Junk scope? Please advise. - Page 2

asimov (John) · #21 07-08-2005, 06:17 PM

Very good explanation Steve. The diagram speaks for itself.

Soldant · #22 07-08-2005, 06:24 PM

Really? I might just do that. I'll go see the guy soon and confront him with it. Though I'm pretty sure it'll be like talking to a brick wall, it's worth a shot

janoskiss (Steve H) · #23 07-08-2005, 08:08 PM

Soldant, I hate it too when I have to get a bit nasty to get people to do the right thing. It all depends on whether the effort is worth it. If you paid less than $200 for the scope, then probably not. It will be a good learner. (Pull it apart & the mount, experiment with collimation etc.) You could make a little Dob mount for it and use it to take to the beach. That's what I did with my 4.5" dud scope:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jano...mydobmount.jpg

Without the internal barlow, you might even get some half decent wide field views of the night sky.

If you paid around $300 or more then it's worth being firm and not taking no for an answer. I would nicely repackage the scope and ask for a refund. Talk to the manager or owner. If all else fails you can always go to the ACCC, but just threatening to go that way will probably be enough.

Soldant · #24 07-08-2005, 08:38 PM

My parents paid $700(! I never knew it was that much!) for it. I don't really care about the guy's feelings anymore, he sold junk (and even admitted there might be a barlow in there when I asked him again about the issue!) to my parents and is trying to cover his tracks by making a pathetic story. The only question is if it's worth going after him, because I'm relatively sure he won't budge unless I file a complaint. I'll investigate the legal side of it later, but $700 is a sizeable amount that could have gone to a much, much better scope.

..that said, if I can't get anything, apart from learning is there any other practical use I could put it to, apart from a rather lovely fish tank?

Astroman (Andrew Wall) · #25 07-08-2005, 08:43 PM

you could buy some baader solar film, make a cover for the front and use it for a solar scope.
If that doesn't suit your needs, buy some fish

Mick (Michael) · #26 07-08-2005, 09:11 PM

I've seen a problem like that in a scope I had a look at for a friend. But he had bad view from the beginning, no sharp point of focus. Someone at the shop were the scope was brought cleaned the internal barlow lens and reinstalled it in upside down. We turned the lens around and it was fixed, can't remember which way the lens went.

Soldant · #27 07-08-2005, 09:23 PM

Well, this one only goes one way

the other plan I've got is to try to cram a computer in there

it would be an awesome case mod. Just got to figure out a safe way to do it

.

Mick (Michael) · #28 07-08-2005, 09:40 PM

We had to remove the focuser from the OTA and unscrew the metal (Plastic) ring, drop the lens out, roll it over, refit the lens and then screw the ring back in gently to just hold the lens in the bottom of the focuser. We then refitted the focuser and adjusted the collimation. The focuser lens on that scope is the same as your photo.

Soldant · #29 07-08-2005, 09:51 PM

Ah, okay. I might give it a try if the guy at the shop can't fix it (which he probably won't be able to).

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #30 07-08-2005, 09:54 PM

$700 is a very expensive fish tank or PC case!

Push for the refund! You can get an amazing Dobbie for that kind of money.

Soldant · #31 07-08-2005, 10:09 PM

Yeah but what am I supposed to say? Really, what law says that I can get a refund out of him, considering it was in December last year that I got the scope?

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #32 07-08-2005, 10:16 PM

Get him to collimate it or refund.

If he does collimate it, your scope works again. If he can't collimate it, he will have to do something! Refund or Replace!

janoskiss (Steve H) · #33 07-08-2005, 11:54 PM

Soldant, you have left it a bit long, but Ken's got the right idea. BTW, whereabouts are you?

MiG · #34 08-08-2005, 12:39 AM

Ouch, $700 is a lot for that scope.
Check out this bait!!!
"Eventually you'll know you're ready. You'll have spent pleasant evenings poring over the ads and reviews. You'll know the different kinds of telescopes, what you can expect of them, and what you'll do with the one you pick. The telescope you want has two essentials. One is a solid, steady, smoothly working mount. The other is high-quality, "diffraction-limited" optics. This is exactly what the optrons 1400-150 Reflector-Telescope offers you for a very reasonable price."

That is so nasty.

But I must say that there should be a lens there. The E-bay ad says it's catadioptric which means it uses lenses and mirrors, so it isn't lying. Really the description should be "catadioptric Newtonian".

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #35 08-08-2005, 12:45 AM

Mig,

Don't they also go by the name 'Newtonian Cassegrain' or is that a different style all together?

janoskiss (Steve H) · #36 08-08-2005, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiG

That is so nasty.

That's capitalism at work for you!

But at least they're only asking for $279, not $700.

The issue is not that there is a barlow in the focuser, but whether it works. If it was a good mirror with a good barlow lens, then it would be a good scope! But the reason a built-in barlow rings alarm bells for me is that it does not give the user the option whether to use a barlow or not. It says to me: this mirror is so bad that you don't want to see how it performs at its native focal length.

MiG · #37 08-08-2005, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

Mig,

Don't they also go by the name 'Newtonian Cassegrain' or is that a different style all together?

That's a Cassegrain without a hole in the primary. Instead a flat diagonal (3rd mirror) reflects the light out of the side of the scope. At least that's what Googling it told me.

cristian abarca · #38 08-08-2005, 03:30 PM

Hi Soldant. I'm a little late for this post but heregoes anyway. I have a scope similar to yours except it's a saxon. I've tried taking the barlow out of the focuser and putting a normal barlow at the eyepiece and it doesn't work. Like you I 've tried to colimate it on many occasions and I can get close but not close enough. Also with mine the focuser is not made properly so it comes out of focus easily. I managed to modify this so that it is acceptable. With these cheap scopes the focuser sometimes is not aligned properly (not at 90 degrees) and the secondary mirror may also be too small (like mine). I have been told by my astronomy club that I could put the mirror on a longer tube and eliminate the barlow in the focuser. My mount is also flimsy and one thing I did was replace some of the knobs with Allen key ones to get a tighter grip. In one of the magazines they showed putting weight on a string from the centre of the tripod to stabilise it. They need a lot of modifications and I can still see through it but it could be much better, That's why I'm making my own.

Regards Cristian

asimov (John) · #39 08-08-2005, 03:49 PM

The guy it was purchased from must have a warranty of some description on it. If it's within the warranty period, he is required to fix it, or replace....or money back.

Soldant · #40 08-08-2005, 04:28 PM

I'll take it back to him maybe tomorrow if I get the time.

I'm in Wellington Point, Redlands (for those who don't know, just outside of Brisbane. So close actually I don't know why we're separate).

I'm hoping he still has the advertisement that my parents saw when the scope was still on display (curiously, it's not on display anymore...) but I think his advertisment is different from the eBay one. He's not too interested in answering questions about the scope (hence like talking to a brick wall) which leads me to believe he either doesn't know what he's on about or is trying to hide something.