Edmund 4 1/4" Reflector


 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Switch to Subject View
Post Message



Page 1 of 1


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!


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Great scope!
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.116.137)
Date: 04/05/2005 03:14:23 pm PDT
I got mine about 1970.The optics were awesome unfortunately I traded up for a home made 8" scope got caught up in the bigger is better. I worked setting scopes up at a J.C., I used to compare the 4 1/4" to a Cave Astrola 10", 3" Edmund refractor, a 3 1/2" Questar also a Cave 12 1/2" and I believe planetary views matched with exception to high power on the Cave. Now I have a 4" Vixen fluorite, 3 1/2" Questar and an original 8" C8.....Still wish I had the 4 1/4" Edmund reflector!


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by JKZimm
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.70.133)
In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.140.179) (Original Message)
Date: 10/18/2008 03:42:09 am 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!

Edmund Scientific of Barrington, New Jersey had some pretty fair optics for that period in their history, but I'd wager it was the cheap Ramsden eyepiece that came with the scope that scuttled your whole system. You're right when you say only the Moon looked good! When testing my 3" 1957 Edmund scope in 1970 with an orthoscopic eyepiece I was astonished at the difference and how well the scope performed. And I would have probably stuck with observing rather than confine my 3" to the attic for 13 years back in '57. Jupiter, which barely had bands, all of a sudden was much sharper and clearer. It showed M-57 like all the larger scopes but as a very small miniature ring, the basic detail we're all familiar with was there. It would have been better if Norman Edmund had included or strongly recommended a better eyepiece ..even a Kellner for the time..but that would have raised the price of all of his scopes.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Page 1 of 1

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