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..
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..
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 .
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.
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
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 ?
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.
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?
