Skywatcher 16 !!!

DJ N · #1 27-08-2010, 12:47 PM

Interesting........... just came across this........

http://www.photoimaging.com.au/pages...ecord_ID=46861

Just when I was thinking the 14 incher would be nice!!

Raybot (Ray) (Ray) · #2 27-08-2010, 02:04 PM

Whoa ! thanks for sharing

NorthernLight (Max) · #3 27-08-2010, 05:03 PM

hey, that looks like an alternative to the meade lightbridge. I like the idea to just 3 clamps, push it in and store it away. do they also make a non goto version, sure they do, don´t they?
somebody an idea on the introduction price?

kustard (Simon) · #4 27-08-2010, 05:13 PM

I'm thinking of something in the 14-16" range for my next scope and this might do the trick

*dreams*

mic_m (Michael) · #5 27-08-2010, 06:26 PM

Thanks for the heads up.

While a new telescope is always exiting news, I can see some issues with the design of the SW 16.

I have serious doubts about the rigidity of the strut design over a conventional truss like the LB or the Orion XX series. Especially given the problems that many owners appear to have encountered with tube and strut flexure in the parallel strut design of the GSO 16. Hopefully this SW will not be a “flextube”. Time will tell.

Trusses are an inherently rigid configuration; a triangle cannot shift or collapse. Trusses are well proven in telescope design (and more largely in engineering in general).

I suspect that the decision to go with the strut design over a truss is marketing related; because Orion’s equivalent Synta manufactured telescope will likely be using a truss. What a shame.

With a large telescope it is often beneficial to be able to disassemble the telescope structure for transport. However it appears that one will have to move the LTA, UTA and connecting struts in one go, as is the case with the smaller models. That could be quite a challenge; the SW 16 looks like a heavy telescope.

Indeed, the SW 16 LTA looks to be far larger than the LTA of the LB 16, as does the base; based on the fact that SW and Meade (GSO) use similar material to construct their telescopes, it stands to reason that the 16” SW will be not only larger than the LB 16 but heavier too. Further, based on the specs for the SW 14 its tube weight is as heavy as the LB 16 LTA – 26kg (the LB 16’s heaviest component). Assuming that the SW 16 will be heavier than the SW 14, it follows that SW 16 will be somewhat heavier than the LB 16.

Its interesting to note that while Orion reduced the size of the LTA between the XX12 and XX14 models it looks as if SW has actually increased the size of the LTA, it seems to keep the length of the connecting struts short (to help minimise strut flexure perhaps).

I was hoping for a SW telescope that would be lighter and more compact than the LB 16. However, it is clear that many of the impediments that have prevented people purchasing a LB 16 (size and weight) are very much existent within the SW 16 design.

I think that companies like SW really need to start listening to what their customers want if they want successful products. While the SW 16 appears to have a collapsible base and a duel speed focuser, which is very positive, it also appears to be unnecessarily large and heavy.

robz (Robert) · #6 29-08-2010, 03:54 PM

Tend to agree with you here Michael.

Three thin tubes coupled to an even thinner, flimsy looking lower half flange looks like trouble.

It's bad enough that these thin mirrors are usually not supported sufficiently in their cells, let alone a flexing mast at the top end.

I hate to slag a yet to be used or seen scope, but this collapsible three strut stuff has to stop.

chris lewis · #7 30-08-2010, 08:06 AM

One positive aspect of these types of designs is the ability to use a binoviewer just by reducing the focal length via the strut lengths. Of course the added weight could induce more flex.

Chris

Sylvain (Jon) · #8 31-08-2010, 12:21 AM

I agree with Michael and Robert on this one.
The principle of extension tubes definitely does not look sound to me when it comes to rigidity.
It sure is looks good in terms of marketing, but engineering wise this does not make much sense to me for a product where flexibility is critical. Very sceptical.

noswonky (Peter) · #9 05-09-2010, 02:40 AM

I have the 12 inch version of this scope and I find it to be close to the weight limit of what one person can move and assemble. It's also too big to fit easily in a medium size vehicle. The base is too tall to stand upright in a typical station wagon - have to lie it down - which may put stress on the azimuth bearing.

I'm upgrading my vehicle to a compact SUV just so that I can transport the scope. Only an SUV has a high enough ceiling to transport the base standing upright!

I think the 16 inch will need a LARGE SUV and 2 people to transport it.

As for the rigidity of the collapsible strut design, the 12 seems very rigid. The struts are quite thick which makes up for the inherent weakness of a parallel strut design. It also adds to the weight. Obviously the 16 is going to be less rigid but it still could be rigid enough.

Kevnool (Kev) · #10 05-09-2010, 09:23 AM

I suppose someone will purchase this and hopefully do a review concerning all the points you have all raised.

Me being a 16"er all i can tell you is its going to be heavy and will flex.

Then comes the mods to stop flex.

All the best with this one.

Cheers Kev.

Rickster (Rick) · #11 07-09-2010, 01:08 PM

Hey all,
Just received my SW 14" flex tube goto Dob. I have to say, the quality and design are excellent! Very impressive and money well spent. I have only been able to briefly use it, but optics are very good and I am looking forward for a nice clear night. Not sure what flex you are talking about as this telescope is very rigid. The design has been well thought out, which makes for a large portable unit, but It is on the limit of portability. The 16" will be a handfull I'm sure!

Cheers
Rick

mental4astro (Alexander) · #12 07-09-2010, 01:38 PM

Rick, the way 'flex' manifests itself in a scope is when you first aim the scope to zenith, and the optics are collimated & stars are pinpoint, you then drop the scope to view something close to the horizon, does the image of the stars distort from pinpoint to 'comet' like. This shows that the alignment of the optics has been compromised in the shift of position.

This might indicate flex in the OTA, but also and not exclusive of a weak primary mirror cell, or a weak secondary/spider arrangement, or movement in the mount, or movement in any other component or combination.

Congrats on the scope, though. Nice light bucket you've got yourself.

Rickster (Rick) · #13 08-09-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mental4astro

Rick, the way 'flex' manifests itself in a scope is when you first aim the scope to zenith, and the optics are collimated & stars are pinpoint, you then drop the scope to view something close to the horizon, does the image of the stars distort from pinpoint to 'comet' like. This shows that the alignment of the optics has been compromised in the shift of position.

This might indicate flex in the OTA, but also and not exclusive of a weak primary mirror cell, or a weak secondary/spider arrangement, or movement in the mount, or movement in any other component or combination.

Congrats on the scope, though. Nice light bucket you've got yourself.

As I said, I havent had a chance to really suss it out as yet, but I will see if any flex occurs as you mention. From what I have seen, it seems to be of a very rigid and a solid construction.

Rick

Louwai (Bryan) · #14 08-09-2010, 01:36 PM

I've got the 12" version of this.
The only down side that I can see is that the scope must ALWAYS be driven to position.
It does not have releasable clutches, so at no time can you "Push-To".
The scope is 100% GO-TO.

I also agree with the comments about transport. I'm lucky & am able to transport it in the trailer with my SDM. But if I didn;t have the trailer, I'd have to transport the tube in the boot & the base in the back seat laying on it's side.
Quite inconvenient.

Rickster (Rick) · #15 08-09-2010, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louwai

I've got the 12" version of this.
The only down side that I can see is that the scope must ALWAYS be driven to position.
It does not have releasable clutches, so at no time can you "Push-To".
The scope is 100% GO-TO.

I also agree with the comments about transport. I'm lucky & am able to transport it in the trailer with my SDM. But if I didn;t have the trailer, I'd have to transport the tube in the boot & the base in the back seat laying on it's side.
Quite inconvenient.

Hi,
This is not the case with the 14". You can hand position it as there are encoders within the drive units. This means once you have done the initial setup, you can move it anywhere and it stays calibrated. There is no clutch.

Cheers
Rick

CraigS · #16 08-09-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rickster

Hi,
This is not the case with the 14". You can hand position it as there are encoders within the drive units. This means once you have done the initial setup, you can move it anywhere and it stays calibrated. There is no clutch.

Cheers
Rick

This is very interesting. SkyWatcher's description page for the 10 inch collapsible goto says "The patented dual encoder design allows the telescope to be moved manually whenever the user wishes - but with no need for re-alignment!"

Until now, I had thought that this statement did not rule out that the scope might have to be manually driven using the auto-tracking control handset, (rather than hand-moved).

This is big news !!! Thanks Rickster !!

Cheers

Satchmo · #17 08-09-2010, 06:40 PM

There has to be a clutch otherwise the scope couldn't be driven, and also hand pushed. Sounds like they have a slip clutch there which would need adjustment occasionally so the adjustment of it would be in the manual.
I'm keen to hear from actual owners of the scope.

CraigS · #18 08-09-2010, 07:08 PM

So, I too would also like to hear from the actual owners about the navigation/clutch issue.

A close follow up question would then seem to be about the pointing accuracy.
For example is there any RA to Dec axis non-orthogonality evident ?
Are you using three star alignment and do you find this enough to maintain accurate alignment during an observing session ?

Cheers & Rgds

Louwai (Bryan) · #19 09-09-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satchmo

There has to be a clutch otherwise the scope couldn't be driven, and also hand pushed. Sounds like they have a slip clutch there which would need adjustment occasionally so the adjustment of it would be in the manual.
I'm keen to hear from actual owners of the scope.

I should be more specific I suppose Mark.

My 12" SW collapsable Truss definately does not have releasable clutches. It is not able to be used as "Push-to" in the usual way. Free movement..
If the scope is "pushed" then one must push quite slowly & with some force as you are spinning the drive motors, & at far higher revs than standard "drive" speed.
When Ron from Sirius Optics gave me the run-down on how to use the scope he specifically said not to push it, but to manually drive it with the hand ctrl when I was not usuing it as GO-TO.

So, in my way of thinking, my 12" is not a scope that is capable of "Push-To".

Cheers, Bryan

noswonky (Peter) · #20 09-09-2010, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louwai

I should be more specific I suppose Mark.

My 12" SW collapsable Truss definately does not have releasable clutches. It is not able to be used as "Push-to" in the usual way. Free movement..
If the scope is "pushed" then one must push quite slowly & with some force as you are spinning the drive motors, & at far higher revs than standard "drive" speed.
When Ron from Sirius Optics gave me the run-down on how to use the scope he specifically said not to push it, but to manually drive it with the hand ctrl when I was not usuing it as GO-TO.

So, in my way of thinking, my 12" is not a scope that is capable of "Push-To".

Cheers, Bryan

Well that's very strange indeed!

I have the 12" SW Collapsible also. Mine is Auto Tracking (not go-to).
It does not have the problem you describe. It can be pushed around to point at targets just like a regular (non-motorised) dob. You can even do this while it's tracking and it just continues tracking the new target.

I normally push it for large distance slewing and use the motors for fine adjustments or star-hopping.

It does have an issue with some looseness or 'play' in the azimuth axis. A few others have mentioned this but I haven't yet seen anyone claim to have solved it. Someone said that you can 'tighten the gears' etc. But how do you get access to them???? Has anyone actually done it?