Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Subject: Re: vote by JKZimm
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.140.179)
In Reply to: JKZimm (Original Vote)
Date: 01/19/2004 05:58:31 pm PDT
You were acurrate in that is was most likely out ov collimation. These were optically very good. The mounts were poor to keep it an entry level scope.

Too bad you did not have someone to collimate for you. It would have blown you away. I have mine mounted on a CG0-4 and love the little rascal.

iven to me by my parents as a christmas present in 1957. Sadly, it was a terrible instrument, and almost cost me my interest in astronomy.
>
>Planets and stars were always fuzzy - only the moon looked half way decent. The mount was a perpetual motion machine - a tap on the tube would start a 20 second dance! You could see a bad weld on the equatorial mount, which may have contributed to the instability. The eyepieces were of very poor quality (ramsden, as I recall).
>
>In all fairness, I may have gotten a bad model, and since I didn't know much about collimation, it may have been way off, thus compromising the optics.
>
>At any rate, a friend had a 2.4" refractor, and the views were so superior I ended up selling the Edmund and getting a Unitron. From that one bad experience, I have avoided reflectors and the brand Edmund from the rest of my life!

Next Message(Newer)
Reply
Post Un-related Message

Back to message list

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!