Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Tak Toa 130

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
23 replies to this topic

#1 ian from blighty

ian from blighty

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2014

Posted 08 December 2014 - 01:44 PM

Hi everyone.

ive been looking at a TOA130 made in 2004 number 04026.  Anyone know when the early TOA had the collimation lens cell problem.  Thanks



#2 art1942us

art1942us

    Vendor - Texas Nautical / Tak America

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 224
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2007

Posted 08 December 2014 - 06:12 PM

No.

 

Art



#3 neptun2

neptun2

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,153
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2007

Posted 09 December 2014 - 02:16 AM

I have seen toa 130 knocked out of collimation but frankly do not know the serial number and when it was produced. also it was shipped from US to Europe so this may have contributed to the problem. It was collimated by mister Rohr in Germany as far as i know and after that no more problems were present. Other than that i have not seen other toa 130 with collimation problems.



#4 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,343
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006

Posted 09 December 2014 - 11:36 PM

Hi everyone.

ive been looking at a TOA130 made in 2004 number 04026.  Anyone know when the early TOA had the collimation lens cell problem.  Thanks

http://www.astromart...&news_id=&page=

 

https://groups.yahoo...ns/topics/60564

 

http://www.iceinspac...hp/t-81149.html

 

Seems to be really easy to find reports from folks with TOA-130 collimation issues.  :thinking:

 

- Jim



#5 edif300

edif300

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,541
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007

Posted 10 December 2014 - 03:59 AM

Hi everyone.

ive been looking at a TOA130 made in 2004 number 04026.  Anyone know when the early TOA had the collimation lens cell problem.  Thanks

 

Hi,

 

We are using a TOA-130NFB. The collimation is perfect as day one with no taking any special care about it. Just use it and enjoy it.

 

Best regards,

Inaki



#6 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,763
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2008

Posted 10 December 2014 - 05:37 AM

 

Hi everyone.

ive been looking at a TOA130 made in 2004 number 04026.  Anyone know when the early TOA had the collimation lens cell problem.  Thanks

http://www.astromart...&news_id=&page=

 

https://groups.yahoo...ns/topics/60564

 

http://www.iceinspac...hp/t-81149.html

 

Seems to be really easy to find reports from folks with TOA-130 collimation issues.   :thinking:

 

- Jim

 

 

I especially like the following conclusion at the end of the third of the above sources:

 

"There is some misunderstanding about the earlier model of TOA-130. At the first stage of our introduction of TOA-130, we have received many claims for almost all TOA-130 OTA from our USA dealer that there was astigmatism on TOA-130, and according to their expectation, the astigmatism was caused by the lens cell.

After receiving this claim from USA, our technicians have checked and investigated in details spending a lot of time and finally found that the USA dealer has used inaccurate collimation tools and they have visited Japan, and have acknowledged their misjudgment. This is the real story and we confirm that there was no problem at all on the lens cell of TOA-130 from the beginning. If you heard such claim from somebody, it is a definitely rumor, and we have never changed nor modified the lens cell of TOA-130 since our first introduction till now." (Takahashi, Japan)

Followed by the clients final answer:

"...at least the problem is the USA [and] has been attended to in any case."


Edited by Fomalhaut, 10 December 2014 - 05:38 AM.


#7 roadi

roadi

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,503
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007

Posted 10 December 2014 - 05:53 AM

I'll stick to my doublet after all its a comfortable place to be  ;)



#8 edif300

edif300

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,541
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007

Posted 10 December 2014 - 06:23 AM

 

 

Hi everyone.

ive been looking at a TOA130 made in 2004 number 04026.  Anyone know when the early TOA had the collimation lens cell problem.  Thanks

http://www.astromart...&news_id=&page=

 

https://groups.yahoo...ns/topics/60564

 

http://www.iceinspac...hp/t-81149.html

 

Seems to be really easy to find reports from folks with TOA-130 collimation issues.   :thinking:

 

- Jim

 

 

I especially like the following conclusion at the end of the third of the above sources:

 

"There is some misunderstanding about the earlier model of TOA-130. At the first stage of our introduction of TOA-130, we have received many claims for almost all TOA-130 OTA from our USA dealer that there was astigmatism on TOA-130, and according to their expectation, the astigmatism was caused by the lens cell.

After receiving this claim from USA, our technicians have checked and investigated in details spending a lot of time and finally found that the USA dealer has used inaccurate collimation tools and they have visited Japan, and have acknowledged their misjudgment. This is the real story and we confirm that there was no problem at all on the lens cell of TOA-130 from the beginning. If you heard such claim from somebody, it is a definitely rumor, and we have never changed nor modified the lens cell of TOA-130 since our first introduction till now." (Takahashi, Japan)

Followed by the clients final answer:

"...at least the problem is the USA [and] has been attended to in any case."

 

 

 

Hi Chris,

 

But still they will write about it with clear intention...



#9 edif300

edif300

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,541
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007

Posted 10 December 2014 - 06:29 AM

I'll stick to my doublet after all its a comfortable place to be  ;)

 

So hope you will be happy with your "still in for evaluation" doublet ;)

 

Meanwhile a TOA owners will be as happy as you are... or more since they own a outstanding scope :)


Edited by edif300, 10 December 2014 - 06:30 AM.


#10 tonyt

tonyt

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,182
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009

Posted 10 December 2014 - 06:11 PM

In summary, it seems the TOA is good provided you don't knock it out of collimation, whereupon it will need to go back to Japan for collimation.

 

In contrast a standard triplet like the TSA can be collimated by anyone, since all 3 elements are fixed in position relative to each other (providing there is no decentering). 



#11 edif300

edif300

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,541
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007

Posted 10 December 2014 - 07:30 PM

I'm so sorry Tony but I am pretty sure that your statements are not correct.



#12 tonyt

tonyt

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,182
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009

Posted 10 December 2014 - 11:13 PM

I'm so sorry Tony but I am pretty sure that your statements are not correct.

Don't be sorry, just share your wisdom. 

 

I'm under the impression that two of the elements move independently from the other one, making collimation less straight forward than a TSA for example. Is that incorrect? 



#13 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,763
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2008

Posted 11 December 2014 - 03:59 AM

The TOAs are upper-class high precision instruments which can and do deliver the best optical images worldwide available. As such they may not be primarily meant for being bumped around in a car over rugged gravel-roads all the time.
A certain susceptibility to mechanical shock may be the price for their unique optical quality.
IMO, they deserve to be permanently mounted in something like a dome or then at least mainly used in the observer's garden or on the terrace.

The TSAs are for those who wish to load their optics in a car and drive a hundred miles to some favorite middle-of-nowhere observing-site.

I recommend to choose either of them accordingly.

#14 edif300

edif300

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,541
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007

Posted 11 December 2014 - 04:00 AM

Don't be sorry, just share your wisdom. 

 

I'm under the impression that two of the elements move independently from the other one, making collimation less straight forward than a TSA for example. Is that incorrect? 

 

 

 

The TSA can't be collimated anymore by the end user since it has a fixed lens cell.

 

The TOA could be collimated by the end user. It has a group of 3 screws set for telescope collimation (they are deeper). The another group of 3 screws set is for a perfect spherical correction adjustment, once this is adjusted all the 3 lenses are really fixed in position relative to each other and this make the possibility of collimation all the cell by the first of 3 screws group (like in the FC-100 or original FS-102 could be done). The TOA lens-cell has two critical adjustments and it is why it's required the collimation-adjustment by the factory or importer if sometime a few units require it. These adjustments once are made in the factory no longer need of it because the lens-cell design is really stable, during last decade from 2003 a thousand of TOA would be manufactured. There is no problem with collimation.

 

 My friend who own a TOA-130NFB, drives his car through rugged unpaved road full of stones (as me with my FSQ) every new moon with no problems. Next time I will make a picture... if clouds gone...


Edited by edif300, 11 December 2014 - 04:15 AM.


#15 roadi

roadi

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,503
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007

Posted 11 December 2014 - 04:36 AM

The TOAs are upper-class high precision instruments which can and do deliver the best optical images worldwide available. As such they may not be primarily meant for being bumped around in a car over rugged gravel-roads all the time.
A certain susceptibility to mechanical shock may be the price for their unique optical quality.
IMO, they deserve to be permanently mounted in something like a dome or then at least mainly used in the observer's garden or on the terrace.

The TSAs are for those who wish to load their optics in a car and drive a hundred miles to some favorite middle-of-nowhere observing-site.

I recommend to choose either of them accordingly.

Chris, bumping around with the instrument in a car i something you can avoid knowing the risk, but you have no influence on accidently bumps like those which happened to the australian guy! Thats what scares me of with a triplet. I don't doubt for a second that the TOA scopes are outstanding instruments, possibly better yet than the FS doublet's I don't know, but again too sensible a design and too much care to be taken for "my taste" to avoid a nightmare like the guy in the linked case!


Edited by roadi, 11 December 2014 - 04:38 AM.


#16 edif300

edif300

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,541
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007

Posted 11 December 2014 - 04:48 AM

but again too sensible a design and too much care to be taken for "my taste" to avoid a nightmare like the guy in the linked case! 

 

 

Do you know that in this design each lens is fixed by retaining ring to the cell?

 

This is no happen with your FS where 2 lenses separated by a small tab are fixed by a retaining ring. And nor with the triplet FCT... nor even on the TSA. So you can imagine ...



#17 roadi

roadi

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,503
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007

Posted 11 December 2014 - 06:03 AM

Edif, (multiple retaining rings or not..) the TOA 130 in the link had its lenses shaked badly out of alignment because of a bump! It might have been a little hard but so were the bump my former FS102 had, "I accidently bumped the front end into a brick wall" and nothing went out of alignment. In the doublet series, at least the two I know of, my FS102 and the FS128 I have now, you can hear the lenses moving slightly in its cell when turning the scope around! Nothing goes out of alignment because of this ;)

Looks like takahashi is the only one whom is capable of repairing and aligning such a complex system. Too bad IMO.



#18 ian from blighty

ian from blighty

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2014

Posted 11 December 2014 - 06:08 AM

Hi 

 

everyone. Just like to say thanks for everyone's help with information on the Toa  :waytogo:



#19 neptun2

neptun2

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,153
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2007

Posted 11 December 2014 - 06:37 AM

Well it's not only takahashi who can collimate TOA refractors. The one that i mentioned earlier was collimated by m-r Rohr in Germany. I agree that not everybody can do it but someone with necessary skills and equipment definitely can.



#20 roadi

roadi

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,503
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007

Posted 11 December 2014 - 06:56 AM

Well it's not only takahashi who can collimate TOA refractors. The one that i mentioned earlier was collimated by m-r Rohr in Germany. I agree that not everybody can do it but someone with necessary skills and equipment definitely can.

Collimating? aligning the lenses to each other in in a triplet optic is a very different thing. Maybe you ment aligning? If so thats good to know.


Edited by roadi, 11 December 2014 - 06:57 AM.


#21 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,763
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2008

Posted 11 December 2014 - 06:59 AM

I'll stick to my doublet after all its a comfortable place to be  ;)

 

In order not to mix up apples and oranges again it may be enlightening to repeat that Mr.Yoshida and his group of dedicated amateur astronomers rated

both the FS-128 and the TSA-120 => 73.

And in the same investigation on planetary contrast they rated two samples of the TOA-130 => one 84 and the other one 85 :bow:.

 

And Japanese amateurs are certainly to be taken exactly as serious as Americans or Europeans, by the way...



#22 neptun2

neptun2

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,153
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2007

Posted 11 December 2014 - 07:07 AM

Roadi, yes i mean aligning. 



#23 edif300

edif300

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,541
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007

Posted 11 December 2014 - 08:21 AM

Looks like takahashi is the only one whom is capable of repairing and aligning such a complex system. Too bad IMO.

 

And what? :ooo: . Takahashi is the manufacturer of their telescopes. As I said before a thousand of TOAs has been manufactured since their introduction in 2003.

 

If you ever have a problem with your FS-128 there is no better place for repair it than where it was manufactured...I can not understand your afraid about if suddenly falls a big meteorite in the world...

 

I own a 24 years old Fluorite triplet FCT (this also needs a perfect aligment and collimation for its peak performance), same with my 6 years old FSQ, a 20 yo Mewlon-210, 9 yo FS-60CSV, EM-200T2M and more ............ and if I ever will have a problem with all these, must sent to OU, TNR or Japan and what? I only use all of them and enjoy it every day I can do it, with no special care or afraid !!!

 

In other hand, I am really impressed how some people (supposing that they had some knowledge) always are casting intentionally, by the way of misinforming by doubts, problems, they want impose a fear ?, where there none exists. Curiously has a lot of knowledge... but then can't recognize a real "deficiency" optical quality due its design on their scopes, once manufactured a problem that nothing can do with it even at the factory. Impressive. :confused: . They will still writing every day how much problems and setbacks has the TOA design... Better if they purchase one TOA and enjoy of one of the very best of all time  :waytogo:  !!


Edited by edif300, 11 December 2014 - 08:34 AM.


#24 tonyt

tonyt

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,182
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009

Posted 11 December 2014 - 08:49 AM

edif300, I assumed the TSA had collimation screws behind a facia plate but that was obviously not the case. In any case, any refractor with a regular cell and 3 sets of collimation screws is much easier for an end user to align. Sending a TOA from Oz to Japan for work (should it be needed) costs a small fortune. Nothing wrong with a TOA, just personally I'd prefer to have a lens cell of simpler design.  




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics