--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "buddy" <maxwebhead@m...> wrote:
> Hi Harvey
> Count me in
> The reason I opted for this option, is that  i cant see in my minds
eye,
> what the TMBLogo anodized would look like
> Buddy
>
> 3.  The letters "TMB" on top and "Optical" directly below, would be
> engraved or laser cut into the back of the DDCAP.

Through the kind help of Eric LaFranchi, I have a DDCAP in my hands
now. I think it is very nicely machined and anodized, and having a
desiccant feature is a good idea. Is it a must have accessory? Not
at all. But it does look good, and works as advertised.

If Harvey wants to sell these units, I have no problem with that.
Do you want to Harvey? I think all we have to decide is if the
face of the cap says "TMB Optical" or would the TMB logo be better?

Thomas Back

Hello Group,

I've given up trying to do searches from Yahoo for info on this:  Yahoo either
returns info which doesn't even relate to my search parameter or only goes back
to posts from this year only.

I have forgotten now whether or not the 7mm Super-Mono was ever available in the
original package (non-parfocal barrel) or whether when the 7mm and 9mm were
first introduced if they were already parfocalized as they are today.

Does anyone know?  Tom, Markus?

Thanks in advance,

WayneG



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "W. Gondella" <strehl985@c...>
wrote:
> Hello Group,
>
> I've given up trying to do searches from Yahoo for info on this:
Yahoo either returns info which doesn't even relate to my search
parameter or only goes back to posts from this year only.
>
> I have forgotten now whether or not the 7mm Super-Mono was ever
available in the original package (non-parfocal barrel) or whether
when the 7mm and 9mm were first introduced if they were already
parfocalized as they are today.
>
> Does anyone know?  Tom, Markus?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> WayneG

Wayne,

The 7mm (and 9mm) TMB Super Monos were only made in the parfocal
versions.

Thomas Back

Thanks again to everyone for your kind words. I've been an imager
for a total of 5 months and a visual observer for 38 years. Imaging
is fun and I plan to continue but there are pros and cons regarding
imaging vs visual. More to come on this.

Jim Phillips

That looks very cool indeed.
  At first glance  I didnt realise that the pixs were of the product, Id
never seen it done in that detail befor
Buddy


>>Hope this helps:

>>http://www.danco.net/danco.cfm?p=4
>>It looks like this company can take a digital photo >>and anodize it
>>into a product.
>>___
>>Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "tmboptical" <TMBoptical@...>
To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:29 PM
Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 7mm Monocentric


> The 7mm (and 9mm) TMB Super Monos were only made in the parfocal
> versions.
>
> Thomas Back


Tom,

When do you expect to get more of the 7mm's, and are all of them already sold?

Thanks,

WayneG

Hello,

Thank you all for your interest and support.  I have a call to a few
laser engraves and expect to hear from them in the next couple of
days.  I have also contacted Danco (thank you Tim and Harvey for the
information) and expect to hear back from them tomorrow.

Basically we have three options.

1.  TMB logo laser engraved (no finish added other than basic
anodizing)

2.  TMB Optical engraved or machined (also no finish added other
than basic anodizing)

3.  TMB logo "Deep image processed (Danco does this)

The least expensive and the fastest method would be TMB optical
machined in the cap.  The most desirable method would probably be
the logo done by Danco Deep image processing which will be in
matching TMB colors.

To give you a better idea, I will try to get a sample of each method
done.  I will then post photos in the photo section of the group.  I
will also provide prices as soon as I have them.  These prices will
be not be marked up and will be the amount PWT is charged for the
service.  Please do keep in mind, all anodizers have a minimum
charge, so the higher the number of orders the lower the cost of
engraving/machining and anodizing.

Thank you again.

Shahin Zarehparvar
Particle Wave Technologies
http://www.pwtec.com



--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Tube Tim" <potentate@s...> wrote:
> >--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "buddy" <maxwebhead@m...>
wrote:
> > Hi Harvey
> > Count me in
> > The reason I opted for this option, is that  i cant see in my
minds
> > eye, what the TMBLogo anodized would look like
> > Buddy
>
> Hope this helps:
>
> http://www.danco.net/danco.cfm?p=4
>
> It looks like this company can take a digital photo and anodize it
> into a product.
>
> ___
> Tim

Hi Group,

First a question - probably for Markus as much as anyone else

As you know I've mounted my 152 LW on a G11. The G11 came with a 21
pound (9.5kg) counterbalance weight. Is this enough to counterbalance
the scope? I have to have the weight all the way down the Dec shaft and
the scope still seems to slightly have the "say" when the weight is
above the scope I do mean slightly you'd have to give it a push and it
will stop but not as soon as you'd think if you know what I mean.



Tonight I got a bit adventurous and decided to try some webcam imaging
unfortunately the image was not prepared to stay in the field and I
thought this could be why. I'm going to ask the Losmandy group in more
detail but the weight of the scope will be something I will need to
know.

I should have just done some observing really as the seeing was much
better than last night. I was out on Sunday from dusk until nearly
midnight Saturn, Jupiter and the moon and trying all sorts of combos
with different EPs and Barlows. I went mad (but a good test for the
G11) and used a 6mm Ortho with a TV 3x Barlow  600x on Saturn. The
seeing was not really up to it but some sub second (time) glimpses
where amazing 200x was the seeing limit really.

The Orthos 6mm and 7mm were the best although a Meade 9mm Plossl was
quite good although gave a yellowish tinge to the image as did the
Konigs. The Konigs were not the best at all and the Meade 2x "Apo"
Barlow gave a yellowish view and scattered light on the moon making the
sky grey. I'm sure this scope will sort out "the men from the boys
EP-wise and the monocentrics are quite reasonably priced so I may have
to start a collection. Any advice on a barlow? I need one for visual
observing and something to give me about f/30 (i.e. 4x) for webcamming.

Since I got this scope I've become a stranger to my family and I
haven't watched TV for several days we could be at war with someone and
I'd be none the wiser, I'm addicted to it!



Good Seeing

Ray Byrne

>--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Ray Byrne <ray@i...> wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> First a question - probably for Markus as much as anyone else
>
> As you know I've mounted my 152 LW on a G11. The G11 came with a 21
> pound (9.5kg) counterbalance weight. Is this enough to
> counterbalance the scope? I have to have the weight all the way
> down the Dec shaft and
> the scope still seems to slightly have the "say" when the weight is
> above the scope I do mean slightly you'd have to give it a push and
> it  will stop but not as soon as you'd think if you know what I
> mean.
>

What do you mean?  :-)   \

Actually if you can push in one direction and it doesn't stop, does
that if you pull in the opposite direction it is harder.  The test for
balance is pulling the counterweight bar and comparing it to the force
required to push it.  The force required to push or pull should be the
same.  Of course, what you really want to do is have a slight (1
pound) off balance always to the east.

Can you remove some 'stuff' from the scope, say the view finder?  Some
how you gotta lighten up the load.  Also, you can remove the 'safety'
bolt at the bottom and counterweight shaft and use the weight a little
lower on the shaft.  Just make sure it's locked down snug.

> Tonight I got a bit adventurous and decided to try some webcam
> imaging  unfortunately the image was not prepared to stay in the
> field and I thought this could be why. I'm going to ask the Losmandy
> group in more detail but the weight of the scope will be something I
> will need to know.

How fast did the planet exit stage left?  If you turn the mount off,
does it make a difference.  For 'tight' CCD imaging (i.e. barlowed),
you do have to be reasonable polar aligned.  If you have the Polar
Alignment Scope (PAS) properly adjusted (collimated) in the first
place and then use it to polar align the mount, you should be in good
shape.


> I should have just done some observing really as the seeing was much
> better than last night. I was out on Sunday from dusk until nearly
> midnight Saturn, Jupiter and the moon and trying all sorts of combos
> with different EPs and Barlows. I went mad (but a good test for the
> G11) and used a 6mm Ortho with a TV 3x Barlow  600x on Saturn. The
> seeing was not really up to it but some sub second (time) glimpses
> where amazing 200x was the seeing limit really.

Save the imaging for later and enjoy the views!

>
> The Orthos 6mm and 7mm were the best although a Meade 9mm Plossl was
> quite good although gave a yellowish tinge to the image as did the
> Konigs. The Konigs were not the best at all and the Meade 2x "Apo"
> Barlow gave a yellowish view and scattered light on the moon making
> the sky grey. I'm sure this scope will sort out "the men from the
> boys EP-wise and the monocentrics are quite reasonably priced so I
> may have to start a collection. Any advice on a barlow? I need one
> for visual observing and something to give me about f/30 (i.e. 4x)
> for webcamming.

I like the Baader "FFC" as a barlow.  It webcams well etc etc.

Jim, who has been publshed, uses the Televue line.

>
> Since I got this scope I've become a stranger to my family and I
> haven't watched TV for several days we could be at war with someone
> and I'd be none the wiser, I'm addicted to it!
>

Is there a problem?

>
>
> Good Seeing
>

Not here!

> Ray Byrne


Tim Povlick
San Diego, CA

I vote for TMB Optical

Bob, Toronto

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tmboptical" <TMBoptical@a...>
wrote:
> --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "buddy" <maxwebhead@m...> wrote:
> > Hi Harvey
> > Count me in
> > The reason I opted for this option, is that  i cant see in my
minds
> eye,
> > what the TMBLogo anodized would look like
> > Buddy
> >
> > 3.  The letters "TMB" on top and "Optical" directly below, would
be
> > engraved or laser cut into the back of the DDCAP.
>
> Through the kind help of Eric LaFranchi, I have a DDCAP in my hands
> now. I think it is very nicely machined and anodized, and having a
> desiccant feature is a good idea. Is it a must have accessory? Not
> at all. But it does look good, and works as advertised.
>
> If Harvey wants to sell these units, I have no problem with that.
> Do you want to Harvey? I think all we have to decide is if the
> face of the cap says "TMB Optical" or would the TMB logo be better?
>
> Thomas Back

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tmboptical" <TMBoptical@a...>
wrote:
  > Through the kind help of Eric LaFranchi, I have a DDCAP in my
> hands now. I think it is very nicely machined and anodized, and
> having a desiccant feature is a good idea. Is it a must have
> accessory? Not at all. But it does look good, and works as
> advertised.
>
> If Harvey wants to sell these units, I have no problem with that.
> Do you want to Harvey?

Hi Thomas,
      No no no, that was never the intent.  They are, and will be,
sold by Particle Wave Technology.  I hate selling things.  I just buy
them.  All those adapters we sold were a nightmare for me.  There are
about three of each left, by the way.
      It was very simply that Tim and I had discussed how much we
liked them and thought that it would be a very nice "touch" if they
were personalized for TMB scopes, as they are for another brand.
      Since Shahin, the owner of PWT, was willing to do this we had to
decide what TMB identification to use on them so it would be
consistant.  We figured that should be a group decision, followed
either by a TMB approval, veto or possibly a simple TMB executive
decision.

> I think all we have to decide is if the
> face of the cap says "TMB Optical" or would the TMB logo be better?

      My vote is for the full color anodized logo.  That would really
look sharp on the clear anodized aluminum cap.
      By the way, I also asked Shahin to consider making the grooves
about .015" deeper to better accept the O-rings so they would be an
even better match for the other knobs on TMB scopes.  I haven't heard
back from him on that yet.
      I was glad to see the post from Shahin.  Now it can be handled
by him and PWT directly.

Regards,
Harvey

Again, I vote for number 2. I like the engraving, it's permanent.

Cheers

Bob, Toronto

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "szareh" <sz@p...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thank you all for your interest and support.  I have a call to a
few
> laser engraves and expect to hear from them in the next couple of
> days.  I have also contacted Danco (thank you Tim and Harvey for
the
> information) and expect to hear back from them tomorrow.
>
> Basically we have three options.
>
> 1.  TMB logo laser engraved (no finish added other than basic
> anodizing)
>
> 2.  TMB Optical engraved or machined (also no finish added other
> than basic anodizing)
>
> 3.  TMB logo "Deep image processed (Danco does this)
>
> The least expensive and the fastest method would be TMB optical
> machined in the cap.  The most desirable method would probably be
> the logo done by Danco Deep image processing which will be in
> matching TMB colors.
>
> To give you a better idea, I will try to get a sample of each
method
> done.  I will then post photos in the photo section of the group.
I
> will also provide prices as soon as I have them.  These prices will
> be not be marked up and will be the amount PWT is charged for the
> service.  Please do keep in mind, all anodizers have a minimum
> charge, so the higher the number of orders the lower the cost of
> engraving/machining and anodizing.
>
> Thank you again.
>
> Shahin Zarehparvar
> Particle Wave Technologies
> http://www.pwtec.com
>
>
>
> --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Tube Tim" <potentate@s...>
wrote:
> > >--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "buddy" <maxwebhead@m...>
> wrote:
> > > Hi Harvey
> > > Count me in
> > > The reason I opted for this option, is that  i cant see in my
> minds
> > > eye, what the TMBLogo anodized would look like
> > > Buddy
> >
> > Hope this helps:
> >
> > http://www.danco.net/danco.cfm?p=4
> >
> > It looks like this company can take a digital photo and anodize it
> > into a product.
> >
> > ___
> > Tim

Hi Harvey,

The DDCAPs are already machined and ready for anodizing.  To make
the groove deeper may pose a problem (or at least added cost).  I
will talk to my machinist and see what we can come up with.  On the
upside, there are many standard O-ring sizing and I am pretty sure
one will fit perfectly without having to modify the DDCAP.  I will
check and let you all know.

Incidentally, those who are interested in the brass model - Danco
will not be able to do the TMB logo in color.  The can only use
their special process with aluminum or titanium.

Thanks again,

Shahin Zarehparvar
Particle Wave Technologies
http://www.pwtec.com


--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "mrgrytt" <mrgrytt@i...> wrote:
> --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tmboptical" <TMBoptical@a...>
> wrote:
>  > Through the kind help of Eric LaFranchi, I have a DDCAP in my
> > hands now. I think it is very nicely machined and anodized, and
> > having a desiccant feature is a good idea. Is it a must have
> > accessory? Not at all. But it does look good, and works as
> > advertised.
> >
> > If Harvey wants to sell these units, I have no problem with that.
> > Do you want to Harvey?
>
> Hi Thomas,
>      No no no, that was never the intent.  They are, and will be,
> sold by Particle Wave Technology.  I hate selling things.  I just
buy
> them.  All those adapters we sold were a nightmare for me.  There
are
> about three of each left, by the way.
>      It was very simply that Tim and I had discussed how much we
> liked them and thought that it would be a very nice "touch" if
they
> were personalized for TMB scopes, as they are for another brand.
>      Since Shahin, the owner of PWT, was willing to do this we had
to
> decide what TMB identification to use on them so it would be
> consistant.  We figured that should be a group decision, followed
> either by a TMB approval, veto or possibly a simple TMB executive
> decision.
>
> > I think all we have to decide is if the
> > face of the cap says "TMB Optical" or would the TMB logo be
better?
>
>      My vote is for the full color anodized logo.  That would
really
> look sharp on the clear anodized aluminum cap.
>      By the way, I also asked Shahin to consider making the
grooves
> about .015" deeper to better accept the O-rings so they would be
an
> even better match for the other knobs on TMB scopes.  I haven't
heard
> back from him on that yet.
>      I was glad to see the post from Shahin.  Now it can be
handled
> by him and PWT directly.
>
> Regards,
> Harvey

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Ray Byrne <ray@i...> wrote:

Hello Ray,

I have a TMB 152 CNC on a G-11. I use *two* 21-lb counterweights in
my setup. The weights are about half-way down the shaft. I should
think that the closer the weights are to the mount's center of
gravity the more stable your setup would be. The weight all the way
at the end would be less than optimal, IMO.

Regards,
Louis Marchesi
Lincoln University, PA, USA

> Hi Group,
>
> First a question - probably for Markus as much as anyone else
>
> As you know I've mounted my 152 LW on a G11. The G11 came with a
21
> pound (9.5kg) counterbalance weight. Is this enough to
counterbalance
> the scope? I have to have the weight all the way down the Dec
shaft and
> the scope still seems to slightly have the "say" when the weight
is
> above the scope I do mean slightly you'd have to give it a push
and it
> will stop but not as soon as you'd think if you know what I mean.

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "W. Gondella" <strehl985@c...>
wrote:
> Tom,
>
> When do you expect to get more of the 7mm's, and are all of them
already sold?
>
> Thanks,
>
> WayneG

Wayne,

E-mail me about availability on the TMB 7mm Super Monos, thanks.

Thomas Back

7 mm and 9 mm have been available only as new styled parfocal modells

Markus
----- Original Message -----
From: "W. Gondella" <strehl985@...>
To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:20 PM
Subject: [tmboptical] 7mm Monocentric


> Hello Group,
>
> I've given up trying to do searches from Yahoo for info on this:  Yahoo
either returns info which doesn't even relate to my search parameter or only
goes back to posts from this year only.
>
> I have forgotten now whether or not the 7mm Super-Mono was ever available
in the original package (non-parfocal barrel) or whether when the 7mm and
9mm were first introduced if they were already parfocalized as they are
today.
>
> Does anyone know?  Tom, Markus?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> WayneG
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

all eyepieces coming again at March 21

Markus
----- Original Message -----
From: "W. Gondella" <strehl985@...>
To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [tmboptical] Re: 7mm Monocentric


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tmboptical" <TMBoptical@...>
> To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:29 PM
> Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 7mm Monocentric
>
>
> > The 7mm (and 9mm) TMB Super Monos were only made in the parfocal
> > versions.
> >
> > Thomas Back
>
>
> Tom,
>
> When do you expect to get more of the 7mm's, and are all of them already
sold?
>
> Thanks,
>
> WayneG
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

On Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 02:11 AM, Tube Tim wrote:

> Of course, what you really want to do is have a slight (1
> pound) off balance always to the east.

I'd say that is just what I have. having said that what do you think of
Louis's comment

"I should think that the closer the weights are to the mount's center of
gravity the more stable your setup would be. The weight all the way
at the end would be less than optimal, IMO.

I do experience wobbling when focussing and slewing that was not the
experience I had with my old fork mounted scope, plus I also installed
electric focusing on it which is very useful for imaging I wonder if
there is such a thing for the feathertouch?

How fast did the planet exit stage left?

Not very fast probably a minute or two but this was at prime focus and
it was an out of focus image, with a barlow (3x) the image was off the
chip in the 10 seconds or so it took me to enter the house and round
into my study. You see my computer was in the house and the scope was
about 20 feet away so I realised I couldn't focus it without help (on
my Meade Mak the difference between visual and webcam was very close
not so with the 152)

For 'tight' CCD imaging (i.e. barlowed),you do have to be reasonable
polar aligned.  If you have the Polar Alignment Scope (PAS) properly
adjusted (collimated) in the first place and then use it to polar align
the mount, you should be in good shape.

To be honest I kept the tripod low as I thought it would increase its
stability but found it painful to peer through the polar alignment
scope kneeling on the concrete driveway so altough I thought it was
polaris that I'd put in the little slot I have my doubts. I think it
would be a good idea to not illuminate the "graticule" until I'm sure
I've found Polaris.

How do I collimate the Polar scope I would have thought refractors
especially small ones would be collimated at the factory and would
never need to be touched again?

Thanks for taking the time to explain these things Tim, I look forward
to your answers to the above





Good Seeing

Ray Byrne

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What is the price of the TMB CNC tube 130mm refractor? I thought that I heard
(or read) that they were going up. On Markus's site it is listed as $5390.00
(export US) and $5990.00 (European). This sounds kind of odd, especially
since all of the other sopes have the same price, export vs European.
Thomas has it listed as $5390.00.

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Ray Byrne <ray@i...> wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> First a question - probably for Markus as much as anyone else
>
> As you know I've mounted my 152 LW on a G11. The G11 came with a 21
> pound (9.5kg) counterbalance weight. Is this enough to
counterbalance > the scope? ?<

Ray

Probably not. I had to ask our good friend Rob Dalby to make me a
second counterweight to balance my Mak, guide scope CCD camera on my
G11. Total up top weight is probably about 30lbs and I found the
standard Losmandy 21 lb CW was not enough.

Properly balanced and adequately polar aligned I would be surprised
if you have any probs keeping a planet on the webcam.

I am imaging at sample rates of .75 arc seconds a pixel on the G11
and getting pinpoint autoguided tracking over several hours.

The polar scope on the G11 is not as easy to use as the ones on say
Vixen mounts,  there instructions how to use it on the Losmandy
website.

Cheers

Ian





I have to have the weight all the way down the Dec shaft and
> the scope still seems to slightly have the "say" when the weight is
> above the scope I do mean slightly you'd have to give it a push and
it
> will stop but not as soon as you'd think if you know what I mean.
>
>
>
> Tonight I got a bit adventurous and decided to try some webcam
imaging
> unfortunately the image was not prepared to stay in the field and I
> thought this could be why. I'm going to ask the Losmandy group in
more
> detail but the weight of the scope will be something I will need to
> know.
>
> I should have just done some observing really as the seeing was
much
> better than last night. I was out on Sunday from dusk until nearly
> midnight Saturn, Jupiter and the moon and trying all sorts of
combos
> with different EPs and Barlows. I went mad (but a good test for the
> G11) and used a 6mm Ortho with a TV 3x Barlow  600x on Saturn. The
> seeing was not really up to it but some sub second (time) glimpses
> where amazing 200x was the seeing limit really.
>
> The Orthos 6mm and 7mm were the best although a Meade 9mm Plossl
was
> quite good although gave a yellowish tinge to the image as did the
> Konigs. The Konigs were not the best at all and the Meade 2x "Apo"
> Barlow gave a yellowish view and scattered light on the moon making
the
> sky grey. I'm sure this scope will sort out "the men from the boys
> EP-wise and the monocentrics are quite reasonably priced so I may
have
> to start a collection. Any advice on a barlow? I need one for
visual
> observing and something to give me about f/30 (i.e. 4x) for
webcamming.
>
> Since I got this scope I've become a stranger to my family and I
> haven't watched TV for several days we could be at war with someone
and
> I'd be none the wiser, I'm addicted to it!
>
>
>
> Good Seeing
>
> Ray Byrne

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Ray Byrne <ray@i...> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 02:11 AM, Tube Tim wrote:
>
> > Of course, what you really want to do is have a slight (1
> > pound) off balance always to the east.
>
> I'd say that is just what I have. having said that what do you think
> of  Louis's comment
>
> "I should think that the closer the weights are to the mount's
> center of gravity the more stable your setup would be. The weight
> all the way at the end would be less than optimal, IMO.
>

Louis is eluding to stability due to the second moment versus first
moment.  First moment is just the force x distance, or simply
balancing the RA axis.  The 2'nd moment has a fancy name that I can't
recall this early but the theory goes if you reduce 2'nd moment the
system becomes more stable.  By more stable I mean after you 'bump'
the scope, say due to changing focus, it returns to the stable state
in 2 or less seconds.  One way to test this stability is to give a
light rap of the knuckles to the focuser end and see how long before
it gets stable again.  It should take no more than 2 seconds.

I've tried to take the two equations for 1'st and 2'nd moment and come
up with optimal placement of the weights.  I didn't find the solution
but I suspect the center of gravity (COG) of the weights should be the
same distance from the RA axis pivot point at the COG of the scope.

> I do experience wobbling when focussing and slewing that was not the
> experience I had with my old fork mounted scope, plus I also

All mounts will do this to a point.  With all worm gears there is a
little play in them.

> installed  electric focusing on it which is very useful for imaging
> I wonder if  there is such a thing for the feathertouch?
>

I'm not sure if it is but it would be nice for CCD.

> How fast did the planet exit stage left?
>
> Not very fast probably a minute or two but this was at prime focus
> and it was an out of focus image, with a barlow (3x) the image was
> off the chip in the 10 seconds or so it took me to enter the house
> and round  into my study. You see my computer was in the house and
> the scope was  about 20 feet away so I realised I couldn't focus it
> without help (on my Meade Mak the difference between visual and
> webcam was very close not so with the 152)
>

It exited stage left way to fast.  The polar alignment is off.
(blattent statement of the obvious)

> For 'tight' CCD imaging (i.e. barlowed),you do have to be reasonable
> polar aligned.  If you have the Polar Alignment Scope (PAS) properly
> adjusted (collimated) in the first place and then use it to polar align
> the mount, you should be in good shape.
>
> To be honest I kept the tripod low as I thought it would increase its
> stability but found it painful to peer through the polar alignment
> scope kneeling on the concrete driveway so altough I thought it was
> polaris that I'd put in the little slot I have my doubts. I think it
> would be a good idea to not illuminate the "graticule" until I'm sure
> I've found Polaris.

This is how I run my G-11 also, tripod all the way down.  Just kneel
down to use the PAS.

>
> How do I collimate the Polar scope I would have thought refractors
> especially small ones would be collimated at the factory and would
> never need to be touched again?

There is a lot of stuff on the G-11 Yahoo Groups about doing this and
on the AstroPhysics website.  The risk is there are 3 set screws that
hold the reticule.  If you make these to tight then when the mount
heats up in the day, the glass gets squeezed and breaks the reticule.
  Your out US$65 at that point. The three allen head screws are on hte
side of the PAS near where it mounts to the scope.  The holes are tiny
and you have to look cloose.  Also the allen head screw is 0.035" if
my memory serves me right. Be that as it may, I've adjusted the PAS on
both the G-11 and AP-900 mounts I use several times just keeping in
mind to not snug it down at all.  Also keeping in mind that if you
tighten one screw you have to loosen 2 others.  Given all this if you
want to adjust it you point the mount at a distant object, like a
power pole insulator.  Make the center of the reticule line up with
the insulator (there are 3 lines that converge on the center).  If you
spin hte RA axis the reticule should stay centered on the target.  It
won't in your case, you'll see it wobble off target.  Careful think
about what screw you have to tighten and which 2 you have to loosen.
Eventually when you have the mount exactly pointing at the insulator
and spin the RA axis the insulator will stay centered under the reticule.

Once you get this taken care of, the PAS is very - very good for polar
alignment.  Of you are real careful and align polaris and the two
other stars where there belong for the current epoch (2004, there are
hash marks for 1990, 2000 and 2010) you will be aligned well enough
for CCD planetary work.   For my long exposure film work I just barely
have to tweak the mount after using the PAS.  Come 2015 I think we
will need a new reticule.  :-)

>
> Thanks for taking the time to explain these things Tim, I look
> forward to your answers to the above
>

No problem, if any of this is confusing, let me know and I'll try
harder to explain it.

>
>
>
>
> Good Seeing
>

Not here, huge rainstorm last night.  :-)

Good Luck.


> Ray Byrne
>

Tim Povlick
San Diego, CA

Hello.

Desire to buy a 130 TMB F:6 but before desire indicates to me if its
quality is parallel to the price.  Other that I like is TEC 140 APO.

As will be better?

Thanks,

Mario Muriel - Spain.

Mario,
That is a good question. The TEC shows a very high strehl of 0.99. Is this all
that really matters? It'll be nice to hear some comparison notes on the two
scopes.
Michael




  --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Mario" <mauriel@o...> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Desire to buy a 130 TMB F:6 but before desire indicates to me if its
> quality is parallel to the price.  Other that I like is TEC 140 APO.
>
> As will be better?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mario Muriel - Spain.

>--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Frias"
> <aaronslandscape@c...> wrote:
> Mario,
> That is a good question. The TEC shows a very high strehl of 0.99.

One has to ask is that strehl measurement made with a certified Zygo
interferometer and how many data points are used.  Also, is the test
done with the lenses in the cell or setup on a test bench?  I don't
know how TEC does it but LZOS tests with a certified Zygo
interferometer using thousands of data points across the lense
surface.  Testing the lens in the cell will yield a lower strehl from
one meaured while setup in an ideal lab environment.  In cell is what
counts as that's the way you use it.

> Is this all  that really matters?

I would also want to see the spot diagrams.  These are posted on the
AMP site and show the degree of color correction.  The strehl for
various wavelengths is also posted there.  Personally I think pretty
much nails it.

> It'll be nice to hear some
> comparison notes on the two scopes.



> Michael
>

Copyright 2004 by:

Tim Povlick
San Diego, CA


>
>
>  --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Mario" <mauriel@o...> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > Desire to buy a 130 TMB F:6 but before desire indicates to me if its
> > quality is parallel to the price.  Other that I like is TEC 140 APO.
> >
> > As will be better?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mario Muriel - Spain.

> One has to ask is that strehl measurement made with a certified Zygo
> interferometer and how many data points are used.  Also, is the test
> done with the lenses in the cell or setup on a test bench?  I don't
> know how TEC does it but LZOS tests with a certified Zygo
> interferometer using thousands of data points across the lense
> surface.  Testing the lens in the cell will yield a lower strehl from
> one meaured while setup in an ideal lab environment.  In cell is what
> counts as that's the way you use it.


Hi Tim

Please help me sort out interferometry. Someone in-the-know needs to
post a treatise on interferometry on Cloudy Nights. Hopefully it wont
land in the new "laboratory reports" area...

Aren't interferometry results interpreted by a computers measurements
of interference fringes? So it's not actually putting thousands of data
points across the lens surface right? It's putting "X" amount of points
up and down the fringe pattern and then making judgements on that?
I wonder if changing the quantity of points in the fringe pattern has that
much effect. I have heard only conflicting reports about what changing
the quantity of measurement points within the fringe pattern does.

The TMB reports are interesting but don't include the fringes or the
decisions made by whoever was producing the results. (Were tilt,
defocus, astigmatism, coma subtracted from the results? Or were they
included in the presented results?) I don't know. If the fringes were
included then I guess you could throw it into an analysis package
and have it spit out the same results for you.

Roland posted some quickfringe results to the PCS forums a while
back. See here:
http://www.pcsincnet.com:16080/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
They include fringes in all cases, but they all vary in the abberations
which were subtracted when calculating the Strehl. For example the
"apo1" high quality APO with fringes sent by another manufacturer
shows 99% strehl but astigmatism and coma have been subtracted
from those results. That can certainly improve the strehl on the report,
right?

Also, like you mention, cell or no cell? Lens orientation as well can
change everything. As far as I'm concerned.. IMHO.. YMMV... etc.
Interferometry can't be well compared from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Maybe if we had an independant lab testing them all and trying to
maintain total objectivity and sharing the full process of analysis.

Mike

Hi Mike,
It turns out that there are two ways to utilize the fringe data to
arrive at the surface profile.  Programs like QuickFringe trace
fringe centers, and use these data points to fit a set of polynomials
(that represent the various abberations) to these data points.  The
number of data points is limited to those placed on fringe centers.
Newer ZGYO's (and others) can do what is called phase shifting
interferometry.  This is done by taking multiple images of the fringe
pattern (typically 4 or 5), with the reference beam phase shifted 90
deg between each image.  Visually, it appears as though the fringe
pattern visibly scrolls (in steps) across the surface.  The first and
fifth images *should* be darn near identical, if everything is in
good calibration (5 images at 0, 90, 180, 270, 360 deg phase. 0 =
360).  Using per pixel irradiance values from this series of images,
the phase (and Optical Path Difference) can be extracted for each
pixel.  Each pixel effectively becomes a data point to which the
polynomials are fit to, giving a complete coverage of the optic
surface, as well as a more accurate representation of the surface
figure.  Note that a number of companies offer retrofit phase
shifters and software that work with older ZYGO's that just did
static fringe analysis.  I have no idea what setup LZOS uses. In any
case, properly done testing on an interferometer should yield
repeatable results, independent of which interferometer was used.
This doesn't that every interferometer is capable of the same
accuracy and repeatability - this depends on a number of factors.  A
good discussion of this is at:
http://www.opticalmechanics.com/interferometric_test_results.htm
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Kurt Mihalco

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Mike C" <mike@e...> wrote:
> > One has to ask is that strehl measurement made with a certified
Zygo
> > interferometer and how many data points are used.  Also, is the
test
> > done with the lenses in the cell or setup on a test bench?  I
don't
> > know how TEC does it but LZOS tests with a certified Zygo
> > interferometer using thousands of data points across the lense
> > surface.  Testing the lens in the cell will yield a lower strehl
from
> > one meaured while setup in an ideal lab environment.  In cell is
what
> > counts as that's the way you use it.
>
>
> Hi Tim
>
> Please help me sort out interferometry. Someone in-the-know needs to
> post a treatise on interferometry on Cloudy Nights. Hopefully it
wont
> land in the new "laboratory reports" area...
>
> Aren't interferometry results interpreted by a computers
measurements
> of interference fringes? So it's not actually putting thousands of
data
> points across the lens surface right? It's putting "X" amount of
points
> up and down the fringe pattern and then making judgements on that?
> I wonder if changing the quantity of points in the fringe pattern
has that
> much effect. I have heard only conflicting reports about what
changing
> the quantity of measurement points within the fringe pattern does.
>
> The TMB reports are interesting but don't include the fringes or
the
> decisions made by whoever was producing the results. (Were tilt,
> defocus, astigmatism, coma subtracted from the results? Or were they
> included in the presented results?) I don't know. If the fringes
were
> included then I guess you could throw it into an analysis package
> and have it spit out the same results for you.
>
> Roland posted some quickfringe results to the PCS forums a while
> back. See here:
> http://www.pcsincnet.com:16080/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
> They include fringes in all cases, but they all vary in the
abberations
> which were subtracted when calculating the Strehl. For example the
> "apo1" high quality APO with fringes sent by another manufacturer
> shows 99% strehl but astigmatism and coma have been subtracted
> from those results. That can certainly improve the strehl on the
report,
> right?
>
> Also, like you mention, cell or no cell? Lens orientation as well
can
> change everything. As far as I'm concerned.. IMHO.. YMMV... etc.
> Interferometry can't be well compared from manufacturer to
manufacturer.
> Maybe if we had an independant lab testing them all and trying to
> maintain total objectivity and sharing the full process of analysis.
>
> Mike

> In any
> case, properly done testing on an interferometer should yield
> repeatable results, independent of which interferometer was used.
> This doesn't that every interferometer is capable of the same
> accuracy and repeatability - this depends on a number of factors.  A
> good discussion of this is at:
> http://www.opticalmechanics.com/interferometric_test_results.htm
> Hope this helps,
> Regards,
> Kurt Mihalco

Thanks Kurt, that was very interesting. The repeatability of producing
near identical set of fringes with proper thermal handling and proper
optical alignments seems certain. It's that software analysis of those fringes
where where subjective interpretation comes into play, yes?

Mike

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Mike C" <mike@e...> wrote:
> The repeatability of producing
> near identical set of fringes with proper thermal handling and
proper
> optical alignments seems certain. It's that software analysis of
those fringes
> where where subjective interpretation comes into play, yes?
>
> Mike

Actually, no.  The software solution is constrained to fitting the
polynomials to the data points, and reporting the results.  A very
well defined problem.  No subjectivity here.  The user certainly has
the option to have the software remove certain abberations (tilt,
defocus, coma, etc) in doing the calculations, but I think you will
find that analyzing any fringe pattern with just about any fringe
analysis software (using the same constraints) will yield very
similar results.  If they don't, then they're not doing it right.
Subjectivity does exist if one is manually placing fringe centers.
Also, it is possible automated algorithms may choose some fringe data
points in error, affecting the results.  However, if test data for an
optic is significantly different on different interferometers, it is
more likely due reasons discussed in the Optical Mechanics article,
or how the operator has configured the test setup. For some
interesting comments, see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&threadm=20040110140005.14218.00003213%40mb-
m28.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl2624612743d%26dq%3D%26hl%
3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%
3D20040110140005.14218.00003213%2540mb-m28.aol.com


Regards,
Kurt

--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "mihalco" <mihalco@p...> wrote:
> For some interesting comments, see:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> 8&threadm=20040110140005.14218.00003213%40mb-
> m28.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl2624612743d%26dq%3D%26hl%
> 3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%
> 3D20040110140005.14218.00003213%2540mb-m28.aol.com
>
>
> Regards,
> Kurt

Darn Yahoo always messes up long links.  Try:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2A815797

Kurt

> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> > 8&threadm=20040110140005.14218.00003213%40mb-
> > m28.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl2624612743d%26dq%3D%26hl%
> > 3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%
> > 3D20040110140005.14218.00003213%2540mb-m28.aol.com
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kurt
>
> Darn Yahoo always messes up long links.  Try:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2A815797
>
> Kurt
>


Thanks for the update, Kurt. My point is mostly about the
inclusion or exclusion of abberations like astigmatism, coma, tilt, etc.
If you present fantastic strehl results, but dont tell how you arrived at
them, then what is it worth? For example, the "apo1" lens  on that
PCS forum I mentioned earlier shows 99% Strehl, but astig is shown
as subtracted, etc. Is it 99% strehl?  Who knows.

Mike