gain will be worth the $2200 or thereabouts it will cost me to do this.

Based upon others' descriptions and what I see in my filter, I feel fairly certain that my particular filter is somewhat under (better than) the 0.7 angstrom mark. How much, I am not certain, but I think I have a good one. Additionally I see no evidence of hot spotting or difference performance zones. The image I see is very good at field center or at field edge. Is there a way an owner can find out just how much better his or her filter may be than minimum standards?

I have seen no pictures that to me, look considerably better as a double stack than a single etalon. Maybe I am looking in the wrong places. I want to be convinced that a double stack will dramatically improve surface detail and increase contrast for prominences.

Like everyone I would like to push the limits of performance, but I am unconvinced that for the small improvement I see, that improvement is worth $2200.00

Barry Simon

Tried logging onto the Coronado website this morning at:

http://www.coronadofilters.com/

which I have saved as one of my favorites, and all I get is a page that has this written at the top:

SimienS Crew 2004 100% Brasil

Does anyone know what is going on?

Barry Simon

Ok, you asked for it! You want it! (Drum roll). Well you got it, here it is -

However let me first stress how bad this scope's focuser is.
This focuser is bad. That is spelled B A D, with a double capital B! No manner of adjustment (and I spent considerable time trying to improve this focuser) could really improve it. Focusing in and out revealed areas along the travel of the focusing tube were much tighter than others. When the point is reached where the drawtube is almost all the way in with about 3/4" or so to go, it just goes completely loose and the focusing knobs do nothing. If all the way in, an upward tilt to the tube will have it drop down the 3/4" until it will work crudely. I have come to the conclusion that this particular focuser is worthless. I will be requesting a replacement. Hopefully a replacement will be better and without a scuffed tensioner knob (which does not allow for total tightening for photography anyway).

As I said before, the rest of this tube assembly is screaming for a better focuser, either a FeatherTouch or perhaps a Williams crayford.

Here is my optical evaluation.

We had a front come thru, this cool front is very unusual for mid-August in Louisiana. This gave us early October weather which started Thursday and will continue for the next few days. We have not had pristine blue skies like this since early May.

I did not pull my toys out until after midnight. So all testing was on the 14th. The Orion ED 100 mates well with the TeleVue clamshell that is available separately for the TV 102. I mounted the scope on a TV Gibraltar mount. First focused image was the star Vega. No discernable color halo around Vega. Inside of focus gave me nice concentric bullseye type circles (see image below) and I was happy with that. Outside of focus was not so definitive. Sky was unsettled as evidenced by all the swimming I could see in the out of focus image.

The Orion 100 ED could not split the Double-Double with either a 24 mm (37.5x) or 19 mm Panoptics (suspected in this one at 47x). It was a clean and easy split at 128x with a 7 mm Nagler. Note that I repeated this with the Vixen 102 and had the same results. With the Vixen the magnifications with these 3 eyepieces are 42x, 53x and 143x. I suspect that with better seeing I would be able to split the Double-Double with the 19 mm Panoptic with both scopes. I at one time had an excellent Sears Discoverer 76 mm f/16 refractor. It had great optics and could routinely split the Double-Double with a 28.7 mm RKE eyepiece (42x).

Initially I thought my timing was poor in that I had no good chromatic targets (Sirius, Venus or the lunar limb). I attributed the lack of a blue halo with Vega to the fact that it is not really seen that well, even with an achromat. This proved to be wrong when I pulled out the University Optics 80 mm f/6.25 and looked at the same target. Oh yeah! I remember, there really is more than enough chromatic aberration on bright stars like Vega with an achromat. The Vixen 102 came out next and once again our "Contact" star was Vega. The bright blue halo was unavoidable and unmistakable. Clear as day. There really is something to be said about the Orion ED, it really does suppress color. Looks like a keeper! Now to solve the focuser problem.

I also had some time to look at the Double Cluster, Pleiades and gamma Andromeda. They all looked great! I did not have the time or the stamina to hang around for a star test on Sirius or M-42 in Orion.

I will not be retesting the 100 ED from the country tonight. Weapons of choice will be a Tahakhashi FCT 76 since I will be doing some solar observing later this afternoon, and Miyauchi 20x100 binoculars. I will use the scope to shoot some more images of Vega for comparison purposes.

Let me know if there are questions.

Barry Simon

While refractors are often assumed to be perfectly collimated systems, this is often not the case. I use a Cheshire collimating eyepiece to check collimation and I collimate my own scopes where possible. A Unitron refractor, Brandon apos too, as well as several other refractors have one way or another to easily align the optics at the optics end so that the light cone is centered about the tube inner diameter as it runs straight down the tube. The Unitron (70's and later) and Brandon refractors have spring loaded cells that allow the inner cell holding the optics to be pivoted in relation to the outer cell which is bolted to the telescope tube. Aligning the light cone essentially means that all that need be done at the focuser end (assuming the focus body is build true) is to assure that the focuser is seated on the tube end and that the tube end is cut square or perfectly perpendicular to the tube length.

So then the problem with a scope like my Orion ED 100, the ED 80 or the Orion ST120 and a variety of other scopes is that failing the built in ability to align the primary optics, really good collimation is quite difficult. An adjustment of the focuser end of the tube assembly cannot really be used to collimate a scope perfectly unless the primary optics are in a cell that is in perfect alignment with the tube and the problem is only at the focuser end. The reason being that the light cone of misaligned optics will not line up with the center of the tube and adjusting the focuser cannot rectify this as the optical axis of the focuser and the optical axis of the optics can only at best be adjusted so that the optical path and the focuser line of sight be parallel to one another. This parallel condition is not the same as collimation. However the closer the two are to being both parallel and coincident (parallel offset), the better. This was a problem inherent in long focal length large refractors of the 19th century as telescope tubes generally could not be made as true and as straight as today. Additionally their sheer weight coupled with long length caused some sag. This is why those tubes had to have considerable reinforcement; basically to prevent sag that would greatly affect collimation. So unless you 1) offset the focuser, and then 2)bring the focuser's optical axis in alignment with the optical light cone there is no way to really collimate a scope well from the focuser end if the optical end is the real problem.

I feel that you can improve collimation somewhat, but without the ability to easily collimate from the optics end too, it cannot really be done well in any scope that does not give one this ability. You could shim the objective in it's cell, but this would be a slow process. If well machined, the optics end should be ok, but if the threads for cell attachment are not cut square to the tube, we are both literally and figuratively "screwed". One of the first things to check would be to verify that the cell is not cross-threaded onto the tube.

The light pattern visualized and photographed in my ED 100 did show some misalignment. The cell was not cross-threaded onto the tube. Adjustment of the original focuser did improve the collimation pattern as seen thru the Cheshire collimating tool, but not perfectly. Short of shimming the objective in the cell to center the light cone convergence point at the exact center of the inner diameter at the other end of the tube, there is no way other than to offset the focuser to do this. If the light cone convergence point is offset lets say 3 millimeters from the exact center of the focuser end of the tube, the focuser then would have to first be shifted that much (at the place where the measurement is taken) and then cocked to capture the light cone. No manner of shifting of the focuser without offsetting it can totally improve collimation if the basic collimation problem is with the optics end of the tube. Unfortunately there is little tolerance that would allow shifting a focuser in one direction more then a very marginal amount, before angling it.

On the bright side, while perfect collimation is great to have, a conditional collimation is generally ok and usually is "good enough" considering other shortcomings of the optical system that may also impact performance (particularly true in lesser achromats). At low powers, mediocre collimation can be tolerated to a degree, at higher magnifications it will be more of a factor. Precise machining and careful collimation is likely a very large factor in the price difference between the Orion ED 100 and the TV 102, or the Takahashi FS 102 or the AstroPhysics Traveler. For those that demand perfect collimation for any reason, the higher priced scopes usually have it due to better machining, tighter tolerances and better quality control. Accordingly they should receive top consideration.

Barry Simon

About a year or so ago a good friend of mine gave me a partial telescope package (labeled Monolux) consisting of a wooden case, 60 mm f/15 tube assembly, eyepieces (.965) diagonal, erecting prism, barlow, and an equatorial head. The tripod including top plate for attaching the equatorial head was missing as was a finder scope and bracket.

My friend had previously inquired about Monolux as I had earlier traded a camera lens for a Monolux 60 mm f/11.7 (700 mm f.l.) alt-azimuth telescope. This one while labeled Monolux was really no different from countless other 60 mm alt-azimuth refractors we have all seen over the years. What sets most of these apart is the label only and the color of the paint used; most seem to come from the same factory.

The 60 mm equatorial was somewhat different however. It's tube assembly is better built than most that you see. The objective cell has a nicer profile. The objective cell is identical to one on another scope I purchased about 15 years ago and listed as a "Carton" refractor. The objective cell is also identical to one that Tasco used on a variable zoom short focus refractor called the 5VTE. The threading for the objective cell was finer (dewshield too) and the aluminum tube is just a little bit thicker in guage.

However what really distinguishes this scope from other typical 60 mm equatorial refractors is the equatorial head itself. It is very unlike your typical Tasco type equatorlal head which many distributors have used for many years. This one has very clean lines and is very functional. (see photo). I don't know about the internals but it's movement is very smooth and there is no backlash at all when the slow motion cables are used. In this respect it has advantages over the Unitron mounts that I have. It has setting circles, but these are not nearly as nice as Unitron setting circles.

I was easily able to fit the head into the top of my TeleVue Gibraltar tripod and using a universal finder dovetail bracket and some JB Weld, I have a Vixen finder and Orion bracket installed.

Check out the photo. If anyone has comments about the mount and when it was available I would appreciate learning a little bit more about it.

Barry Simon

On numerous occasions I have modified the arc of a finder bracket by working the base on an appropriate diameter tube that had appropriate grit "stick on sandpaper". This has been a very labor intensive process by hand. Of course dependent upon how much modification was needed. Usually this has taken hours.

I have a TeleVue clamshell, the one sold for the TV 85, TV 76, and the Pronto, that I would like to modify for use with a Unitron 3". This would entail taking about 1/8" of aluminum off of the radius. Can anyone propose how this could be done other than by slowly opening up the diameter by working the two halves on an appropriate sized pipe with sandpaper? I don't have a lathe, but is there a way to set up a lathe to do this work?

Barry Simon

I recently purchased a pair of the Oberwerk 20x90 mm binoculars as one of the door prizes for next year's Deep South Regional Stargaze.

I had felt for months that the specifications of these binoculars did look good, better, at least to me, than what I saw for the 22x100 binoculars. In addition, while the 22x100's initially looked good,
reports of a smaller than labeled field, plus my own impression of the view thru these did not endear me to them. In short, the 22x100's true field is about 2.7 to 2.8 degrees, not 3.5 degrees as originally labeled. They are now relabeled and sold as having 2.8 degree fields. I have looked thru 3 pair and never felt that I had sharp, pinpoint stars at field center much less at the edge. The fields were not flat and the stars broke down rapidly toward the edge. This was not isolated, as I looked thru 3 different pair. Nix the 22x100's, at least for me, or should I say for me thru the 3 pair that I evaluated.

So, at least with a certain degree of hesitation I orderd the 20x90's. I did like the all black rubber bodies and I did like the focuser placement. They arrived on November 30th, at which time we promptly had a combination of almost 10 days of poor weather and a busy schedule. I finally had the chance to really evaluate them last night under a dark suburban sky and I liked what I saw.

They were set up on a Bogen 3011N tripod with a Bogen 3063 fluid pan head. My heavier Bogen 3036 tripod with geared head would have been better, but the 3011N is adequate, and the center pole does raise sufficiently high enough for virtually any observer to get under the eyepieces when the binocular is pointed high in the sky. I also brought out my Pentax PCF V 16x60's as a comparator.

At 11:30 last night the Orion area including M 42 and Orion's Belt were well placed for observation. I was really interested in determining just how large of a field I would have with these binoculars. I am happy to report that I could take in Orion's Belt (approx 2.7 to 2.75 degree separation)with a little room to spare. Later careful evaluation here determined that I could shift from Zeta Orionis over to Sigma Orionis and still pull in the far belt star. Checking this separation with "DeskTop Universe" showed that the field was a full 3.0 degrees. Not quite 3.2, but close, certainly better than what is reality with many binoculars vs how they are labeled. (A check with the Pentax 16x60's showed that their measured field and advertised field are one and the same at 2.8 degrees.)

When observing Orion was relatively high. Accordingly the eye cups on the Pentax (pop out hard rubber with a flat surface) proved to be somewhat uncomfortable as there was no give. I like the Pentax eyecups fine when viewing horizontally or nearly so, but not almost vertically. On the other hand the 20x90 Oberwerks have soft pliable eyecups so these worked very well when getting under the binoculars when pointed high in the sky.

I was also very pleased with the fidelity of the stellar image of stars evaluated near the field edge. Much better that typical wide field 10x50 binoculars (including Nikon Action Extreme and Orion UltraView). In fact the stellar image quality was quite similar to the image quality near the edge that I see in the Pentax 16x60 and the Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70 and the Pentax PCF V 10x50. I also am fairly confident in saying that the edge image quality is much better than I remember in my Celestron 20x80 Deluxe purchased back in 1987. I no longer have those binoculars. They were labeled and advertised as having 3.7 degree fields. I cannot say that I ever measured them, but later editions were downsized to 3.4 degree fields and they were probably less than that. I do remember the star quality at the edge to be not nearly as good as what is seen in the Oberwerk 20x90's. Nor were the Celestron 20x80 eyecups comfortable at all.

Another important point has to do with price. Back in 1987 those Celestron's cost me something like $450.00. Plugging this price into an inflation table, the equivalent price today would be approximately $725.00. So the 20x90 Oberwerk's at $299.00 with more aperture and better performance is quite a deal.

They arrived well packed in a nice case, completely enclosed and protected in a two piece styrofoam box within the case. Very well protected and in collimation. They will make some lucky person at the Deep South Regional Stargaze very happy!

Barry Simon