My sick Takahashi

[Exfso]

Well I finally got sick of trying to get decent focus on the 130. I sent takahashi an email with some star test images, and their reply is. The scope is bad it needs to be returned to Japan to get fixed. I must admit I always thought the images were a bit soft and put it down to seeing, but after seeing what some people get with scopes that cost thousands less, I bit the bullet and decided to do something about it. Unfortunately Takahashi policy is: I am up for freight back to Japan and if faulty, they fix problems and pay return freight. The timing could not be worse with Mars coming up to opposition. Having said all that, there is no use having a Rolls Royce with a VW engine that is backfiring. "she who must be obeyed" is furious, but "the proverbial happens". Damn I reckon if I pee'd in the ocean it would dry up.
At least I still have the SN10..

:prey: :prey: :prey:

[beren]

Sorry to hear the problem all the best for a quick return/success and hope to see some Mars images when the mighty Tak is up and firing

[ballaratdragons]

Are you able to get it serviced anywhere in Oz? Surely someone locally could work on a Tak.

I can't remember which member in here, but one of them got a scope seviced/fixed by a Binocular repairer.

[Exfso]

I have to admit I am very very peeved, that such a reputable scope came to me with problems.
I was making excuses to myself that the stuff I was seeing through the eyepiece was in fact seeing. Obviously quite wrong..

[mick pinner]

l would try Roger at BATSC in Melbourne ph-0394595033

[ballaratdragons]

That's the place Mick. :thumbsup:

Binocular And Telescope Service Centre

[atalas]

Man thats got to be a rare case with a Tak scope Peter ! just goes to show I guess that even in high end gear things can escape quality contral .
Hope you get your Tak back soon and peforming to Its best .

Cheers

Louie

[RB]

How long have you had it?
Did you buy it locally?

Hope it's rectified soon.

.

[Exfso]

I have had it just over a year, bought it brand new through a local SA telescope retailer (Optic SA). No one in Australia can work on it, due to the large airspaced triplet design, it requires specialised equipment. According to Texas Nautical Repair in the USA, it needs a double pass laser collimator or some such sounding instrument. Must admit, it scares the hell out of me having to freight it all the way back to Japan.
:scared2:

[gbeal]

Such is the life of a triplet huh? Sorry to hear of this. Is it necessary to send the whole OTA, or just the lens in cell?

[Exfso]

Unfortunately the whole OTA all 22lbs of it plus the box it came in.

[davidpretorius]

bugga!

sorry to hear about this!

[Starkler]

I would be trying to make the dealer handle the warranty to the extent of paying the frieght to Japan.

[davidpretorius]

actually, that is what a dealer is meant to be, good point!

[Exfso]

Well I have had one quote, $375.00 :jawdrop:




BUT had some good news from Tak, they reckon they based their statement that it was bad because I sent them star images that were done with the toucam, and for some reason the toucam produces slightly oval shaped startest images at high magnification. Visually they are round and concentric. So Tak have said in their opinion after having checked their records of the scope that if visual images are round, then there is no issues that they can see. This is the main reason I built my artificial star so I can do a controlled star test with a normal digital camera attached, if you know what I mean. I have attached the images I sent, so one can see why they made their assumptions.
The two really oval piccies were taken at over 500x with toucam, the other two at about 200x

[davidpretorius]

i hope it works out!

[atalas]

Peter the first two look like astigmatism , but the two on the right are text book perfect !
Collimation perfect in all images . Good news If Its from the toUcam , If the objective was astigmatic It should reveal It self at 200 x as well.
When you checked It out visually using the star test at high mag what did you see ?

Cheers

Louie

[Exfso]

Given atmospherics, perfectly round visually, as I said before, I will use my artificial star to confirm this. When I rotated the toucam, the oval image rotated as well on the laptop, I reckon if it was objective problems the image would not have moved. I think what has happened when I tightened the brass clamps on the holder that it somehow moved the toucam to one side slightly making the CCD just the slightest bit out of perpendicular to the light hitting it, and under the lower mag this was not evident, only showed up under high mag. This is my theorey, hope I am correct.

[atalas]

Well I hope your get you Tak back soon Peter they are beautiful instruments to use and
you sure do miss them when there gone !

Cheers


Louie

[Exfso]

Louie it aint going anywhere at present until I do another star test with my home made star. Paul used it last night and found the collimation on his LX200 was way out, so hopefully it works. My Pier arrived today, so the next few days are going to be well and truly taken up. Once that is in I can have a go with the star test. Paul helped me with the "slab" 22bags of pre mix and 2 more bags of cement. It should never move, it is 800x800x800.
2 nights ago, I had the moon fantastic visually at 500x, so in all honesty there can't realistically be 2 much wrong with it.
Whilst on the subjec any ideas of the minimum focus distance of the 5" refractor with F7.7?

Cheers

Peter

[atalas]

Peter If your talking about the distance needed for the artificial star I think Its 20 x the focal length but If you can go longer to be on the safe side.

Cheers

Louie

[Starkler]

I dont want to scare you, but im thinking the opposite would be the case.
If the toucam is moving in relation to a fixed astigmatic objective, the astigmatic image would rotate on the screen.

If the astigmatism is in the toucam, it wouldnt rotate at all.

Im sure there is another explanation.

[atalas]

Hi Geoff, you could be right but I think that the astigmatism would reveal Its self at the eyepiece at 200 x . I could see how turning the camera will revolve the image but If you take a scope and turn It upside down you still see the same orientation through the eyepiece.

Cheers

Louie

[Stephan]

>The two really oval piccies were taken at over 500x with toucam, the other >two at about 200x

For a useful star test your need a magnification of at least 3x the aperture (in mm) but 4x to 5x are better. Your star test images with the 200x are not really meaningful.

If you use the webcam at 500x again, take one star test image (of the inner focus) then rotate the webcam and take another image. Repeat this with the outer focus. This will reveal if the webcam ccd-chip is not flat or if the telescope optics has astigmatism.

[Exfso]

Stephan, I have already done this and confirmed that as I rotate the webcam, the oval picture rotates as well. The higher the magnification, the more the oval shape is prevalent. I will try and get a still picture through my digital camera and my artificial star and see what transpires.

Cheers

[RB]

So does this mean the fault is in the webcam or the telescope?

:confused:

[Exfso]

As near as I can tell, if the oblong image rotates when I rotate the webcam, it is not the optics but the webcam, sounds logical to me. It it were the optics, rotating the webcam would not make any difference to the position of the oblong image, at least that is my thinking. I actually have the scope set up in my shed with my artificial star some 20 metres away, no webcam, no diagonal, and just allowing the scope to become ambient, but as far as I can tell at present through the soup, the star image is round as it should be. Stay tuned.

:prey:

[elusiver]

update exfso??

el :)

[Exfso]

Been out of town a few days, not had a chance as yet to do anything. Will probably use Rumple's proper star up in the flinders ranges for a test.