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

RE: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance for FRC-300

Expand Messages
  • mark k
    Mike, If you are off by 0.5mm I would think that would be alright Yes it has to be that close Mark _____ From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike,



      If you are off by 0.5mm I would think that would be alright

      Yes it has to be that close



      Mark



      _____

      From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike3457
      Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:59 AM
      To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance for FRC-300



      Thanks for that image Steve!

      Unfortunately my FRC reducer does not look like the one in the
      drawing. That is clearly a BRC reducer. My FRC reducer does not
      have (or need) the 89mm adapter that is shown in the drawing. The
      title on the drawing suggests the FRC, BRC, and FS-152 are all the
      same, but my reducer is a slightly different design - did they
      change at some point? Is yours the same as the drawing?

      Does anyone know how sensitive these scopes are to a couple mm shift
      in the distance? I'm planning on using one of the new "big" chip
      cameras (16803), so I'm wondering just how close is "close enough"?

      Thanks!

      Mike

      --- In UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com, "deepspaceviews"
      <deepspaceviews@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Jim,
      >
      > If you look on the bottom of the digram you will see a line with
      > 106.2mm from about the second ring in on the focuser out to the
      CCD
      > chip. I worked from that part of the diagram in this order.
      > I removed the other 2 rings back to the point shown in the
      digram
      > and connected my adapter there, with the adapter connected to my
      FRC
      > at that ring I then connect my FLI PDF and STL-11000 to the
      adapter
      > which puts the imaging chip of the STL at 106.2mm to achieve
      proper
      > focus.
      >
      > Steve
      >
      >
      > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com, "Jim Miller"
      > <jfmiller7@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Thanks Steve for that diagram. However, although I can see that
      the
      > second
      > > point is the point of focus for the CCD or film camera, I cannot
      > tell what
      > > the originating point is. It does not seem to be where the
      camera is
      > > attached, nor where the mirror is. It seems to lie between the
      two.
      > >
      > > Thanks for any clarification,
      > >
      > > jim
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com
      > > [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@
      <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
      > deepspaceviews
      > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:33 PM
      > > To: UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance for
      > FRC-300
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi Chris,
      > >
      > > If you would like to see a diagram of the metal Back Distance
      go
      > to
      > > my web site and look under the tips page I have it posted
      there.
      > >
      > > Steve Roffo
      > > www.deepspaceviews.com
      > >
      > > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com, "Chris Sauer"
      <chris@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Ok, dumb question here but, what exactly does that mean?
      This is
      > > something
      > > > that has always confused me.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Does anyone have a graphical visualization aid so a dummy
      like
      > me
      > > can
      > > > understand the concept of "metal back distance".
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > _____
      > > >
      > > > From: UncensoredTakGroup@
      <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
      > > > [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@
      <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      mark k
      > > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:08 AM
      > > > To: UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: RE: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back
      Distance
      > > for FRC-300
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yes the FRC-300 has specific metal back distances both for
      > Native
      > > and when
      > > > you put the Reducer/Flattener in too
      > > >
      > > > The smaller the camera chip is that you are using this
      distance
      > is
      > > less
      > > > critical but it is a specification for getting those perfect
      > stars
      > > your
      > > > bought the FRC for
      > > >
      > > > Mike I thought that your numbers for the metal Back distance
      > were
      > > correct.
      > > >
      > > > <http://www.aajonahf
      > <http://www.aajonahf <http://www.aajonahfish.com/measurements.htm>
      ish.com/measurements.htm>
      > > > ish.com/measurements.htm>
      > > > http://www.aajonahf
      > <http://www.aajonahf <http://www.aajonahfish.com/measurements.htm>
      ish.com/measurements.htm>
      > > > ish.com/measurements.htm
      > > >
      > > > Mark
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jim Miller
      Thanks for the explanation Steve, Jim ... From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of deepspaceviews Sent:
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for the explanation Steve,

        Jim
        -----Original Message-----
        From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of deepspaceviews
        Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:06 PM
        To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance for FRC-300


        Hi Jim,

        If you look on the bottom of the digram you will see a line with
        106.2mm from about the second ring in on the focuser out to the CCD
        chip. I worked from that part of the diagram in this order.
        I removed the other 2 rings back to the point shown in the digram
        and connected my adapter there, with the adapter connected to my FRC
        at that ring I then connect my FLI PDF and STL-11000 to the adapter
        which puts the imaging chip of the STL at 106.2mm to achieve proper
        focus.

        Steve

        --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Miller"
        <jfmiller7@...> wrote:
        >
        > Thanks Steve for that diagram. However, although I can see that the
        second
        > point is the point of focus for the CCD or film camera, I cannot
        tell what
        > the originating point is. It does not seem to be where the camera is
        > attached, nor where the mirror is. It seems to lie between the two.
        >
        > Thanks for any clarification,
        >
        > jim
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
        deepspaceviews
        > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:33 PM
        > To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance for
        FRC-300
        >
        >
        > Hi Chris,
        >
        > If you would like to see a diagram of the metal Back Distance go
        to
        > my web site and look under the tips page I have it posted there.
        >
        > Steve Roffo
        > www.deepspaceviews.com
        >
        > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Sauer" <chris@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Ok, dumb question here but, what exactly does that mean? This is
        > something
        > > that has always confused me.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Does anyone have a graphical visualization aid so a dummy like
        me
        > can
        > > understand the concept of "metal back distance".
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > _____
        > >
        > > From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
        > > [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mark k
        > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:08 AM
        > > To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: RE: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance
        > for FRC-300
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yes the FRC-300 has specific metal back distances both for
        Native
        > and when
        > > you put the Reducer/Flattener in too
        > >
        > > The smaller the camera chip is that you are using this distance
        is
        > less
        > > critical but it is a specification for getting those perfect
        stars
        > your
        > > bought the FRC for
        > >
        > > Mike I thought that your numbers for the metal Back distance
        were
        > correct.
        > >
        > > <http://www.aajonahf
        <http://www.aajonahfish.com/measurements.htm>
        > > ish.com/measurements.htm>
        > > http://www.aajonahf
        <http://www.aajonahfish.com/measurements.htm>
        > > ish.com/measurements.htm
        > >
        > > Mark
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • deepspaceviews
        Hi Mike, Just so I am on the same page? When you are saying reducer are you talking about the helical focuser and rings on the rear of the FRC/BRC? Steve R ...
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Mike, Just so I am on the same page?
          When you are saying reducer are you talking about the helical
          focuser and rings on the rear of the FRC/BRC?

          Steve R


          --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "mike3457" <mgsandy@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Thanks for that image Steve!
          >
          > Unfortunately my FRC reducer does not look like the one in the
          > drawing. That is clearly a BRC reducer. My FRC reducer does not
          > have (or need) the 89mm adapter that is shown in the drawing. The
          > title on the drawing suggests the FRC, BRC, and FS-152 are all the
          > same, but my reducer is a slightly different design - did they
          > change at some point? Is yours the same as the drawing?
          >
          > Does anyone know how sensitive these scopes are to a couple mm shift
          > in the distance? I'm planning on using one of the new "big" chip
          > cameras (16803), so I'm wondering just how close is "close enough"?
          >
          > Thanks!
          >
          > Mike
          >
          > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "deepspaceviews"
          > <deepspaceviews@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi Jim,
          > >
          > > If you look on the bottom of the digram you will see a line
          with
          > > 106.2mm from about the second ring in on the focuser out to the
          > CCD
          > > chip. I worked from that part of the diagram in this order.
          > > I removed the other 2 rings back to the point shown in the
          > digram
          > > and connected my adapter there, with the adapter connected to my
          > FRC
          > > at that ring I then connect my FLI PDF and STL-11000 to the
          > adapter
          > > which puts the imaging chip of the STL at 106.2mm to achieve
          > proper
          > > focus.
          > >
          > > Steve
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Miller"
          > > <jfmiller7@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Thanks Steve for that diagram. However, although I can see that
          > the
          > > second
          > > > point is the point of focus for the CCD or film camera, I
          cannot
          > > tell what
          > > > the originating point is. It does not seem to be where the
          > camera is
          > > > attached, nor where the mirror is. It seems to lie between the
          > two.
          > > >
          > > > Thanks for any clarification,
          > > >
          > > > jim
          > > >
          > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
          > > > [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
          > > deepspaceviews
          > > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:33 PM
          > > > To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
          > > > Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance
          for
          > > FRC-300
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Hi Chris,
          > > >
          > > > If you would like to see a diagram of the metal Back Distance
          > go
          > > to
          > > > my web site and look under the tips page I have it posted
          > there.
          > > >
          > > > Steve Roffo
          > > > www.deepspaceviews.com
          > > >
          > > > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Sauer"
          > <chris@>
          > > > wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Ok, dumb question here but, what exactly does that mean?
          > This is
          > > > something
          > > > > that has always confused me.
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Does anyone have a graphical visualization aid so a dummy
          > like
          > > me
          > > > can
          > > > > understand the concept of "metal back distance".
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > _____
          > > > >
          > > > > From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          > mark k
          > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:08 AM
          > > > > To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > Subject: RE: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back
          > Distance
          > > > for FRC-300
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Yes the FRC-300 has specific metal back distances both for
          > > Native
          > > > and when
          > > > > you put the Reducer/Flattener in too
          > > > >
          > > > > The smaller the camera chip is that you are using this
          > distance
          > > is
          > > > less
          > > > > critical but it is a specification for getting those
          perfect
          > > stars
          > > > your
          > > > > bought the FRC for
          > > > >
          > > > > Mike I thought that your numbers for the metal Back
          distance
          > > were
          > > > correct.
          > > > >
          > > > > <http://www.aajonahf
          > > <http://www.aajonahfish.com/measurements.htm>
          > > > > ish.com/measurements.htm>
          > > > > http://www.aajonahf
          > > <http://www.aajonahfish.com/measurements.htm>
          > > > > ish.com/measurements.htm
          > > > >
          > > > > Mark
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • mark k
          Here is a picture of both lens for the FRC300
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Here is a picture of both lens for the FRC300



            <http://www.aajonahfish.com/FRC300NEWSet-up/ComparisonR-N1.jpg>
            http://www.aajonahfish.com/FRC300NEWSet-up/ComparisonR-N1.jpg



            One on the right is the Reducer/Flattener for the scope



            Mark



            _____

            From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of deepspaceviews
            Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 3:19 PM
            To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance for FRC-300



            Hi Mike, Just so I am on the same page?
            When you are saying reducer are you talking about the helical
            focuser and rings on the rear of the FRC/BRC?

            Steve R

            --- In UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
            yahoogroups.com, "mike3457" <mgsandy@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Thanks for that image Steve!
            >
            > Unfortunately my FRC reducer does not look like the one in the
            > drawing. That is clearly a BRC reducer. My FRC reducer does not
            > have (or need) the 89mm adapter that is shown in the drawing. The
            > title on the drawing suggests the FRC, BRC, and FS-152 are all the
            > same, but my reducer is a slightly different design - did they
            > change at some point? Is yours the same as the drawing?
            >
            > Does anyone know how sensitive these scopes are to a couple mm shift
            > in the distance? I'm planning on using one of the new "big" chip
            > cameras (16803), so I'm wondering just how close is "close enough"?
            >
            > Thanks!
            >
            > Mike
            >
            > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
            yahoogroups.com, "deepspaceviews"
            > <deepspaceviews@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi Jim,
            > >
            > > If you look on the bottom of the digram you will see a line
            with
            > > 106.2mm from about the second ring in on the focuser out to the
            > CCD
            > > chip. I worked from that part of the diagram in this order.
            > > I removed the other 2 rings back to the point shown in the
            > digram
            > > and connected my adapter there, with the adapter connected to my
            > FRC
            > > at that ring I then connect my FLI PDF and STL-11000 to the
            > adapter
            > > which puts the imaging chip of the STL at 106.2mm to achieve
            > proper
            > > focus.
            > >
            > > Steve
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
            yahoogroups.com, "Jim Miller"
            > > <jfmiller7@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Thanks Steve for that diagram. However, although I can see that
            > the
            > > second
            > > > point is the point of focus for the CCD or film camera, I
            cannot
            > > tell what
            > > > the originating point is. It does not seem to be where the
            > camera is
            > > > attached, nor where the mirror is. It seems to lie between the
            > two.
            > > >
            > > > Thanks for any clarification,
            > > >
            > > > jim
            > > >
            > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > From: UncensoredTakGroup@
            <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
            > > > [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@
            <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
            > > deepspaceviews
            > > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:33 PM
            > > > To: UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
            yahoogroups.com
            > > > Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance
            for
            > > FRC-300
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Hi Chris,
            > > >
            > > > If you would like to see a diagram of the metal Back Distance
            > go
            > > to
            > > > my web site and look under the tips page I have it posted
            > there.
            > > >
            > > > Steve Roffo
            > > > www.deepspaceviews.com
            > > >
            > > > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@
            <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, "Chris Sauer"

            > <chris@>
            > > > wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > Ok, dumb question here but, what exactly does that mean?
            > This is
            > > > something
            > > > > that has always confused me.
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > Does anyone have a graphical visualization aid so a dummy
            > like
            > > me
            > > > can
            > > > > understand the concept of "metal back distance".
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > _____
            > > > >
            > > > > From: UncensoredTakGroup@
            <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
            > > > > [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@
            <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
            > mark k
            > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:08 AM
            > > > > To: UncensoredTakGroup@
            <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
            > > > > Subject: RE: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back
            > Distance
            > > > for FRC-300
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > Yes the FRC-300 has specific metal back distances both for
            > > Native
            > > > and when
            > > > > you put the Reducer/Flattener in too
            > > > >
            > > > > The smaller the camera chip is that you are using this
            > distance
            > > is
            > > > less
            > > > > critical but it is a specification for getting those
            perfect
            > > stars
            > > > your
            > > > > bought the FRC for
            > > > >
            > > > > Mike I thought that your numbers for the metal Back
            distance
            > > were
            > > > correct.
            > > > >
            > > > > <http://www.aajonahf
            > > <http://www.aajonahf <http://www.aajonahfish.com/measurements.htm>
            ish.com/measurements.htm>
            > > > > ish.com/measurements.htm>
            > > > > http://www.aajonahf
            > > <http://www.aajonahf <http://www.aajonahfish.com/measurements.htm>
            ish.com/measurements.htm>
            > > > > ish.com/measurements.htm
            > > > >
            > > > > Mark
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > >
            > >
            >





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • mike3457
            Hi Steve, No - not the focuser. There is a refractor element that screws into the focuser (which is why you have to spacer the distance to the CCD so
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Steve,

              No - not the focuser. There is a refractor element that screws into
              the focuser (which is why you have to spacer the distance to the CCD
              so careflly). Look at this page:

              http://www.darksights.com/frc_reducerflattener.htm

              I've shown a BRC reducer/flattener with the attached 89mm adapter
              being removed from the focuser. Then I show the FCR focuser with an
              arrow pointing to the flange of the reducer/flattener (you can see
              that it is different - not a 6mm widfe flange, and no 89mm
              adapter). Lastly I show your page shopwing the BRC adapter drawing
              with arrows pointing to the reducer flattener and the 89mm adapter.

              If you look at your FRC focuser, the last ring of the focuser is the
              one with the white indexing marks on it. Then you see the reducer
              flattener. Does yours look like mine (a 2mm wide flange) or like
              the BRC image (a 6mm wide flange and then a 2 mm wide flange on a
              89mm adapter)?


              Regards

              Mike


              --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "deepspaceviews"
              <deepspaceviews@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Mike, Just so I am on the same page?
              > When you are saying reducer are you talking about the helical
              > focuser and rings on the rear of the FRC/BRC?
              >
              > Steve R
              >
              >
              > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "mike3457" <mgsandy@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > Thanks for that image Steve!
              > >
              > > Unfortunately my FRC reducer does not look like the one in the
              > > drawing. That is clearly a BRC reducer. My FRC reducer does
              not
              > > have (or need) the 89mm adapter that is shown in the drawing.
              The
              > > title on the drawing suggests the FRC, BRC, and FS-152 are all
              the
              > > same, but my reducer is a slightly different design - did they
              > > change at some point? Is yours the same as the drawing?
              > >
              > > Does anyone know how sensitive these scopes are to a couple mm
              shift
              > > in the distance? I'm planning on using one of the new "big" chip
              > > cameras (16803), so I'm wondering just how close is "close
              enough"?
              > >
              > > Thanks!
              > >
              > > Mike
              > >
            • deepspaceviews
              Hi Mike, Sorry for my confusion. You are absolutely correct!!! My FRC is the same that is in your FRC picture with the shorter flange flattner. I would guess
              Message 6 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Mike,

                Sorry for my confusion.

                You are absolutely correct!!! My FRC is the same that is in your FRC
                picture with the shorter flange flattner. I would guess the
                difference would have to be something to do with the BRC being an f/5
                at a shorter Focal length and the FRC at f/7.9 and longer focal
                length?
                Maybe they did change something along the way??

                If you look at the chart I think Tak is showing you the larger flange
                of the BRC as well as the shorter flange of the FRC in the same
                diagram? Also in the diagram you can see where they have part 72 &
                part 73 just above the locking screw. I have another chart that
                identifies those parts #72 89mm adapter and #73 as 89mm tapered ring.

                After pulling my equipment out and taking a closer look I also
                realized that I owe JIM an apologue i was incorrect in my explanation
                of where I connect my adapter to my FRC. For the native formate of
                the FRC at f/7.9 I DO NOT remove the first two rings I connect my
                adapter right to the 89mm adapter ring of the FRC, In other words I
                leave part 73 & 72 on and connect right to #72 the 89mm adapter ring.

                SORRY!!! Boy am I making this hard.



                Steve




                --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "mike3457" <mgsandy@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Hi Steve,
                >
                > No - not the focuser. There is a refractor element that screws
                into
                > the focuser (which is why you have to spacer the distance to the
                CCD
                > so careflly). Look at this page:
                >
                > http://www.darksights.com/frc_reducerflattener.htm
                >
                > I've shown a BRC reducer/flattener with the attached 89mm adapter
                > being removed from the focuser. Then I show the FCR focuser with
                an
                > arrow pointing to the flange of the reducer/flattener (you can see
                > that it is different - not a 6mm widfe flange, and no 89mm
                > adapter). Lastly I show your page shopwing the BRC adapter drawing
                > with arrows pointing to the reducer flattener and the 89mm adapter.
                >
                > If you look at your FRC focuser, the last ring of the focuser is
                the
                > one with the white indexing marks on it. Then you see the reducer
                > flattener. Does yours look like mine (a 2mm wide flange) or like
                > the BRC image (a 6mm wide flange and then a 2 mm wide flange on a
                > 89mm adapter)?
                >
                >
                > Regards
                >
                > Mike
                >
                >
                > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "deepspaceviews"
                > <deepspaceviews@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hi Mike, Just so I am on the same page?
                > > When you are saying reducer are you talking about the helical
                > > focuser and rings on the rear of the FRC/BRC?
                > >
                > > Steve R
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "mike3457" <mgsandy@>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Thanks for that image Steve!
                > > >
                > > > Unfortunately my FRC reducer does not look like the one in the
                > > > drawing. That is clearly a BRC reducer. My FRC reducer does
                > not
                > > > have (or need) the 89mm adapter that is shown in the drawing.
                > The
                > > > title on the drawing suggests the FRC, BRC, and FS-152 are all
                > the
                > > > same, but my reducer is a slightly different design - did they
                > > > change at some point? Is yours the same as the drawing?
                > > >
                > > > Does anyone know how sensitive these scopes are to a couple mm
                > shift
                > > > in the distance? I'm planning on using one of the new "big"
                chip
                > > > cameras (16803), so I'm wondering just how close is "close
                > enough"?
                > > >
                > > > Thanks!
                > > >
                > > > Mike
                > > >
                >
              • deepspaceviews
                Jim, Please let me know if you got my apology and correction in my last post? Steve ... FRC ... f/5 ... flange ... ring. ... explanation ... ring. ... see ...
                Message 7 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jim,
                  Please let me know if you got my apology and correction in my last
                  post?

                  Steve



                  --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "deepspaceviews"
                  <deepspaceviews@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Mike,
                  >
                  > Sorry for my confusion.
                  >
                  > You are absolutely correct!!! My FRC is the same that is in your
                  FRC
                  > picture with the shorter flange flattner. I would guess the
                  > difference would have to be something to do with the BRC being an
                  f/5
                  > at a shorter Focal length and the FRC at f/7.9 and longer focal
                  > length?
                  > Maybe they did change something along the way??
                  >
                  > If you look at the chart I think Tak is showing you the larger
                  flange
                  > of the BRC as well as the shorter flange of the FRC in the same
                  > diagram? Also in the diagram you can see where they have part 72 &
                  > part 73 just above the locking screw. I have another chart that
                  > identifies those parts #72 89mm adapter and #73 as 89mm tapered
                  ring.
                  >
                  > After pulling my equipment out and taking a closer look I also
                  > realized that I owe JIM an apologue i was incorrect in my
                  explanation
                  > of where I connect my adapter to my FRC. For the native formate of
                  > the FRC at f/7.9 I DO NOT remove the first two rings I connect my
                  > adapter right to the 89mm adapter ring of the FRC, In other words I
                  > leave part 73 & 72 on and connect right to #72 the 89mm adapter
                  ring.
                  >
                  > SORRY!!! Boy am I making this hard.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Steve
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "mike3457" <mgsandy@>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hi Steve,
                  > >
                  > > No - not the focuser. There is a refractor element that screws
                  > into
                  > > the focuser (which is why you have to spacer the distance to the
                  > CCD
                  > > so careflly). Look at this page:
                  > >
                  > > http://www.darksights.com/frc_reducerflattener.htm
                  > >
                  > > I've shown a BRC reducer/flattener with the attached 89mm adapter
                  > > being removed from the focuser. Then I show the FCR focuser with
                  > an
                  > > arrow pointing to the flange of the reducer/flattener (you can
                  see
                  > > that it is different - not a 6mm widfe flange, and no 89mm
                  > > adapter). Lastly I show your page shopwing the BRC adapter
                  drawing
                  > > with arrows pointing to the reducer flattener and the 89mm
                  adapter.
                  > >
                  > > If you look at your FRC focuser, the last ring of the focuser is
                  > the
                  > > one with the white indexing marks on it. Then you see the reducer
                  > > flattener. Does yours look like mine (a 2mm wide flange) or like
                  > > the BRC image (a 6mm wide flange and then a 2 mm wide flange on a
                  > > 89mm adapter)?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Regards
                  > >
                  > > Mike
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "deepspaceviews"
                  > > <deepspaceviews@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Hi Mike, Just so I am on the same page?
                  > > > When you are saying reducer are you talking about the helical
                  > > > focuser and rings on the rear of the FRC/BRC?
                  > > >
                  > > > Steve R
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "mike3457"
                  <mgsandy@>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Thanks for that image Steve!
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Unfortunately my FRC reducer does not look like the one in
                  the
                  > > > > drawing. That is clearly a BRC reducer. My FRC reducer does
                  > > not
                  > > > > have (or need) the 89mm adapter that is shown in the
                  drawing.
                  > > The
                  > > > > title on the drawing suggests the FRC, BRC, and FS-152 are
                  all
                  > > the
                  > > > > same, but my reducer is a slightly different design - did
                  they
                  > > > > change at some point? Is yours the same as the drawing?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Does anyone know how sensitive these scopes are to a couple
                  mm
                  > > shift
                  > > > > in the distance? I'm planning on using one of the new "big"
                  > chip
                  > > > > cameras (16803), so I'm wondering just how close is "close
                  > > enough"?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Thanks!
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Mike
                  > > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • mike3457
                  Hi Steve, You aren t making things difficult, but the lack of documentation and specification data on these scopes sure is! Here is yet another data source to
                  Message 8 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Steve,

                    You aren't making things difficult, but the lack of documentation
                    and specification data on these scopes sure is! Here is yet another
                    data source to confuse you:

                    http://www.buytelescopes.com/container.asp?
                    dest=/manufacturers/takahashi/back_focus_guide.htm

                    So Art says 106.2, the chart above from Anacortes says 106.5, I've
                    also seen 105.7.

                    I guess I'm going to declare 106.2mm the winner (only because it
                    kind of splits the difference) and build my image train around that
                    metal back distance. This is a heck of a way to determine critical
                    dimensions on a scope that Takahashi wants to charge nearly $30K for
                    now. Okay - now I'm offically depressed!

                    Mike





                    --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "deepspaceviews"
                    <deepspaceviews@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Mike,
                    >
                    > Sorry for my confusion.
                    >
                    > You are absolutely correct!!! My FRC is the same that is in your
                    FRC
                    > picture with the shorter flange flattner. I would guess the
                    > difference would have to be something to do with the BRC being an
                    f/5
                    > at a shorter Focal length and the FRC at f/7.9 and longer focal
                    > length?
                    > Maybe they did change something along the way??
                    >
                    > If you look at the chart I think Tak is showing you the larger
                    flange
                    > of the BRC as well as the shorter flange of the FRC in the same
                    > diagram? Also in the diagram you can see where they have part 72 &
                    > part 73 just above the locking screw. I have another chart that
                    > identifies those parts #72 89mm adapter and #73 as 89mm tapered
                    ring.
                    >
                    > After pulling my equipment out and taking a closer look I also
                    > realized that I owe JIM an apologue i was incorrect in my
                    explanation
                    > of where I connect my adapter to my FRC. For the native formate of
                    > the FRC at f/7.9 I DO NOT remove the first two rings I connect my
                    > adapter right to the 89mm adapter ring of the FRC, In other words
                    I
                    > leave part 73 & 72 on and connect right to #72 the 89mm adapter
                    ring.
                    >
                    > SORRY!!! Boy am I making this hard.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Steve
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • mike3457
                    Howdy Mark, Yep - those look just like the ones I ve got sitting in my observatory. What did you settle on for the metal back for your set- up - 105.7 or
                    Message 9 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Howdy Mark,

                      Yep - those look just like the ones I've got sitting in my
                      observatory. What did you settle on for the metal back for your set-
                      up - 105.7 or 106.2?

                      On another note, are you back at imaging again? I've missed your
                      posts and you work - and I even thought I saw you advertise your
                      scope at one point. How are you doing?

                      Mike




                      --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "mark k" <MailYahoo@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Here is a picture of both lens for the FRC300
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > <http://www.aajonahfish.com/FRC300NEWSet-up/ComparisonR-N1.jpg>
                      > http://www.aajonahfish.com/FRC300NEWSet-up/ComparisonR-N1.jpg
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > One on the right is the Reducer/Flattener for the scope
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Mark
                      >
                    • mark k
                      Mike, I settled on 106.2mm Not back to imaging yet, hoping that I will in the next month it has been quite some time but feeling better and stronger now so am
                      Message 10 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mike,



                        I settled on 106.2mm

                        Not back to imaging yet, hoping that I will in the next month it has been
                        quite some time but feeling better and stronger now so am hoping that by the
                        new year I will be imaging once again



                        Mark



                        _____

                        From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
                        [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike3457
                        Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:16 PM
                        To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance for FRC-300



                        Howdy Mark,

                        Yep - those look just like the ones I've got sitting in my
                        observatory. What did you settle on for the metal back for your set-
                        up - 105.7 or 106.2?

                        On another note, are you back at imaging again? I've missed your
                        posts and you work - and I even thought I saw you advertise your
                        scope at one point. How are you doing?

                        Mike

                        --- In UncensoredTakGroup@ <mailto:UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>
                        yahoogroups.com, "mark k" <MailYahoo@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Here is a picture of both lens for the FRC300
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > <http://www.aajonahf
                        <http://www.aajonahfish.com/FRC300NEWSet-up/ComparisonR-N1.jpg>
                        ish.com/FRC300NEWSet-up/ComparisonR-N1.jpg>
                        > http://www.aajonahf
                        <http://www.aajonahfish.com/FRC300NEWSet-up/ComparisonR-N1.jpg>
                        ish.com/FRC300NEWSet-up/ComparisonR-N1.jpg
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > One on the right is the Reducer/Flattener for the scope
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Mark
                        >





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Ray York
                        We get that info from Art so if it is changed, we will need to update our site. We will double check with Art on Monday. Sorry for the confusion. Ray York
                        Message 11 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          We get that info from Art so if it is changed, we will need to update our
                          site. We will double check with Art on Monday. Sorry for the confusion.

                          Ray York
                          Anacortes Telescope
                          www.BuyTelescopes.com





                          On 12/1/06, mike3457 <mgsandy@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hi Steve,
                          >
                          > You aren't making things difficult, but the lack of documentation
                          > and specification data on these scopes sure is! Here is yet another
                          > data source to confuse you:
                          >
                          > http://www.buytelescopes.com/container.asp?
                          > dest=/manufacturers/takahashi/back_focus_guide.htm
                          >
                          > So Art says 106.2, the chart above from Anacortes says 106.5, I've
                          > also seen 105.7.
                          >
                          > I guess I'm going to declare 106.2mm the winner (only because it
                          > kind of splits the difference) and build my image train around that
                          > metal back distance. This is a heck of a way to determine critical
                          > dimensions on a scope that Takahashi wants to charge nearly $30K for
                          > now. Okay - now I'm offically depressed!
                          >
                          > Mike
                          >
                          > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com<UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>,
                          > "deepspaceviews"
                          > <deepspaceviews@...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Hi Mike,
                          > >
                          > > Sorry for my confusion.
                          > >
                          > > You are absolutely correct!!! My FRC is the same that is in your
                          > FRC
                          > > picture with the shorter flange flattner. I would guess the
                          > > difference would have to be something to do with the BRC being an
                          > f/5
                          > > at a shorter Focal length and the FRC at f/7.9 and longer focal
                          > > length?
                          > > Maybe they did change something along the way??
                          > >
                          > > If you look at the chart I think Tak is showing you the larger
                          > flange
                          > > of the BRC as well as the shorter flange of the FRC in the same
                          > > diagram? Also in the diagram you can see where they have part 72 &
                          > > part 73 just above the locking screw. I have another chart that
                          > > identifies those parts #72 89mm adapter and #73 as 89mm tapered
                          > ring.
                          > >
                          > > After pulling my equipment out and taking a closer look I also
                          > > realized that I owe JIM an apologue i was incorrect in my
                          > explanation
                          > > of where I connect my adapter to my FRC. For the native formate of
                          > > the FRC at f/7.9 I DO NOT remove the first two rings I connect my
                          > > adapter right to the 89mm adapter ring of the FRC, In other words
                          > I
                          > > leave part 73 & 72 on and connect right to #72 the 89mm adapter
                          > ring.
                          > >
                          > > SORRY!!! Boy am I making this hard.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Steve
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >



                          --
                          Ray York


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • mike3457
                          That is great news Mark! Glad to hear that you are recovering. I hope you are working back to a level where you don t have significant restrictions. I
                          Message 12 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            That is great news Mark! Glad to hear that you are recovering. I
                            hope you are working back to a level where you don't have
                            significant restrictions. I really look forward to your images and
                            contributions to this hobby. I'm hoping to be back up and running
                            myself again right after the new year. I hate to have that FRC
                            sitting in a case any longer than I have to.

                            Sounds like 106.2 is the number.......I hope.

                            Regards

                            Mike

                            --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "mark k" <MailYahoo@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > Mike,
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I settled on 106.2mm
                            >
                            > Not back to imaging yet, hoping that I will in the next month it
                            has been
                            > quite some time but feeling better and stronger now so am hoping
                            that by the
                            > new year I will be imaging once again
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Mark
                          • mike3457
                            Hi Ray, I think Art has expressed his opinion already - 106.2 mm. I hope you understand that most folks really appreciate the fact that Anacortes goes to all
                            Message 13 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Ray,

                              I think Art has expressed his opinion already - 106.2 mm.

                              I hope you understand that most folks really appreciate the fact that
                              Anacortes goes to all the trouble to post this kind of information.
                              You are a major source of data when questions come up.

                              Thanks for your help!

                              Mike


                              --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray York" <york.ray@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > We get that info from Art so if it is changed, we will need to
                              update our
                              > site. We will double check with Art on Monday. Sorry for the
                              confusion.
                              >
                              > Ray York
                              > Anacortes Telescope
                              > www.BuyTelescopes.com
                            • Chris Sauer
                              Ok, so we have the distance down. Did we settle where we measure from? Is it from the back plate of the helical focuser? _____ From:
                              Message 14 of 28 , Dec 2, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ok, so we have the distance down. Did we settle where we measure from? Is
                                it from the back plate of the helical focuser?



                                _____

                                From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
                                [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike3457
                                Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 1:12 AM
                                To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance for FRC-300



                                Hi Ray,

                                I think Art has expressed his opinion already - 106.2 mm.

                                I hope you understand that most folks really appreciate the fact that
                                Anacortes goes to all the trouble to post this kind of information.
                                You are a major source of data when questions come up.

                                Thanks for your help!

                                Mike






                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • deepspaceviews
                                Hi Chris, In the native format f/7.9 I connect my adapter to the beveled ring that gets locked down with the three locking screws. I know there has been a lot
                                Message 15 of 28 , Dec 2, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Chris,

                                  In the native format f/7.9 I connect my adapter to the beveled ring
                                  that gets locked down with the three locking screws. I know there has
                                  been a lot of confusion on my part but the other connection that I
                                  spoke of was if I was using the f/5.9 reducer.

                                  Steve R


                                  --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Sauer" <chris@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Ok, so we have the distance down. Did we settle where we measure
                                  from? Is
                                  > it from the back plate of the helical focuser?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > _____
                                  >
                                  > From: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
                                  > [mailto:UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike3457
                                  > Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 1:12 AM
                                  > To: UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Proper Metal Back Distance for
                                  FRC-300
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Hi Ray,
                                  >
                                  > I think Art has expressed his opinion already - 106.2 mm.
                                  >
                                  > I hope you understand that most folks really appreciate the fact
                                  that
                                  > Anacortes goes to all the trouble to post this kind of information.
                                  > You are a major source of data when questions come up.
                                  >
                                  > Thanks for your help!
                                  >
                                  > Mike
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                • mike3457
                                  ... from? Is ... Hi Chris, Start from the rear most flat surface of the reducer. I ve updated the web page to show that:
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Dec 2, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Sauer" <chris@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Ok, so we have the distance down. Did we settle where we measure
                                    from? Is
                                    > it from the back plate of the helical focuser?


                                    Hi Chris,

                                    Start from the rear most flat surface of the reducer. I've updated
                                    the web page to show that:

                                    http://www.darksights.com/frc_reducerflattener.htm

                                    The dovetail piece that normally attaches to the 89mm thread on the
                                    reducer is about 18.5mm wide, then you have to figure out the camera
                                    backfocus to determine the rest of the spacer lengths.

                                    For what it is worth, I'm in the process of rethinking the whole
                                    helical focuser design on the FRC/BRC scope in an attempt to avoid
                                    using a focusing device (like a PDF) in this fixed metal back
                                    space. I'll post some pictures of the solution when we get it
                                    done. If you are less than happy with the whole rotating helical
                                    focuser thing, and want to be able to either manually or remotely
                                    focus your scope with very precision motions - these could be a
                                    solution for you.
                                  • Ray York
                                    I absolutely appreciate that and that is why I want our info to be accurate. Thank you Mike, we ll update our site on Monday. ... -- Ray York [Non-text
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Dec 2, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I absolutely appreciate that and that is why I want our info to be accurate.
                                      Thank you Mike, we'll update our site on Monday.

                                      On 12/1/06, mike3457 <mgsandy@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Hi Ray,
                                      >
                                      > I think Art has expressed his opinion already - 106.2 mm.
                                      >
                                      > I hope you understand that most folks really appreciate the fact that
                                      > Anacortes goes to all the trouble to post this kind of information.
                                      > You are a major source of data when questions come up.
                                      >
                                      > Thanks for your help!
                                      >
                                      > Mike
                                      >
                                      > --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com<UncensoredTakGroup%40yahoogroups.com>,
                                      > "Ray York" <york.ray@...>
                                      > wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > We get that info from Art so if it is changed, we will need to
                                      > update our
                                      > > site. We will double check with Art on Monday. Sorry for the
                                      > confusion.
                                      > >
                                      > > Ray York
                                      > > Anacortes Telescope
                                      > > www.BuyTelescopes.com
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >



                                      --
                                      Ray York


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.