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

Re: [William Optics] New flattener 4 availability

Expand Messages
  • Perry Holcomb
    Steve, How many tons does that thing weigh??? Perry ... From: Steve L Subject: Re: [William Optics] New flattener 4 availability To:
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 6, 2009
      Steve,

      How many tons does that thing weigh???

      Perry

      --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Steve L <zorlac@...> wrote:

      From: Steve L <zorlac@...>
      Subject: Re: [William Optics] New flattener 4 availability
      To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:12 AM

      Well, its arrived... and its MASSIVE...

      http://www.steves- astro.com/ images/misc/ 20090406_ wo_flat4. jpg

      (Yes, the can next to it is normal size, not mini-airline size)

      Steve

      Steve L wrote:
      > I was hoping it would arrive today (clear sky for at least a few hours
      > tonight), but alas it was not to be.
      >
      > As soon as it arrives and I get a chance to use it, I will post a
      > message here.
      >
      > Steve


    • Steve L
      I thought it was a scale model of hubble :) I just weighed it, and its 612 grams / 21.58 ounces / 1.34 lbs / 0.000612 Metric Tons (ignore as required) Steve
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 6, 2009
        I thought it was a scale model of hubble :)

        I just weighed it, and its 612 grams / 21.58 ounces / 1.34 lbs /
        0.000612 Metric Tons (ignore as required)

        Steve

        Perry Holcomb wrote:
        > Steve,
        >
        > How many tons does that thing weigh???
        >
        > Perry
        >
        > --- On *Mon, 4/6/09, Steve L /<zorlac@...>/* wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: Steve L <zorlac@...>
        > Subject: Re: [William Optics] New flattener 4 availability
        > To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:12 AM
        >
        > Well, its arrived... and its MASSIVE...
        >
        > http://www.steves- astro.com/ images/misc/ 20090406_ wo_flat4. jpg
        > <http://www.steves-astro.com/images/misc/20090406_wo_flat4.jpg>
        >
        > (Yes, the can next to it is normal size, not mini-airline size)
        >
        > Steve
        >
        > Steve L wrote:
        > > I was hoping it would arrive today (clear sky for at least a few
        > hours
        > > tonight), but alas it was not to be.
        > >
        > > As soon as it arrives and I get a chance to use it, I will post a
        > > message here.
        > >
        > > Steve
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Timm Bottoni
        Thanks for the update and pictures! Now that we know it is huge, all that remains is to see how well it actually works. If it works as well as everyone hopes,
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 6, 2009
          Thanks for the update and pictures!

          Now that we know it is huge, all that remains is to see how well it actually works. If it works as well as everyone hopes, it could prove to be the next best thing since sliced Ethos bread.

          Timm

          --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Steve L <zorlac@...> wrote:
          >
          > I thought it was a scale model of hubble :)
          >
          > I just weighed it, and its 612 grams / 21.58 ounces / 1.34 lbs /
          > 0.000612 Metric Tons (ignore as required)
          >
          > Steve
          >
          > Perry Holcomb wrote:
          > > Steve,
          > >
          > > How many tons does that thing weigh???
          > >
          > > Perry
          > >
          > > --- On *Mon, 4/6/09, Steve L /<zorlac@...>/* wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > From: Steve L <zorlac@...>
          > > Subject: Re: [William Optics] New flattener 4 availability
          > > To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
          > > Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:12 AM
          > >
          > > Well, its arrived... and its MASSIVE...
          > >
          > > http://www.steves- astro.com/ images/misc/ 20090406_ wo_flat4. jpg
          > > <http://www.steves-astro.com/images/misc/20090406_wo_flat4.jpg>
          > >
          > > (Yes, the can next to it is normal size, not mini-airline size)
          > >
          > > Steve
          > >
          > > Steve L wrote:
          > > > I was hoping it would arrive today (clear sky for at least a few
          > > hours
          > > > tonight), but alas it was not to be.
          > > >
          > > > As soon as it arrives and I get a chance to use it, I will post a
          > > > message here.
          > > >
          > > > Steve
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Nigel
          Just received my Flattener IV - it s a beast. Waiting for Clear Skies to see if it s an improvement over the Flattener III with the Megrez 90 and I actually
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 8, 2009
            Just received my Flattener IV - it's a beast.

            Waiting for Clear Skies to see if it's an improvement over the Flattener III with the Megrez 90 and I actually get round stars all over the field of view as per the WO website description!



            --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Timm Bottoni" <t.bottoni@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thanks for the update and pictures!
            >
            > Now that we know it is huge, all that remains is to see how well it actually works. If it works as well as everyone hopes, it could prove to be the next best thing since sliced Ethos bread.
            >
            > Timm
            >
            > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Steve L <zorlac@> wrote:
            > >
            > > I thought it was a scale model of hubble :)
            > >
            > > I just weighed it, and its 612 grams / 21.58 ounces / 1.34 lbs /
            > > 0.000612 Metric Tons (ignore as required)
            > >
            > > Steve
            > >
            > > Perry Holcomb wrote:
            > > > Steve,
            > > >
            > > > How many tons does that thing weigh???
            > > >
            > > > Perry
            > > >
            > > > --- On *Mon, 4/6/09, Steve L /<zorlac@>/* wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > From: Steve L <zorlac@>
            > > > Subject: Re: [William Optics] New flattener 4 availability
            > > > To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
            > > > Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:12 AM
            > > >
            > > > Well, its arrived... and its MASSIVE...
            > > >
            > > > http://www.steves- astro.com/ images/misc/ 20090406_ wo_flat4. jpg
            > > > <http://www.steves-astro.com/images/misc/20090406_wo_flat4.jpg>
            > > >
            > > > (Yes, the can next to it is normal size, not mini-airline size)
            > > >
            > > > Steve
            > > >
            > > > Steve L wrote:
            > > > > I was hoping it would arrive today (clear sky for at least a few
            > > > hours
            > > > > tonight), but alas it was not to be.
            > > > >
            > > > > As soon as it arrives and I get a chance to use it, I will post a
            > > > > message here.
            > > > >
            > > > > Steve
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Steve L
            As the AFR has changed completely, i`m wondering how much back flange to CCD distance we need to be adding to get it somewhere near the correct distance.
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 8, 2009
              As the AFR has changed completely, i`m wondering how much "back flange
              to CCD" distance we need to be adding to get it somewhere near the
              correct distance. From my rough measurements, I think its somewhere in
              the region of 45mm to 55mm, but we will have to wait and see.

              Steve


              Nigel wrote:
              > Just received my Flattener IV - it's a beast.
              >
              > Waiting for Clear Skies to see if it's an improvement over the Flattener III with the Megrez 90 and I actually get round stars all over the field of view as per the WO website description!
            • Nigel
              Clear skies last night and although the seeing was not great (high level mist) and an almost full moon I managed to get out and test the Flattener IV. Yes it
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 9, 2009
                Clear skies last night and although the seeing was not great (high level mist) and an almost full moon I managed to get out and test the Flattener IV.

                Yes it does live up to expectations giving round stars across the full frame on the Megrez 90 with modded Canon 1000D.

                I've posted a very roughly processed image in my album of M37 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/William-Optics/photos/album/1665349697/pic/list

                Recommended and much much better performance than the Flattener III

                >
                > Just received my Flattener IV - it's a beast.
                >
                > Waiting for Clear Skies to see if it's an improvement over the Flattener III with the Megrez 90 and I actually get round stars all over the field of view as per the WO website description!
                >
                >
              • Steve L
                Did you have to play with the adjustment, or just get it somewhere near where it should be and just shoot? Steve
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 9, 2009
                  Did you have to play with the adjustment, or just get it somewhere near
                  where it should be and just shoot?

                  Steve


                  Nigel wrote:
                  > Clear skies last night and although the seeing was not great (high level mist) and an almost full moon I managed to get out and test the Flattener IV.
                  >
                  > Yes it does live up to expectations giving round stars across the full frame on the Megrez 90 with modded Canon 1000D.
                  >
                  > I've posted a very roughly processed image in my album of M37 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/William-Optics/photos/album/1665349697/pic/list
                  >
                  > Recommended and much much better performance than the Flattener III
                  >
                • Nigel
                  Steve I just put the adjustment at the setting for the Megrez 90 and took a few shots of Capella as this was my final alignment star. I noticed that the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 9, 2009
                    Steve

                    I just put the adjustment at the setting for the Megrez 90 and took a few shots of Capella as this was my final alignment star. I noticed that the setting had moved and re adjusted to the stop. To be honest I cant see a lot of diffrerence in the images. The adjsutment was only about 3mm off on the graduated scale.

                    With the Flattener IV I've noticed that I get much lower FWHM figures when focussing in Nebulosity

                    All in all I'm pleased with the outcome

                    Nigel

                    --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Steve L <zorlac@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Did you have to play with the adjustment, or just get it somewhere near
                    > where it should be and just shoot?
                    >
                    > Steve
                    >
                    >
                    > Nigel wrote:
                    > > Clear skies last night and although the seeing was not great (high level mist) and an almost full moon I managed to get out and test the Flattener IV.
                    > >
                    > > Yes it does live up to expectations giving round stars across the full frame on the Megrez 90 with modded Canon 1000D.
                    > >
                    > > I've posted a very roughly processed image in my album of M37 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/William-Optics/photos/album/1665349697/pic/list
                    > >
                    > > Recommended and much much better performance than the Flattener III
                    > >
                    >
                  • Timm Bottoni
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 9, 2009
                      The stars in the corners look quite good - this looks awesome--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Nigel" <nwgentuk@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Steve
                      >
                      > I just put the adjustment at the setting for the Megrez 90 and took a few shots of Capella as this was my final alignment star. I noticed that the setting had moved and re adjusted to the stop. To be honest I cant see a lot of diffrerence in the images. The adjsutment was only about 3mm off on the graduated scale.
                      >
                      > With the Flattener IV I've noticed that I get much lower FWHM figures when focussing in Nebulosity
                      >
                      > All in all I'm pleased with the outcome
                      >
                      > Nigel
                      >
                      > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Steve L <zorlac@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Did you have to play with the adjustment, or just get it somewhere near
                      > > where it should be and just shoot?
                      > >
                      > > Steve
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Nigel wrote:
                      > > > Clear skies last night and although the seeing was not great (high level mist) and an almost full moon I managed to get out and test the Flattener IV.
                      > > >
                      > > > Yes it does live up to expectations giving round stars across the full frame on the Megrez 90 with modded Canon 1000D.
                      > > >
                      > > > I've posted a very roughly processed image in my album of M37 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/William-Optics/photos/album/1665349697/pic/list
                      > > >
                      > > > Recommended and much much better performance than the Flattener III
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.