Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [ETXASTRO] Still Cloudy - Can't test ETX-105 Yet

Expand Messages
  • Richard Foulk
    } It depends on if you are left-eyed or right-eyed. } } People who heavily prefer their right eye have always had a little more } trouble with the ETX scopes
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 1, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      } It depends on if you are left-eyed or right-eyed.
      }
      } People who heavily prefer their right eye have always had a little more
      } trouble with the ETX scopes and the Meade finders.
      }
      } Setting shorter eyepieces a little higher up in the eyepiece holder and
      } securing them there with the set screw might help. Of course you will have
      } to refocus the scope.

      I really wouldn't recommend treating the eyepiece thumbscrew in that way.
      The thumbscrew is very light weight and not meant to actually hold much
      of anything. And the eyepiece tubes will likely get scratched and dented
      if you overtighten it.

      Also, the eyepiece probably won't be held in proper alignment.

      A short collar around the eyepiece tube would be a better idea, I think.


      Richard
    • ngc5466
      ... When I ordered the 2 length above, I asked about the other 1 they list (LAD110) for $12. It just threads into the barrel of the eyepiece, which is ok if
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 2, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        In ETXASTRO@y..., "ngc5466" <ngc5466@y...> wrote:
        >
        >>By the way, I saw the posts about UO Optics, and I was wondering if
        >>anyone has found a way to use the UO orthos with the ETX-105. The
        >>finder seems to get in the way of using a short eyepiece. I suppose
        >>if I dispense with that finder and replace it with a Rigel Quick
        >>finder things would be different,
        >
        >I spent about two-and-a-half hours observing Jupiter, Saturn, and
        >the Eskimo Nebula in Gemini. I did some experimenting with a UO
        >12.5mm Ortho, and a Meade Research Grade 7mm Ortho. I also noticed
        >what you have, and got out a Lumicon 4.5" extension tube. They have
        >a shorter one (2 1/4") which I have decided to order tomorrow. It
        >is $19.50, and I the part number is LAD12F.

        When I ordered the 2" length above, I asked about the other 1" they
        list (LAD110) for $12. It just threads into the barrel of the
        eyepiece, which is ok if you just have one or two eyepieces to outfit
        as such.

        Of course, the LAD12F is thread for filters which might be useful as
        well.

        Leroy Guatney
        Aurora, Colorado
        ETX105/EC owner/operator
      • Christopher Erickson
        Tonight I just finished boring out and filter-threading three Lumicon LAD110 1.25 by 1 extension tubes so they could be used as full-aperture eyepiece
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 2, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Tonight I just finished boring out and filter-threading three Lumicon LAD110
          1.25" by 1" extension tubes so they could be used as full-aperture eyepiece
          extension tubes with female filter threads too.

          I can't for the life of me figure out why Lumicon made these with such a small
          internal bore diameter and without a provision for filter attachments. As
          shipped, they would block some of the light cone of any eyepiece about 16mm or
          longer.

          They came with a 0.670" center bore and I opened them up to 0.940" at the male
          thread end and 1.098" at the filter end. I then threaded the filter end so it
          could take 1.25" filters (1.115" by 40 TPI) or to allow extension tube stacking.

          The whole purpose of this exercise was to give me some more eyepiece tube for
          safety purposes after installing parfocal rings on a bunch of my miscellaneous
          eyepieces. It sure would be nice if Scopetronix (parfocal ring supplier) also
          made eyepiece extension tubes available for use with their parfocal rings.

          And since I am already in a whiney mood, why do TeleVue eyepieces come with a
          non-standard 0.5mm filter thread pitch? What's up with that?

          *sigh*

          -Christopher Erickson
          Network Design Engineer
          We Byte
          5432 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 529
          Anchorage, AK 99508
          N61° 11.710' W149° 46.723'
          www.data-plumber.com

          <snip>

          > They have [Lumicon] a shorter one (2 1/4") which I have decided
          > to order tomorrow. It is $19.50, and I the part number is LAD12F.
          > When I ordered the 2" length above, I asked about the other 1" they
          > list (LAD110) for $12. It just threads into the barrel of the
          > eyepiece, which is ok if you just have one or two eyepieces to
          > outfit as such.
          > Of course, the LAD12F is thread for filters which might be useful
          > as well.

          <snip>
        • conanld
          I finally got a chance to test a scope last night, although it wasn t the ETX-105. There were only sucker holes, and I knew that the clouds would probably move
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 2, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I finally got a chance to test a scope last night, although it wasn't
            the ETX-105. There were only sucker holes, and I knew that the clouds
            would probably move in for good, so I tried out an Orion StarMax 127.
            You're probably wondering why I would purchase a 5-inch StarMax when
            I had already pluncked down the dough for an EXT-105, right? Well, my
            folks surprised me for my 50th b-day with a $500 gift certificate for
            Orion products. Since I already had everything I needed from Orion
            that costs less than 400 dollars or so, I went ahead and picked up
            the StarMax.

            Seeing wasn't very good, and the clouds moved back in before the
            scope could cool properly, but it seemed to me that the ETX-105 may
            have had better optics, both in terms of sharpness and contrast. (I
            had the scope out for only about 50 minutes).

            This was just my feeling because I was not able to make a direct
            comparison between the scopes, at least not yet. Jupiter showed only
            two bands clearly --not good. The Trapezium & vicinity didn't show
            any more, and maybe less detail than the ETX-105 (as I recall).
            However, at low power (64x), the stars of M35 were tack sharp.

            About 2 months ago, I tested the optics of the ETX-105 that I had
            originally received. I had to use it without motor drives because the
            drives were faulty. Admitedly, the ETX was out longer on that
            previous occasion, hence it had proper time to cool.

            Can't wait for a real comparison test, but first we have to get what
            amounts to a fully clear and steady night!


            Lee Dawson


            --- In ETXASTRO@y..., "ngc5466" <ngc5466@y...> wrote:
            > Hello Lee,
            >
            >
            >
            > Please don't hate me for saying this, but I've had the 105 for a
            > little over two weeks now and just came in from my fifth observing
            > session with it. Tonight was cold, and clear, and steady.
            >
            >>
            > Leroy Guatney
            > Aurora, Colorado
            > ETX105/EC owner/operator
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.