Helios 8" f/5 Dobsonian

New fellow in my telescope collection. Why an alt/az-scope of this kind? First reason being the not so good weather in my place, the second being mobility.
The weather call for QuO-QuI operations! No, this is no Latin, even when looking alike. It's supposed to mean quick out, quick in, just as needed (to be mentioned that the scope will be stored in a cold place, reducing cool down time dramatically). QuO is also linked to mobility in a way, no lumpy gobbets in a Dobsonian mount, in contrast to a GEM having all this gizmos such as tripod, counter weights, clamps, brackets and what not. OK, you might think this dude is into photography, but... not only, gazing is nice too! Finally the OTA is light-weight enough be allow mounting on a heavier equatorial mount. So, what about the QuI, the quick in? Well, that's really weather related; guess what, I don't want any of my scopes exposed to water doplet falling off the sky! We got a lot of rain here in South Holland... but not necessarily continuous all the time.
So, I got myself a "low ohmic", used Helios 8" f/5 (aka SkyWatcher Dob 200mm/1000mm).

A first test the early (4am) morning of Feb. 1st 2005 revealed an utterly devastating result. Any object I looked at was a disapointment, all sorts of optical effects you certainly do not want to know about. I roughly checked collimation the day before, using a Cheshire "eyepiece". Collimation seemed to be off by a bit, but not totally.
After a hard days work (in my job), the decision was made to check closer on collimation of the scope. Yes, it was off... but there was no way to get it collimated... Why's that? The scope can't be as crappy not reaching collimation, not even closely.
Hunting down the reason took about a quarter of an hour, here it comes, simple as is. The (rather heavy) mirror cell mounted with six (6) screws to the scopes metal tube. Generally this makes sense.... BUT, the rear end of the mirror cell was showing a gap to the tube of about a finger nails thickness, whilst the "rocker box inside" end was tight close to the tube. Ahaaaa! Setting the scope (w/o the rocker box) to the ground, loosening all six screws, slightly shaking the tube back and forth on the mirror cell and re-tightening the screws solved it all. The scope could now be collimated within minutes.

After dark, the sky cover was willing to accept some perforations... QuO! Now, wow, that's what it would be alike... Gazing around just surfing the sky was quiet impressive, M42 was showing a very nice structure in direct vision, even when using the very cheaply looking "20mm Super Wide Angle" eyepiece, from which I have not expected anything good. The other eyepiece that accompanied the scope is a, guess what, "10mm Super Wide Angle" in which the structures were really coming out nicely. Changing to Meade series 4000 Super Plössls (down to 4mm focal length) gave first impressions what could be possible in dark places... I only used 1,25" EPs, as none of my (cheap) 2" EPs could reach focal condition with the adapter provided with the scope. Intra- and extra-focal tests revealed very good results...
Collimation really did the trick, somehow I am not so surprised after all. I am just glad that the scope performs the way you could expect from D=200mm f=1000mm optics.

The focuser is not brilliant but OK, some mods could certainly improve this contraption. The same applies to the smoothness of the mount, i.e. rocker box (there are webpages out there in cyberspace indicating relief). The f/5 tube is short enough to allow shorter persons (kids) comfortable observations. Personally I have to use a small stool for sitting obs, as I am too tall for comfortably reaching EP whilst standing.

I got the scope for €300. After collimation I now think the setup is really worth this "amount" of money, at least I would buy the same scope for the same price again. 

More to follow...

Here it comes, another evening (Feb. 3rd 2005) with some cloudless moments.
Saturn, good to test on, also quiet high in not too late hours. For the observation I used a Meade series 4000 Super Plössl with 4mm focal length (giving a magnification of 250x). On the planet itself two belts were showing off. Saturn's ring system exhibited the Cassini division all around the visible portion, a sharp shadow thrown by the planet was placed on the rings, the rings outside Cassini's division were clearly darker than the inner rings. Definitely identified moons were Titan, Rhea, Tethys, Dione and Mimas. For a focal length of just 1m from a light polluted place, I guess the result is not too bad at all...
Further tests on stars, Sirius, Rigel, Betelgeuse and Procyon were supposed to assess the collimation and the performance of different types of eyepieces on the scope. Seeing btw. was somewhat ok this evening, transparency and cloud cover were a different story though. Diffraction rings on Sirius were about perfect when using Meade SP 4mm and 12.4mm, infra- and extra-focal as well as in focus. The collimation I did on February 1st obviously was successful so far. My next point might certainly is a matter of taste... diffraction pattern of spider vanes. The spider vanes are made from sheet metal, quiet thin... causing very explicit diffraction pattern. This is why I like unobstructed systems such as refractors.
Now, something less positive, the provided “Super Wide Angle” EPs. I am not quiet sure what on these eyepieces shall be super... at least I could not find anything. Or, to phrase it differently, they simply do not fit to the scope at all! The coma of the fast Newton-reflector was very prominent in the “Super” (not noticeable with the Meade EPs at all), the contrast muddy and the position of the observer's eye extremely critical. I guess the best function these “Super” eyepieces can have would be being source for parts needed to build webcam adapters with filter threads.

QuO-QuI worked perfectly; this time a used a garden chair for increasing my comfort. It is about time to mount the Rigel QuickFinder... but this is another issue.

Update, February 15th 2005, one hour of relatively good sky. One of my favourite objects is standing high in the sky, h and χ Per... beautiful! I enjoyed the view for quiet a while...
The cores of M31, M32 and M110 were nicely visible, not much of M31's structure though, I guess the fainter parts were all drowned in local light pollution.
Time for some more testing: What about filters? Three different filters being able to fight light pollution are living in my astro-box: Baader Sky-glow, Baader Contrast Booster and Astronomik CLS. The latter one could not tested that night, clouds turning in again. So, let's have a look at the two Baader filters, both mounted on 10mm EPs. The Contrast Booster creates a greenish image, not so nice... but for sure only if the object is bright enough to trigger the cones of the eye (colour vision); for fainter objects, triggering the rods only (sensitive at about 500nm) this actually helps. Again I went for M42, the Contrast Booster took away quiet some of the light pollution and at the same time was able to show more detail of the bright nebula. Compared to that the Sky-glow filter was equally able to fight light pollution, but this filter could not recognizable enhance the detail of M42, at least not as much as the Contrast Booster. Conclusion, emission nebula are easier to observe with both filters, both usable, I would prefer the Contrast Booster. Back to Perseus (Double Cluster), just to confirm what I guessed; both filters are taking away a (un)fair amount of fainter stars. Unfortunately clouds started covering the sky, so there was no chance to figure out which is the worse one. After all, no real surprise, but a slightly astonishing result concerning the Contrast Booster, which I believed being mainly helpful for planets. Both filter are based on Neodynium (Nd). According to the transmission curves both filters have a transmission of just 80-90% at 500nm.



Last modified Feb. 15th 2005