460 replies to this topic

[Sky Muse]

I ain't never, no not ever, never did I think that I'd ever, get my very own...

 

..."Bird Jones", until now...

 

https://www.amazon.c...telescope&psc=1

 

Now, I know that that Amazon link won't last for posterity, so, I paid $121.19 with free shipping, but with $8.48 state-sales tax, and for a grand total of $129.67.  Its time had come, and the price was right...  

 

 

 

These were just inside, and crumpled up...

 

 

From the wording within the listing, I thought that they were going to ship it in the glossy, colourful retail box only, so I selected to "hide" it when checking out.

 

 

 

EDIT: Sorry for the clouds.

Edited by Sky Muse, 07 February 2019 - 05:56 PM.

[Sky Muse]

These young folks seem awfully happy with theirs.  I do hope that they learned how to collimate it...

 

 

Hmm, what is that that I see...

 

 

 

Whoowee...750x!  Well now, I won't have to get that Orion 50" "Monster Dobsonian" after all.

 

 

The usual literature and CD...

 

 

 

[Sky Muse]

A hard-copy of the owner's manual...

 

 

...but where's the picture of the one I got?  I've looked through the whole thing, and there are only two honourable mentions of my own; the specs on the last page...

 

 

...and this...

 

 

Let's look at that a bit more closely...

 

 

"PowerSeeker 127EQ Newtonian Similar"???  I don't think so; not a chance, and this thing is NOT a Newtonian.

 

Then there's this on the very back of the manual, at the bottom...

 

 

Did the price I had paid include that $10 for the manual???  If so, I would've rather downloaded it for free.    

[Sky Muse]

The accoutrements...

 

 

I took that finder outside, and to my surprise it focussed sharp and clear, and to the point where I'll never bad-mouth a 5x24 again.  If only all 5x24s could be as nice as this one, but I will be replacing the glue-grease with Super Lube.

 

Indeed, if you place that 4mm Symmetrical-Ramsden(?) into the 3x-barlow, you'll get a whopping 750x out of it.  I'm going to have to try that, but on something very bright, like the Moon, or Sirius.

 

It seems that throughout the "PowerSeeker" line, everybody needs a 3x-barlow, and regardless of the focal-length of the telescope of choice...

 

  

 

And now this, the pièce de résistance: the 20mm erecting-eyepiece...

 

 

Why, it even comes with its own star-cluster...

 

 

                             

 

Incidentally, I do not understand the nature of this structuring at the bottom of the eyepiece...

 

 

I've found it nigh impossible to purchase this eyepiece solo, although our Mr. Vorce offers the Meade variant which looks to be identical...

 

https://www.ebay.com...&frcectupt=true

[PETER DREW]

Are you sure this is a "BJ" version. The picture on the manual shows a lot longer OTA than the Powerseeker "BJ"s I 've had the "pleasure" to work on.

[dmgriff]

Are you sure this is a "BJ" version. The picture on the manual shows a lot longer OTA than the Powerseeker "BJ"s I 've had the "pleasure" to work on.

The manual spec (post #3) is focal length = 1000mm. The PS 127 is not pictured in the manual, a 114mm/900mm is shown.

 

Sounds like a Bird Jones....

 

Good viewing,

 

Dave

[Sky Muse]

Are you sure this is a "BJ" version. The picture on the manual shows a lot longer OTA than the Powerseeker "BJ"s I 've had the "pleasure" to work on.

Oh, I didn't need two 114mm f/8 Newtonians, as I already have this Meade...

 

 

And I didn't need another EQ-1 mount, as I have this one, an "AstroMaster Deluxe" CG-2...

 

 

In both cases, I was after the mounts only within those kits.

 

Yes, quite sure, and I will be having the pleasure as well.

[Adun]

And now this, the pièce de résistance: the 20mm erecting-eyepiece...

 

20mm erecting eyepiece.jpg

 

Is everything awesome with it?

[Sky Muse]

The tube's white...

 

 

That'll stick out like a sore thumb at night.  That's not the one I ordered.  Hmm...

 

 

...not a very good paint job, that.

 

Ahhh...

 

 

...cat litter.

 

 

                                                                                     

 

Oh, that was merely the wrapping-tissue.                

 

 

[Sky Muse]

Is everything awesome with it?

I haven't tried it out under the dome quite yet, but I am ever hopeful; full of promise and merry respites I anticipate.

[dmgriff]

WOW!!

 

In the last picture of post #9, My old eyes thought it read "Powerseeker 127 ED" for a moment...

 

Maybe you will get some APO like views with it? 

 

Good viewing,

 

Dave

[Sky Muse]

The specs label, on the tube...

 

 

...draconian.

 

 

The cowling, the vanes, are of...metal; incredible.  That is a rather large secondary-obstruction.  I could've just as well've gotten a C5 instead, for that matter.  Those vanes, they're reminding of...a jail cell, a prison.  I feel a single, curved vane coming on.  That should make it easier to collimate. 

 

The hind end...

 

 

Now, how is the mirror supposed to acclimate with that naugahyde over it?  As far as I'm concerned, that's just shipping material.  Naturally, the primary-mirror cell is of metal, but not to this level of design...

 

 

Expectedly, no center-spot, but no problem...

 

 

My, look how shiny it is inside.   

 

It shall have a spot in time.  In the meantime, I took the collimation-cap from my Orion...

 

 

...popped it in to the "Bird Jones", and snapped a shot...

 

 

That doesn't look right to me.  Does it look right to you?

[N3p]

  

[Sky Muse]

Let's have a look-see at its innards...

 

First, the doublet "corrector" at the end of the drawtube...

 

 

It came with its own star-cluster, too.  Here, the frosty, stoned edges of the doublet, and to be blackened in time...

 

 

The cowling and the secondary-assembly...

 

 

The spherical, primary mirror; its cell has no springs, either of rubber, or metal...

 

 

Why, the master himself, Newton, observed with a spherical, and with a greatest diameter of 2" or less.  To wit, who am I to demand and expect a parabola? 

 

The kit includes a black-and-silver CG-2(EQ-1).  I think we all know what that looks like, therefore no images of it will be forthcoming.

 

This loose interpretation and simulation of a Jones-Bird catadioptric, colloquially, a "Bird Jones", sells like proverbial hot cakes.  The kit, as a whole, is most certainly beginner-priced, the optical-tube compact(yet another draw), and an economical alternative to a 5" Schmidt-Cassegrain(yet another draw still, albeit unwitting perhaps).  The telescope is configured and designed for the medium-to-high powers, and where any telescope must work harder to produce sharp, pleasing images.  That requires a near-perfect collimation, and if ever there was a telescope that tries to prevent that very thing, this is it.  However, the harder it is, the more rewarding the results.  My goal is to find out if the telescope is worth the while, and beyond what was paid for it.

 

In the end, this is all I was after within this kit...

 

 

Thank you for looking.

[dmgriff]

Are not fast newtonians supposed to have a noticeable offset of the secondary for good collimation? Doesn't this design use a fast spherical primary with the "corrector" for f/8 in the drawtube?

 

I don't see anyway one can adjust the secondary, if needed, for offset to get the correct cone at the drawtube/eyepiece.

 

Let us know if a offset is "built in" to the apparently nonadjustable four vane spider/cowl (or none is needed in a "BJ").

 

(Or, maybe I am just confused)...

 

Good viewing,

 

Dave

Edited by dmgriff, 08 February 2019 - 07:45 AM.

[Sky Muse]

Are not fast newtonians supposed to have a noticeable offset of the secondary for good collimation? Doesn't this design use a fast spherical primary with the "corrector" for f/8 in the drawtube?

 

I don't see anyway one can adjust the secondary, if needed, for offset to get the correct cone at the drawtube/eyepiece.

 

Let us know if a offset is "built in" to the apparently nonadjustable four vane spider/cowl (or none is needed in a "BJ").

 

(Or, maybe I am just confused)...

 

Good viewing,

 

Dave

Yes, at f/8 with the "corrector", I would think it to be, natively, an f/4, or thereabouts; quite fast in any event, and with the secondary's proper off-setting.  However, in this image of the secondary-scene, you cannot see all three primary-mirror clips...

 

 

It appears to be mis-collimated, although the off-set appears correct for an f/4.

 

Now, the "corrector" is in place, I haven't removed it at all, yet, and it said that it must be removed prior to collimating the system in the manner of a classical Newtonian.  It may be that the "corrector" is distorting the view.  I do not know at this point.

 

I'll be investigating it further.

[Adun]

 

It's not so much the collimation offset, its, its...

 

¿Am I the only one who thinks this primary looks egg-shaped?

[KevH]

I love your tear down and rebuild threads! Keep them coming!

[decep]

¿Am I the only one who thinks this primary looks egg-shaped?

Yes, but probably because the collimation is off.  The large part of the "egg" is the side where the clip is not visible, and the thin side has the clip fully visible.

 

Also, the camera might not have been perfectly aligned with the focuser tube.  A few millimeters out of alignment [the camera] will also cause this.

[Sky Muse]

Yes, but probably because the collimation is off.  The large part of the "egg" is the side where the clip is not visible, and the thin side has the clip fully visible.

 

Also, the camera might not have been perfectly aligned with the focuser tube.  A few millimeters out of alignment [the camera] will also cause this.

The hole of the collimation-cap is only 2mm in width.  A few millimeters off and the camera would see only black.  It was centered, and squared, over the hole at the time.

[Star Geezer]

After reading this post. Last night I had to reevaluate my PowerSeeker 127eq. When I first received the scope, I did a quick eyeball check down the focuser. It looked good to me. So, last night I put the collimation cap in the focuser. The secondary was centered and perfectly circular, I could see all three primary clips equally. I could see the reflection of the caps hole centered in the secondary. In three years I have not had to align it once.

 

I have only looked at the Planets and the Moon through the PowerSeeker, before last night. M41 was the first object to find its way into the eyepiece. For the first time, I could not tear myself away. Then it was the Orion Nebula. The wings spread out beyond the field of view. Then before calling it a night, I turned the PowerSeeker toward the Double Cluster, Awesome.

[Sky Muse]

In order to improve the versatility when mounting this infamous icon, I started to think.   Yes, a potentially dangerous occupation, I know...

 

 

Have a gander at those itty-bitty mounting screws.  The holes of the saddle are certainly adequate for larger ones.  They don't even fill the threaded holes of the rings...

 

 

5mm screws they are.  So, I had gone out yesterday to my local hardware, to the county seat.  At first I tried screwing a 6mm into the hole of the ring that I had brought with me, but it wouldn't thread in hardly at all.  It then dawned upon me, "It's not a metric hole".  No, instead they are 1/4-20 holes.   

 

It appears that Synta was fresh out of 1/4-20 bolts at the time they had cobbled this one together.  Are these rings a Chinese clone of an American production?  In any event...

 

 

...stainless, always.

 

 

I had a spare bar laying around, and from my Antares 805 achromat...

 

 

That's more like it.  The telescope is now free of its bolt-on modus operandi...

 

 

 

...and it can be attached to its original mount, courtesy of a saddle from a spare "AstroMaster" CG-2 mount-head...

 

 

I consider at least the tube-rings, if not the bar in addition, a part of the telescope rather than the mount, hence my now having posted this enhancement within this thread.  I once saw one of these OTAs on eBay, new, but without the tube-rings.  I asked the seller about that...  

 

A fat lot of good that did.

Edited by Sky Muse, 16 February 2019 - 02:20 AM.

[Sky Muse]

The "Bird Jones" revisited... 

 

Over three months have passed since my last posting.  I spent the interim ever mindful of this particular telescope, yet occupied with others, and with other mounts, including its own "PowerSeeker" CG-2/EQ-1 which has now been hyper-tuned with bronze and fitted with wooden legs...

 

 

The Bird will not be alighting upon that mount, as the counterweight required for it is much too large and heavy.  Only the smaller and smallest of my telescopes will mount upon that one in future.

 

The telescope had yet to enjoy its first light under the starry void, until early this morning.  I did not want to begin renovating it until afterwards.  The telescope has not been touched, yet.  Now, without further ado, the first-light report of my 127mm f/8 "Bird Jones"...

 

 

For this session, the telescope was mounted upon my new "Twilight Nano" alt-azimuth, and it supports it quite well...

 

 

The accoutrements that came bundled with the telescope...

 

 

...the 20mm erecting-eyepiece, the 4mm modified-achromat(I imagine), and a 3x barlow.

 

First off, I needed to align the finderscope to the telescope itself.  I used Polaris, the North Star, for that task, and whilst I was at it, I snapped a shot through the 20mm...

 

 

That is also precisely how it appeared to my eye, and at best focus; like the devil's own pitchfork; no surprise, really.

 

After the 5x24 finderscope was aligned, I aimed the Bird at Jupiter(my apologies, Jove)...

 

4mm(250x)...

 

 

The 4mm isn't all bad.  It performed better than anyone had a right to expect, but as you can see there the view wasn't sharp.  

 

20mm(50x)...

 

 

After testing those two, a spate of madness overwhelmed me, forcing me, against my better judgement, to pop the 20mm into the 3x-barlow...

 

 

I must say, the 3x isn't half bad, thus far.  I will be testing it further, and with other telescopes.

 

Now, the camera had actually portrayed Jupiter much better than what I saw with my own eyes.  For example, I could see the moons at all times, and the "Amici line" of the 20mm spanning across the field-of-view.  Also, in almost all instances, Jupiter appeared almost doubled.

 

So, that's my Bird freshly fallen off of the overseas barge.

 

I've got to do something about this secondary-assembly...

 

 

                                                      

 

[Sky Muse]

Oh, I almost forgot...

 

I set aside the three bundled items, lest they destroyed my interest in astronomy altogether, and inserted a GSO 20mm "SuperView"...

 

 

So much for that.

[KerryR]

I had been toying with the idea of trying one of these scopes out, to see what all the anti-hype is about. 

I have a soft spot in my heart for small, inexpensive 'scopes: I have (and adore) one of those 76mm f9 Newts on a yoke mount (it's actually an excellent scope. Mine's Zuhmell, the Orion SpaceProbe II variant is vastly inferior, to be avoided), one of those funky little "thermos bottle" Orion 80mm achros (shockingly nice optics), a Celestron f4 Cometron Newt (a lot of fun. Not a bad sort-of-paraboloid for the $60 I paid), a Polaris 130 f5 Newt that had a spherical(!) mirror (and ring zones and a turned edge... Now freshly fixed and parabolized , out to Majestic for coating), an Orion XT4.5 (these are excellent, one of my all-time favorite small scopes).You get the point...

With the 127 Bird-Jones, I thought I might be able figure out a way to tease out a bit better performance than is generally attributed to these scopes. So far, this thread has cured me of that interest.

I'll be very curious to see if you can somehow get the thing to attain a decent image. So far, your images remind me of the performance of that spherical f5 Newt I mentioned...