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

TEC 200FL #001 Has Arrived

  • Please log in to reply
345 replies to this topic

#26 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 12:27 PM

One more thing. Looks like your counterweight is at the end of the shaft. Better to get more wide weights and push them up against the mount. And maybe go for all six bolts to hold the mount to the pier (many people including me usually shortcut it with three).

 

George

Thanks.  I have a picture in post #20 adding all the weights I have and keeping them high.  It seems balanced now but I need to do more testing.  I did use all the bolts for the mount.  I need to check the screws holding the plate and saddle on the Dec axis because they have been there for months and I don't know if I fully tightened them.



#27 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 12:31 PM

Hi Kent

Congratulation for this marvellous instrument . I am sure you will enjoy a lot of fantastic views trought this jewell of optics and mechanics, i am very curious about the difference in lens design between VT and non VT design .

Thank you for sharing yours impressions and pics

best regards 
Giorgio

It would be interesting to compare both versions.  Yuri says the color correction on the new version is "much" better.  I forget if much was the word he used but I was surprised too because the old version is practically color free if not completely color free from what I have heard so we are speaking of a very small improvement but it still might be several times better.  Perhaps there is no practical difference and the difference is only "much" on paper.



#28 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 12:33 PM

Congrats, Kent, on your new 200. I'm on vacation right now in Edinburgh, Scotland, otherwise I'd say more. Enjoy your new crown jewel.

Jim

Thanks Jim.  Scotland, I am jealous even with my new 200.  Would love to visit Scotland.  Have a great trip and see you sometime when you return.  Congrats to you on the GODO at Lowell.  I had a great time there and I have heard many others say the same.  Amazing scopes for the public.



#29 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 12:34 PM

Gorgeous Kent, congratulations!

Thanks Erik.  Can't wait to view again tonight.  Too bad I have work early tomorrow.



#30 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 12:36 PM

Congrats Kent, what an absolute stunner! Your patience has been rewarded and I hope you have many years of enjoyment with that big monster.

 

 

 

Mark

Thanks Mark.  Quite big yes.  I am pleased I got it mounted.  Not easy but I am being very careful.  56 pounds with rings and plate.  I don't know how much the wheel weighs.  I thought of taking that off just to save a couple pounds but so far so good.



#31 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 12:37 PM

Congratulations Kent...Dream setup at the Pinnacle of Apo perfection!

Thanks t.r.  It has been my dream for a good couple years now and the scope finally arrived.  BTW, it was my birthday yesterday for 1st light.  56 pounds of scope and I turned 56!


  • CounterWeight, eros312, blueskydown and 2 others like this

#32 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 01:20 PM

Absolutely beautiful!!  Congrats.  Definitely want to hear details on 1st light observations when you get time.  

1st object was the moon but it was still quite bright out.  I used a Pentax XW 3.5mm.  Seeing was not great but I could see quite a bit of detail.  I synced the scope on the moon and then hit go to for Saturn which I couldn't see yet in the bright light of day.  Found Saturn with a 30mm Tak LE.  I don't have a finder yet because Yuri needs to make a longer stem to reach over the wheel.  Saturn was quite steady and large and bright with the 3.5mm Pentax.  Had to see Jupiter next.

 

Jupiter was getting low but still looked large and with nice color and detail.  GRS not visible.

 

I went back and forth between Saturn and Jupiter for a while as it got darker.  My wife came out to see Saturn.  There were also some Blue Jays on our feeder so we watched them.

 

I don't remember the order of everything but I viewed M13, M11, M17, M22 but it was behind a tree, M15, M24 too low to look great, M57 (pretty sure I saw the central star but didn't spend a lot of time on any object--I have experience seeing this star in my 180 and a 16.5" dob so the 200 should be quite "easy."), double cluster, Albireo and several double stars (amazing beautiful color saturation) and other open clusters like M25 and M29.  Owl Cluster, M27 (simple CS compared to the 180 which usually requires more averted vision). 

 

Oh and M31 was beautiful in the Leitz 30mm even with the moon out.  One of my faves last night.

 

I didn't have the 180 out.  I thought about bringing it out for a comparison but changed my mind.  There will be time for that later.  On the other hand, I know my 180 very well because I use it almost every night.  It was obvious I saw more stars with the 200, planets and the moon were brighter and larger.  More detail I am sure to come with good seeing.  The 200 is what I was expecting and perhaps more.  I knew the difference would be slight but I think that slight increase in brightness and resolution will be valuable and is obvious, not subtle.  M13 at high power I saw more stars even with the moon out.

 

And then I used Vega and Altair for star testing which I enjoy doing.  I was surprised to see the star look about the same inside and outside of focus.  I did not use a green filter yet.  Just a quick test but I think the 200 has a better star test than my 180 which I have tested often.  Yuri and his son Nick made at least 2 of the 200s out of 10 so far to 98.6 strehl according to his posts on Facebook.  I don't know what mine is but it would be interesting to know.  I think I have a good one regardless.  Yes they are all good, I know.  But everyone wants a higher Strehl if they can get it.

 

Tonight I might view the moon more but also the planets before the seeing degrades and which usually happens after sunset for me.

 

Oh yea.  Neptune and Uranus also last night.  Beautiful blues.  Seeing not great at this time.  Uranus was the last object before I came in to post the 1st pictures.  A great night with a great scope.


  • AZStarGuy, eros312, Paul Morow and 2 others like this

#33 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 01:25 PM

Congrats, Kent.

 

I am looking forward to TEC 180FL #001 v.s. TEC 200FL #001 shootout smile.gif

 

Tammy

Thanks Tammy.  I bet I will compare the 2 side by side at some point, but I know my 180 so well using it almost every night, I think I could make a good comparison without even having it out.  Right away I noticed the advantage of the 200 being brighter, more stars and with a larger image.  I will appreciate that a lot even if the difference of 20mm seems something small.  Before trying the 200 I was hoping I would see a difference to make the cost and effort of mounting the scope worth it.  I believe already it is worth it.  I wonder how much I will use the 180 now.  I won't sell it.  It is so easy to take out compared to the 200 but I am working on a more permanent set up with a Telegizmos cover so it will be easy to use too.



#34 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 01:28 PM

Congratulations on the dream scope bow.gif

Thanks Jim.  It is finally here.  I can't believe the TEC 140 was going to be my dream scope.  Never did get it because a used 160 showed up 1st on AM.  Bought the 160 and loved it so had to have the 180 when someone said it wasn't too difficult to manage.  After hearing Yuri was going to make the 200 again I dreamed of owning it if I could manage it.  It is only a "little" heavier.  So far so good.


  • CounterWeight likes this

#35 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 01:29 PM

waytogo.gif waytogo.gif waytogo.gif waytogo.gif

 

And , oh, did I say waytogo.gif waytogo.gif waytogo.gif waytogo.gif waytogo.gif waytogo.gif ?

Jeff, you told me I would like the 200 and you were right.  Thanks for all your experience with yours.  You were my inspiration. 



#36 Codbear

Codbear

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Novato, CA

Posted 06 October 2019 - 01:29 PM

Kent,

 

The reasoning behind having the heavier CWs farther up the shaft is to cut down on the centripetal acceleration...it puts less strain on the motors and, in the event of a an R.A. or Dec lock mishap, it keeps the scope from swinging too harshly.

 

I had a Telegizmo 360 for my 180 (which has since been put away in its case in anticipation of the arrival of 200 #009) through last winter and it stayed in perfect condition, thanks to a lot of CN research I did.

 

The recommendations I followed were to put a blanket over the the scope, then put the 360 'gizmo on. Additionally, I hung one of those automotive lights that have the plastic covering with the hook on my AP1100 mount just under the rings. I used a 20 or 25 watt lightbulb and kept it on constantly to ensure the scope and mount stayed above the dew point. Never had a problem.

 

Sam



#37 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 01:35 PM

Thanks Sam.  It looks like the weights I have now will work.  I might put more weight on the scope eventually like a binoviewer and a finder and use some heavier eyepieces.  But moving the 5 pound weight should work.  Or should I move them all and keep them evenly spaced as some suggest.  AP in the manual shows keeping the heavy ones at top and using a smaller one to balance as far down as necessary I think.

 

I need to make a call for a custom cover.  I hope I get the right size.  I don't know if I need to cover the bottom of the ATS mount.  It has some rubber or foam that might deteriorate in rain.  I am glad to hear this solution worked well for you.  I like to get out quickly to view.


  • Codbear likes this

#38 petert913

petert913

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3456
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Portland, OR

Posted 06 October 2019 - 01:47 PM

You really need to have a person standing next to that beast to show it's scale.   I'm sure it is much huger

than the pictures indicate :)



#39 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 01:57 PM

You really need to have a person standing next to that beast to show it's scale.   I'm sure it is much huger

than the pictures indicate smile.gif

Here is a picture of Nick Petrunin, Yuri's son, who made the lenses for the 200.  Dew shield not extended.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 71783161_2415414418525950_4456735705900515328_o.jpg

Edited by Kent10, 06 October 2019 - 01:58 PM.

  • zjc26138, meade4ever, CounterWeight and 7 others like this

#40 zjc26138

zjc26138

    Loved By All

  • *****
  • Posts: 9160
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Steubenville, Ohio

Posted 06 October 2019 - 02:35 PM

Kent,

 

 

Congrats on the new scope!

 

It sure is beautiful! 



#41 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 02:42 PM

Kent,

 

 

Congrats on the new scope!

 

It sure is beautiful! 

Thanks.  I was wondering what color Yuri would use for the lettering.  I like the blue.


  • roadi likes this

#42 Codbear

Codbear

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Novato, CA

Posted 06 October 2019 - 02:57 PM

Thanks Sam.  It looks like the weights I have now will work.  I might put more weight on the scope eventually like a binoviewer and a finder and use some heavier eyepieces.  But moving the 5 pound weight should work.  Or should I move them all and keep them evenly spaced as some suggest.  AP in the manual shows keeping the heavy ones at top and using a smaller one to balance as far down as necessary I think.

 

I need to make a call for a custom cover.  I hope I get the right size.  I don't know if I need to cover the bottom of the ATS mount.  It has some rubber or foam that might deteriorate in rain.  I am glad to hear this solution worked well for you.  I like to get out quickly to view.

That's a good question about the rubber/foam feet on the ATS Kent. Before I switched to an ATS 10" permanent pier, I used a 10" ATS portable pier for my 180 but had it on a large JMI Wheely, so the feet weren't fully exposed to the elements because they sat in the holes at the end of the metal struts of the JMI. I switched because I never actually rolled the setup anywhere because I was too paranoid it would tip over!

 

Telegizmo does make tripod covers that will take care of the base. And yes, I do believe you will have to have a custom cover made since the largest refractor cover maxed out on my 180.



#43 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 03:00 PM

That's a good question about the rubber/foam feet on the ATS Kent. Before I switched to an ATS 10" permanent pier, I used a 10" ATS portable pier for my 180 but had it on a large JMI Wheely, so the feet weren't fully exposed to the elements because they sat in the holes at the end of the metal struts of the JMI. I switched because I never actually rolled the setup anywhere because I was too paranoid it would tip over!

 

Telegizmo does make tripod covers that will take care of the base. And yes, I do believe you will have to have a custom cover made since the largest refractor cover maxed out on my 180.

There is also the foam on the turnbuckle.  I will have to consider the tripod cover at the bottom or get a super long one for everything.  I am not sure yet.  I will talk to Telegizmos and they may have some recommendations.



#44 Codbear

Codbear

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Novato, CA

Posted 06 October 2019 - 03:03 PM

There is also the foam on the turnbuckle.  I will have to consider the tripod cover at the bottom or get a super long one for everything.  I am not sure yet.  I will talk to Telegizmos and they may have some recommendations.

Now I remember...that turnbuckle foam did harden up! In fact a bolt broke when I packed it up getting ready to sell it. Stephen promptly sent me out a new one no charge. 



#45 vahe

vahe

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1648
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Houston, Texas

Posted 06 October 2019 - 08:58 PM

Based on what I see on post #20 the two support rings appear a little undersized, just by looking at the picture. If I had $30K invested in a large refractor at the minimum I would look for something a bit more beefy than what I see in post #18 and also space them apart a little further. That would offer me additional peace of mind.

.

Vahe 


  • mtminnesota likes this

#46 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6078
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:34 PM

Based on what I see on post #20 the two support rings appear a little undersized, just by looking at the picture. If I had $30K invested in a large refractor at the minimum I would look for something a bit more beefy than what I see in post #18 and also space them apart a little further. That would offer me additional peace of mind.

.

Vahe 

Funny you should say that as I've felt the same way.  Fortunately, I've an extra ring for my 200ED.  

 

Now if you really want to get nervous scared.gif twitch.gif Vahe, take a look at some of Yuri's and other 250 FL pictures with just two similar rings.

 

But a beautiful scope and mount Kent!  Well done sir!

 

Jeff

Attached Thumbnails

  • With unitron Finder 1.jpg

  • Scott Beith, SteveG, R_Huntzberry and 2 others like this

#47 SpaceX

SpaceX

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2018
  • Loc: State College, PA

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:31 PM

Funny you should say that as I've felt the same way.  Fortunately, I've an extra ring for my 200ED.  

 

Now if you really want to get nervous scared.gif twitch.gif Vahe, take a look at some of Yuri's and other 250 FL pictures with just two similar rings.

 

But a beautiful scope and mount Kent!  Well done sir!

 

Jeff

Nice monster 8". Those views must be backbreaking. jawdrop.gif 

 

I LOVE your finderscope! Telescope.gif


Edited by SpaceX, 06 October 2019 - 10:33 PM.


#48 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 11:31 PM

Based on what I see on post #20 the two support rings appear a little undersized, just by looking at the picture. If I had $30K invested in a large refractor at the minimum I would look for something a bit more beefy than what I see in post #18 and also space them apart a little further. That would offer me additional peace of mind.

.

Vahe 

Thanks for your help, Vahe.  The rings are Tec rings that Yuri sent with the scope.  If I put them further apart the handle won't fit and I am using this handle to lift the scope.  I am not sure I could do it without.  I bought Scope Totes but they are too big.  I suppose they might still be usable but the scope would slip in them they are so large.  Do you think thicker rings spaced further apart would help in the stability on the mount?  Thanks!



#49 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 06 October 2019 - 11:33 PM

Funny you should say that as I've felt the same way.  Fortunately, I've an extra ring for my 200ED.  

 

Now if you really want to get nervous scared.gif twitch.gif Vahe, take a look at some of Yuri's and other 250 FL pictures with just two similar rings.

 

But a beautiful scope and mount Kent!  Well done sir!

 

Jeff

Thanks Jeff and thanks for the picture.  I actually tightened my rings from what they were set at by Tec just to be sure.  I also noticed there were no safety screw stops on the bottom of the plate.  I plan on adding those.


Edited by Kent10, 06 October 2019 - 11:33 PM.


#50 Kent10

Kent10

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4661
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 07 October 2019 - 12:14 AM

2nd light tonight.  Seeing was not good.  I had planned on using a binoviewer for the moon and planets but it was quite obvious it wouldn't be worth the effort.  I looked at the moon, Saturn and then Jupiter.  Not nearly as nice as last night.  I am glad tonight wasn't 1st light or it would have been very disappointing.

 

I used some lower power eyepieces such as a 30mm and 55mm Clave and those gave some nice views in the poor seeing.  I viewed several double stars and they were OK at moderate power. 

 

The seeing was poor but there was also a problem with cool down because I left the scope out all night and afternoon.  The sun probably heated it up.  There were lots of swirls on the star test and inside focus had a slightly brighter outside ring indicating undercorrection I think.  After a couple of hours the swirls stopped and the lens settled down with more equal rings on both sides of focus.  The seeing was still not good.

 

I thought of Tammy and decided to bring my 180 out to compare and make sure it was really the seeing that was not good.  I hadn't cooled the 180 down but it also hadn't been in the hot sun all day.  The 180 also showed poorly.  The star test looked good but if it cooled more then I think the outside ring would be brighter outside of focus indicating overcorrection.  Please correct me if this is wrong.  I have read Suiter but am certainly not an expert.

 

I compared a couple double stars and the double cluster between the 180 and 200.  Larger image with the same eyepiece in the 200.  Both nice of course but just not a good night to compare much.

 

I took some pictures. 

Attached Thumbnails

  • PA060003 (Large).jpg
  • PA060006 (Large).jpg

  • Scott Beith, Jeff B, Castor and 9 others like this


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