Hi,

10 days ago I got the chance to see first time in my live the Aries made
Safix ( spherical aberration corrector)and bought one for testing on
diffrent telescopes.

The Safix was designed and is manufactored by Aries in Ukraine, to
improve the spherical correction of smoothly over or undercorrected
telescope systems to improve not only the startest but mainly the
infocuse image. The design contains from a multicoated lens system in a
tunnable housing with outer microscaling to read out the position of
best spherical correction for the specific telescope. On diagonal side
it comes with a standart 1.25" barrel and at eyepiece side it comes with
3 diffrent long eyepieceholders with compression ring. This diffrent
holders shall be used for diffrent focallenght telescopes.

- Mechanics
The tunning works like a helical focuser with no shift. The anadizing
is good , but not of that shiny high quality we know from some US or
Taiwan made anadized products.The compression rings sitting somewhat to
deep maschined in the eyepieceholder so its function is only to not
scratch the eyepiece barrel. The eyepiece holders are well made in its
inner diameter so the to deep sitting compression rings doe not shift
your eyepiece out of axis, but I prefer if that would be improoved to
give such compression ring his full working potential.

- Optics and coating: my sample show no bubbles, no dirt or dust, no
scratches and a goldish kind coating , not the colors we know of modern
multicoatings. Talking to Aries about that, Valery Deryuzhin told me
that kind of coating is used to support a natural white image . This
natural white Image I can confirm by looking straight through the coated
glas on a white piece of paper but also watching white stars, the image
remains neutral white as it shall be, so the coating doing here job well

- performance:
the performance I tested in 3 ways
a, on the bench against articval star
b, on a day time object
c, under real sky on stars and Planets

the used telescopes for testing this device:
a, 4" Fluorite Apo with smooth global undercorrection estimated at
startest with about 1/3 to 1/4 wavefront p.t.v.
b, a small high quality maksutov Cassegrain with a smooth 1/5 wagvefront
undercorrection
c, a massproduced but smooth visual zonal free Schmidt Cassegrain 10"
with about 1/4 wavefront ( visual estimation)

on all above scopes I found the same results
a, the scopes showed on the bench and under real sky a symmetrical
image with a nice airydisc and diffraction rings soroundet. In all
scopes the diffraction rings took to much energy out of the airydisc and
spreadet some straylight into the black sky, when slightly or more
outside defocused. Now I installed the Safix.
First finding you must do about same level of backfocuse change as the
Safix have its own mechanical lenght. This is a limitation for
telescopes with to small backfocuse , like modern Dobs and Newtonians
and of course Mak Newtonians with only a little backfocuse, here the
safix cannot be used, because it does not come to focuse.In the apo I
have had to remove the stardiagonal and observe in straight mode,
because it have had also not enough backfocuse.
Now I started to use the helical focusing tunner . Turn the tunner step
by step and after each step do a startest, see if image got more equal
in startest or worser. If worser you turn the wrong direction, if better
continue this way. Sooner or later you will find a position where the
startest show you a equal image inside and outside of focuse. Now
compare the infocuse image with and without the Safix and you find the
following:
without safix you see the way diffrent images and the straylight out of
focuse in the black sky and the numbers of diffraction rings is about
3-5 piece. Install the safix now with your best findings, and you will
see no more straylight in the black background, the airydisc increased
its diameter slightly and got higher energy , the numbers of diffraction
rings decreased. On the bench I found that I could improve the image of
that apo to the level of a real very high end quality apo, to my own
surprise, since I did not expected such dramaticle improvement.
Under sky I used Castor douple to see what happened.Here the diffraction
ring became much fainter and the image was more stable and the splitting
was simply much easier.
At Jupiter I found with the Safix a increased amount of details on the
belts. Saturns Cassini got cleaner and much better visible.

Daytime: I have to be honest due sunny days with for shure not best
seeing, I could not see a real diffrence.

Not yet I have tested if the safix does anything good on scopes with
zonal deffects or not, but what I found is that the safix is a tool
which can improve your optical medium to low end scope into a real high
end optical telescope if the under or overcorrection is the only
mistake.

So far I can say this Safix is one of the most impressive accessories I
have come across in past 15 years and I wam wondering very much, that
there is not yet a Safix hysterical out

thanks for any reply

clear skies

Markus Ludes


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

>
>So far I can say this Safix is one of the most impressive accessories I
>have come across in past 15 years and I wam wondering very much, that
>there is not yet a Safix hysterical out

Hi Markus:

My results mirror yours. The SAFIX is amazing in what it can do. I was actually
very pleased with the fit and finish, too. No, maybe not quite TeleVue, but
close, certainly. As for why it is not more popular, I'm not sure. Maybe in
part because more people don't know about it... Certainly, it does exactly what
is claimed for it.


Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>

Hi,

I also echo what yours and Rod's findings regarding the SAFIX.

Thanks for taking time to write and post your review.

Sol Robbins

(Rod Mollise) wrote in message >...
> >
> >So far I can say this Safix is one of the most impressive accessories I
> >have come across in past 15 years and I wam wondering very much, that
> >there is not yet a Safix hysterical out
>
> Hi Markus:
>
> My results mirror yours. The SAFIX is amazing in what it can do. I was actually
> very pleased with the fit and finish, too. No, maybe not quite TeleVue, but
> close, certainly. As for why it is not more popular, I'm not sure. Maybe in
> part because more people don't know about it... Certainly, it does exactly
> what is claimed for it.

I have the impression only one batch (of 50?) was ever made. And, as you
both wrote, it does do what its claims state.

There was mention of it here in SAA what, some 3 years ago now. And there
was a 6-9 month (IIRC) delay before the first (only?) batch was made and
shipped to Astrobuffet (John Hopper's company).

Though you (Rod) posted a review previously and Markus just posted his, more
exposure is definitely needed in the mags. It isn't that expensive. For more
details, see:

<http://www.astrobuffet.com/>

Rod Mollise wrote:
>
> >
> >So far I can say this Safix is one of the most impressive accessories I
> >have come across in past 15 years and I wam wondering very much, that
> >there is not yet a Safix hysterical out
>
> Hi Markus:
>
> My results mirror yours. The SAFIX is amazing in what it can do. I was actually
> very pleased with the fit and finish, too. No, maybe not quite TeleVue, but
> close, certainly. As for why it is not more popular, I'm not sure. Maybe in
> part because more people don't know about it... Certainly, it does exactly what
> is claimed for it.

Ever since the HST was repaired with a small corrective lens I've been
wondering when we would have such a device for fine tuning the optics of
amateur scopes. It looks like it's time to seriously consider this
product.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Rod Mollise" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >So far I can say this Safix is one of the most impressive accessories I
> >have come across in past 15 years and I wam wondering very much, that
> >there is not yet a Safix hysterical out
>
> Hi Markus:
>
> My results mirror yours. The SAFIX is amazing in what it can do. I was
actually
> very pleased with the fit and finish, too. No, maybe not quite TeleVue,
but
> close, certainly. As for why it is not more popular, I'm not sure. Maybe
in
> part because more people don't know about it... Certainly, it does exactly
what
> is claimed for it.
>
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise

Rod:
What telescope was used for testing? As the owner of a C11 I'm very
interested.

Bob

Thanks for the review Markus .
Maybe Valery can chime in and let us know how available this unit is ?
Someone said only about 50 ? were made .
To my way of thinking this item should be interesting to lots of people.
Leonard





"Markus Ludes" > wrote in message gate.org>...
> Hi,
>
> 10 days ago I got the chance to see first time in my live the Aries made
> Safix ( spherical aberration corrector)and bought one for testing on
> diffrent telescopes.
>
> The Safix was designed and is manufactored by Aries in Ukraine, to
> improve the spherical correction of smoothly over or undercorrected
> telescope systems to improve not only the startest but mainly the
> infocuse image. The design contains from a multicoated lens system in a
> tunnable housing with outer microscaling to read out the position of
> best spherical correction for the specific telescope. On diagonal side
> it comes with a standart 1.25" barrel and at eyepiece side it comes with
> 3 diffrent long eyepieceholders with compression ring. This diffrent
> holders shall be used for diffrent focallenght telescopes.
>
> - Mechanics
> The tunning works like a helical focuser with no shift. The anadizing
> is good , but not of that shiny high quality we know from some US or
> Taiwan made anadized products.The compression rings sitting somewhat to
> deep maschined in the eyepieceholder so its function is only to not
> scratch the eyepiece barrel. The eyepiece holders are well made in its
> inner diameter so the to deep sitting compression rings doe not shift
> your eyepiece out of axis, but I prefer if that would be improoved to
> give such compression ring his full working potential.
>
> - Optics and coating: my sample show no bubbles, no dirt or dust, no
> scratches and a goldish kind coating , not the colors we know of modern
> multicoatings. Talking to Aries about that, Valery Deryuzhin told me
> that kind of coating is used to support a natural white image . This
> natural white Image I can confirm by looking straight through the coated
> glas on a white piece of paper but also watching white stars, the image
> remains neutral white as it shall be, so the coating doing here job well
>
> - performance:
> the performance I tested in 3 ways
> a, on the bench against articval star
> b, on a day time object
> c, under real sky on stars and Planets
>
> the used telescopes for testing this device:
> a, 4" Fluorite Apo with smooth global undercorrection estimated at
> startest with about 1/3 to 1/4 wavefront p.t.v.
> b, a small high quality maksutov Cassegrain with a smooth 1/5 wagvefront
> undercorrection
> c, a massproduced but smooth visual zonal free Schmidt Cassegrain 10"
> with about 1/4 wavefront ( visual estimation)
>
> on all above scopes I found the same results
> a, the scopes showed on the bench and under real sky a symmetrical
> image with a nice airydisc and diffraction rings soroundet. In all
> scopes the diffraction rings took to much energy out of the airydisc and
> spreadet some straylight into the black sky, when slightly or more
> outside defocused. Now I installed the Safix.
> First finding you must do about same level of backfocuse change as the
> Safix have its own mechanical lenght. This is a limitation for
> telescopes with to small backfocuse , like modern Dobs and Newtonians
> and of course Mak Newtonians with only a little backfocuse, here the
> safix cannot be used, because it does not come to focuse.In the apo I
> have had to remove the stardiagonal and observe in straight mode,
> because it have had also not enough backfocuse.
> Now I started to use the helical focusing tunner . Turn the tunner step
> by step and after each step do a startest, see if image got more equal
> in startest or worser. If worser you turn the wrong direction, if better
> continue this way. Sooner or later you will find a position where the
> startest show you a equal image inside and outside of focuse. Now
> compare the infocuse image with and without the Safix and you find the
> following:
> without safix you see the way diffrent images and the straylight out of
> focuse in the black sky and the numbers of diffraction rings is about
> 3-5 piece. Install the safix now with your best findings, and you will
> see no more straylight in the black background, the airydisc increased
> its diameter slightly and got higher energy , the numbers of diffraction
> rings decreased. On the bench I found that I could improve the image of
> that apo to the level of a real very high end quality apo, to my own
> surprise, since I did not expected such dramaticle improvement.
> Under sky I used Castor douple to see what happened.Here the diffraction
> ring became much fainter and the image was more stable and the splitting
> was simply much easier.
> At Jupiter I found with the Safix a increased amount of details on the
> belts. Saturns Cassini got cleaner and much better visible.
>
> Daytime: I have to be honest due sunny days with for shure not best
> seeing, I could not see a real diffrence.
>
> Not yet I have tested if the safix does anything good on scopes with
> zonal deffects or not, but what I found is that the safix is a tool
> which can improve your optical medium to low end scope into a real high
> end optical telescope if the under or overcorrection is the only
> mistake.
>
> So far I can say this Safix is one of the most impressive accessories I
> have come across in past 15 years and I wam wondering very much, that
> there is not yet a Safix hysterical out
>
> thanks for any reply
>
> clear skies
>
> Markus Ludes

>What telescope was used for testing? As the owner of a C11 I'm very
>interested.

Hi Bob:

I've used it most on my 1995 C8, which I think is "pretty darn good," and the
results were nevertheless quite striking. I've now got a 1984 OTA in my
possession that quite obviously needs help, far more than the '95, and will
undoubtedly show more dramatic results. I've also used it with my C11 (a
Nexstar 11, which is quite amazingly good to start with), but the results were
less noticeable. I'll get that poor old C8 on Jupe and see what the SAFIX will
do with it "directly." ;-)





Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>

"Markus Ludes" > wrote in message
news:92ee5b4102e557d4ac258f2e9c549cab.30545@mygate .mailgate.org...
> a, 4" Fluorite Apo with smooth global undercorrection estimated at
> startest with about 1/3 to 1/4 wavefront p.t.v.
>
Vixen or Tak?

Best regards,
Bill

"Rod Mollise" > wrote in message
...
> >What telescope was used for testing? As the owner of a C11 I'm very
> >interested.
>
> Hi Bob:
>
> I've used it most on my 1995 C8, which I think is "pretty darn good," and
the
> results were nevertheless quite striking. I've now got a 1984 OTA in my
> possession that quite obviously needs help, far more than the '95, and
will
> undoubtedly show more dramatic results. I've also used it with my C11 (a
> Nexstar 11, which is quite amazingly good to start with), but the results
were
> less noticeable. I'll get that poor old C8 on Jupe and see what the SAFIX
will
> do with it "directly." ;-)

Rod:
Would it be fair to say that if you have a very good SCT, the Safix would be
at best a marginal investment?

Bob

>Would it be fair to say that if you have a very good SCT, the Safix would be
>at best a marginal investment?
>

Hi Bob:

Maybe...BUT..."marginal" is in the eye of the beholder, and if you're trying to
squeeze every last drop of planetary performance out of your scope...well...
;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>

"Rod Mollise" > wrote in message
...
> >Would it be fair to say that if you have a very good SCT, the Safix would
be
> >at best a marginal investment?
>
> Maybe...BUT..."marginal" is in the eye of the beholder, and if you're
trying to
> squeeze every last drop of planetary performance out of your
scope...well...
> ;-)

Since we're back on the subject, I'd be curious if tightening up SA,
improves the "color" performance of an SCT. (Do blue-gold doubles appear
more blue-gold... does the color shading of Jupiter appear less washed
out... etc.?)

--
-Stephen Paul

no name, it really doesn't matter whose scope, it is only a sample to
proove the function
please understand

thanks
Markus


"Bill Becker" > wrote in message


>
> "Markus Ludes" > wrote in message
> news:92ee5b4102e557d4ac258f2e9c549cab.30545@mygate .mailgate.org...
> > a, 4" Fluorite Apo with smooth global undercorrection estimated at
> > startest with about 1/3 to 1/4 wavefront p.t.v.
> >
> Vixen or Tak?
>
> Best regards,
> Bill




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

From my experience as dealer for SC Telescopes, I come across per year
maybe with 1 or 2
SC which have good enough quality, that the Safix would not do a
significant
improvement

Markus


"Rod Mollise" > wrote in message


> >Would it be fair to say that if you have a very good SCT, the Safix would be
> >at best a marginal investment?
> >
>
> Hi Bob:
>
> Maybe...BUT..."marginal" is in the eye of the beholder, and if you're trying to
> squeeze every last drop of planetary performance out of your scope...well...
> ;-)
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
> Like SCTs and MCTs?
> Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
> Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Stephen Paul" > wrote in message >...
> "Rod Mollise" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Would it be fair to say that if you have a very good SCT, the Safix would
> be
> > >at best a marginal investment?
> >
> > Maybe...BUT..."marginal" is in the eye of the beholder, and if you're
> trying to
> > squeeze every last drop of planetary performance out of your
> scope...well...
> > ;-)
>
> Since we're back on the subject, I'd be curious if tightening up SA,
> improves the "color" performance of an SCT. (Do blue-gold doubles appear
> more blue-gold... does the color shading of Jupiter appear less washed
> out... etc.?)

Not quite sure about doubles colors. But SAFIX definitely should improve
colors on planets. As larger SA was fixed, as more notiseable effect will
be.

Valery Deryuzhin.

(Leonard) wrote in message >...
> Thanks for the review Markus .
> Maybe Valery can chime in and let us know how available this unit is ?
> Someone said only about 50 ? were made .
> To my way of thinking this item should be interesting to lots of people.
> Leonard
>


Hi Leonard!


About 120pc were made. Last 30pc Markus will receive soon. We can make
as many as market will require.


Valery Deryuzhin.

Thnaks you all, Rod, Markus and Valery. Safix is on my shopping list.

Bob Schmall

"Markus Ludes" > wrote in message
news:bfa4b29a4d019026775186452e28cc4c.30545@mygate .mailgate.org...
> From my experience as dealer for SC Telescopes, I come across per year
> maybe with 1 or 2
> SC which have good enough quality, that the Safix would not do a
> significant
> improvement
>
> Markus
>
>
> "Rod Mollise" > wrote in message
>
>
> > >Would it be fair to say that if you have a very good SCT, the Safix
would be
> > >at best a marginal investment?
> > >
> >
> > Hi Bob:
> >
> > Maybe...BUT..."marginal" is in the eye of the beholder, and if you're
trying to
> > squeeze every last drop of planetary performance out of your
scope...well...
> > ;-)
> >
> > Peace,
> > Rod Mollise
> > Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
> > Like SCTs and MCTs?
> > Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
> > Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

>Thnaks you all, Rod, Markus and Valery. Safix is on my shopping list.

HI Bob:

It should be...this is one of those products for which there really is not a
downside. To reiterate...it's well made and does what it's supposed to. What
more can you ask?


Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>

Hi Markus:

Not to start a small war, but in your opinion (given that you've seen enough
scopes of both types to have what I consider to be a valuable comparision)
an Safix make a very good SCT (say 8") give planetary performance (color and
contrast) similar to a 4" or 5" APO?

Regards,

Jeff
"Markus Ludes" > wrote in message
news:259873769babe208a0310131aa1a9211.30545@mygate .mailgate.org...
> no name, it really doesn't matter whose scope, it is only a sample to
> proove the function
> please understand
>
> thanks
> Markus
>
>
> "Bill Becker" > wrote in message
>
>
> >
> > "Markus Ludes" > wrote in message
> > news:92ee5b4102e557d4ac258f2e9c549cab.30545@mygate .mailgate.org...
> > > a, 4" Fluorite Apo with smooth global undercorrection estimated at
> > > startest with about 1/3 to 1/4 wavefront p.t.v.
> > >
> > Vixen or Tak?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bill
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jeff Lee" > wrote in message . net>...
> Hi Markus:
>
> Not to start a small war, but in your opinion (given that you've seen enough
> scopes of both types to have what I consider to be a valuable comparision)
> an Safix make a very good SCT (say 8") give planetary performance (color and
> contrast) similar to a 4" or 5" APO?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff

I too would like to comment this question. If a SCT is _very good_, as
you wrote, then it must work just fine and will outperforms 4" and 5"
on planets and any another objects.

However, such SCTs are relatively rare pice of equipment. All in all
they are
mass production telescopes, where we can meet very good, average and
bad quality.
Most of SCT has undercorrected or overcorrected optics. Here SAFIX can
greatly
help. And average quality SCT becomes quite good.

Another important info. Even excellently corrected for spherical
aberration
SCT will loose it's correction if a focacal point shifted. Say,
perfectly corrected 8" F/10 SCT refocused for 100mm will show about
1/6 wave SA change.

So, if a given SCT has smooth enough optics, then a SAFIX always can
nullify SA
down to zero no matter if the SA is due to focus point shift or due to
manufacturing.


Markus, of course, will add his own experience here.


Valery Deryuzhin.

Thanks for the review Markus.

Anyone used the SAFIX with a binoviewer? Any comments?
Would splitting the light path plus putting it through
all the extra glass of a safix and binoviewer cause
too much light loss? Would it be too much extra light path
added?

(I've never seen the SAFIX, so I don't really know how long
it is)

Hi Valery,

Any plans for a 2" SAFIX? With a permanent attached 2" SAFIX I could
cut the truss tubes on my Dobsonian to reach focus.

Roger Persson

> About 120pc were made. Last 30pc Markus will receive soon. We can make
> as many as market will require.
>
>
> Valery Deryuzhin.

"Rod Mollise" > wrote in message
...
> >Thnaks you all, Rod, Markus and Valery. Safix is on my shopping list.
>
> HI Bob:
>
> It should be...this is one of those products for which there really is not
a
> downside. To reiterate...it's well made and does what it's supposed to.
What
> more can you ask?

Where to get it?

Bob

On 29 Apr 2004 23:46:23 -0700, (ValeryD)
wrote:

<good info snipped>

>Another important info. Even excellently corrected for spherical
>aberration
>SCT will loose it's correction if a focacal point shifted. Say,
>perfectly corrected 8" F/10 SCT refocused for 100mm will show about
>1/6 wave SA change.

Which begs the question: If one uses a rear-cell focuser with
sufficient travel, will it be possible to reduce or eliminate SA by
correct placement of the focus plane?

Wayne Hoffman
33° 49" 17' N 117° 56" 41' W
"Don't Look Down"

http://users.adelphia.net/~w6wlr/

>
>Where to get it?
>
>Bob

http://www.astrobuffet.com/


Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>

WayneH > wrote in message >...
> On 29 Apr 2004 23:46:23 -0700, (ValeryD)
> wrote:
>
> <good info snipped>
>
> >Another important info. Even excellently corrected for spherical
> >aberration
> >SCT will loose it's correction if a focacal point shifted. Say,
> >perfectly corrected 8" F/10 SCT refocused for 100mm will show about
> >1/6 wave SA change.
>
> Which begs the question: If one uses a rear-cell focuser with
> sufficient travel, will it be possible to reduce or eliminate SA by
> correct placement of the focus plane?
>
> Wayne Hoffman
> 33° 49" 17' N 117° 56" 41' W
> "Don't Look Down"
>
> http://users.adelphia.net/~w6wlr/


It should be possible to reduce or eliminate SA but it will probably
take a lot more trial & error work to find that correct placement with
a rear cell focuser. I'm pretty sure that focus plane is found only
by viewing in straight-through mode (cannot be reached with
diagonals?). Not a very comfortable viewing position to say the
least. I'll take a SAFIX over straight-through viewing any day.

Dave Keller

(Ted Kord) wrote in message >...
> Thanks for the review Markus.
>
> Anyone used the SAFIX with a binoviewer? Any comments?
> Would splitting the light path plus putting it through
> all the extra glass of a safix and binoviewer cause
> too much light loss? Would it be too much extra light path
> added?
>
> (I've never seen the SAFIX, so I don't really know how long
> it is)

FWIW, a picture of mine with a ruler (inch and metric) alongside can
be seen at:

<http://thadlabs.com/ASTRO/GEAR/Aries/SAFIX.jpg>

The three extenders to the left of the SAFIX are for use with the
specified scope f/ ratios. There's also a 254 lines per inch Ronchi
not shown in the above picture.

My only real gripe is the dialing scale doesn't have a "+" or "-" for
reproducing previously-found settings; been meaning to add those myself
and just haven't done it yet.

(Roger Persson) wrote in message >...
> Hi Valery,
>
> Any plans for a 2" SAFIX? With a permanent attached 2" SAFIX I could
> cut the truss tubes on my Dobsonian to reach focus.
>
> Roger Persson

No such plans. It will work worser, than 1.25" version.
We have plans to produce SAFIX for very fast systems like
F/4-4.5

Present SAFIX can work with systems as fast as F/5. With some
eyepiece and exit tube modification (shortening), it will work
even with F/4.


Valery Deryuzhin.

(Roger Persson) wrote in message >...
> Hi Valery,
>
> Any plans for a 2" SAFIX? With a permanent attached 2" SAFIX I could
> cut the truss tubes on my Dobsonian to reach focus.
>
> Roger Persson


Sorry, no plans for 2" version. Present version with some modifications
(eyepiece barrel shortening), probably can work with F/4.5-4


In a future, if the demand will be here, we can produce F/4 version.


Valery Deryuzhin.

Thanks. Do you use a binoviewer with it? And what scope(s) do you use it
with?


>
> FWIW, a picture of mine with a ruler (inch and metric) alongside can
> be seen at:
>
> <http://thadlabs.com/ASTRO/GEAR/Aries/SAFIX.jpg>
>
> The three extenders to the left of the SAFIX are for use with the
> specified scope f/ ratios. There's also a 254 lines per inch Ronchi
> not shown in the above picture.
>
> My only real gripe is the dialing scale doesn't have a "+" or "-" for
> reproducing previously-found settings; been meaning to add those myself
> and just haven't done it yet.

ValeryD wrote in message
>...
(Roger Persson) wrote in message
>...
>> Hi Valery,
>>
>> Any plans for a 2" SAFIX? With a permanent attached 2" SAFIX I could
>> cut the truss tubes on my Dobsonian to reach focus.
>>
>> Roger Persson
>
>
>Sorry, no plans for 2" version. Present version with some modifications
>(eyepiece barrel shortening), probably can work with F/4.5-4
>
>
>In a future, if the demand will be here, we can produce F/4 version.
>
>
>Valery Deryuzhin.

Hi Valery,

What about just repackaging the same 1.25" SAFIX in a different way, so that
it could be inserted in a 2" tube extension?
Instead of adding to the optical path length due to it being inserted
between the scope (or diagonal, or Crayford) and eyepiece, maybe it could be
*inserted into* the 2" eyepiece , 2" focuser or 2" diagonal.
By selecting where it is inserted along the optical path , the correct
distance to eyepiece would be accomplished without the current extension
tubes .
This way, the SAFIX optics would stay the same, the internals can stay the
same, just a barrel repackaging would be required . The advantage would be
compatibility with 2" accessories (focusers, diagonals, eyepieces) ,
shortening the optical train length by eliminating the extension tubes (and
because SAFIx itself wouldn't be added to the length , it would be added
inside the existing length) , no flexure due to the long and flimsy 1.25"
stacked devices.

How would you explain the lack of popularity for SAFIX ?
I have several theories but the most likely are :
#1 people like to believe they bought the best optics, so adding something
to correct errors means admitting imperfect optics , no good for the buyer's
ego,
#2 people like to spend money and buy stuff then consider themselves in the
hobby, but not actually know what they're doing, or else they'd want to
correct SA in their scopes ,
#3 people aren't even using their scopes that much and have no clue what SA
is and how it affects the viewing or imaging. Then there is of course
#4 , that you're not advertising the device enough or almost not at all ,
and in this day and age when all sorts of stupid things are advertised as
much as possible, we all got this attitude that if something isn't being
advertised, then it must be crap, must come from an underfunded or poorly
managed company , etc. , so very people have heard of SAFIX, and among those
few, even fewer gave it a second thought because it isn't being advertised.
Sad but I believe probably true, the above would be along the same lines as
some people honestly thinking they own 0.995 Strehl optics , no mirror
shift SCT's , or other similarly unlikely things.

best regards,
Matt Tudor

Hi Valery,
The important thing is that we can reach focus with all our eyepieces
with a low-profile focuser. At higher magnifications we are using the
1.25" eyepieces and that's when SA becomes noticeable. An f/4-f/5
version would be nice.

Roger Persson

> > Any plans for a 2" SAFIX? With a permanent attached 2" SAFIX I could
> > cut the truss tubes on my Dobsonian to reach focus.
>
> Sorry, no plans for 2" version. Present version with some modifications
> (eyepiece barrel shortening), probably can work with F/4.5-4
> In a future, if the demand will be here, we can produce F/4 version.
>
> Valery Deryuzhin.

(Ted Kord) wrote in message >...
> Thanks. Do you use a binoviewer with it?

No, I don't have a binoviewer. Been sort-of thinking about it, but I've
had no compelling reason to take the plunge (yet :-)

It would be interesting to test if it'll work at all with a binoviewer --
the concern being whether focus can be achieved (or not).


> And what scope(s) do you use it with?

So far I've used it with 8", 12" and 14" SCTs, and a 5" Mak. It subtly
improves planetary detail with all of them though I'm not yet certain the
14" needs it; the 14" arrived April 7 and it's only been setup three times
though that frequency will change when my fork lift is delivered Tuesday.

"matt" > wrote in message >...
> [...]
> How would you explain the lack of popularity for SAFIX ?
> I have several theories but the most likely are :
> #1 people like to believe they bought the best optics, so adding something
> to correct errors means admitting imperfect optics , no good for the buyer's
> ego,

The SAFIX does for "amateur" scopes what the <whatever> did for the Hubble.
I fail to see how ego enters into this.


> #2 people like to spend money and buy stuff then consider themselves in the
> hobby, but not actually know what they're doing, or else they'd want to
> correct SA in their scopes ,

Heh! If you peruse the various Yahoo groups, you'd come to the conclusion
most amateurs would be better-served buying coffee-table picture books of
Hubble photos than buying telescopes.



> #3 people aren't even using their scopes that much and have no clue what SA
> is and how it affects the viewing or imaging.

Hmmm, good point. It would be nice to see articles about SA and other scope
"gotchas" in ASTRONOMY and SKY AND TELESCOPE; I believe most amateurs are
simply ignorant about these matters. [Note: "ignorant" does NOT mean stupid,
it simply and non-disrespectfully means a lack of knowledge and experience.]



> #4 , that you're not advertising the device enough or almost not at all ,
> and in this day and age when all sorts of stupid things are advertised as
> much as possible, we all got this attitude that if something isn't being
> advertised, then it must be crap, must come from an underfunded or poorly
> managed company , etc. , so very people have heard of SAFIX, and among those
> few, even fewer gave it a second thought because it isn't being advertised.
> Sad but I believe probably true, the above would be along the same lines as
> some people honestly thinking they own 0.995 Strehl optics , no mirror
> shift SCT's , or other similarly unlikely things.

True. Other than a few (prior) comments about SAFIX in SAA and the sct-users
Yahoo group, I haven't seen anything about SAFIX appearing anywheres. It was
actually difficult and with a long wait time getting one. I have the distinct
impression the SAFIX uses some exotic glass(es) and/or is difficult to make,
and there's no way I'm taking mine apart to see how it's constructed.

Other than Markus Ludes, the only retailer is John Hopper's AstroBuffet at URL:

<http://www.astrobuffet.com/>

Thad Floryan wrote in message
>...
>"matt" > wrote in message
>...
>> [...]
>> How would you explain the lack of popularity for SAFIX ?
>> I have several theories but the most likely are :
>> #1 people like to believe they bought the best optics, so adding
something
>> to correct errors means admitting imperfect optics , no good for the
buyer's
>> ego,
>
>The SAFIX does for "amateur" scopes what the <whatever> did for the Hubble.
>I fail to see how ego enters into this.
>

you are of course correct but I was not debating reality, merely people's
perception of it .
In a time of more and more "perception is reality" , whoever spends a small
fortune on a telescope might not want to admit even to oneself that the
scope is less than perfect .
People love to wave optician interferogram plots or reports but very few
take it seriously and actually measure their optics, then decide to do
something constructive about it .
I believe there's a ratio of 100 to 1 between amateurs who sell their scopes
on Astromart due to "bad back" (meaning some times probably bad S.A. in my
view) and people who would buy another device to correct the problem. Plenty
of "pristine exquisite optics" SCT's floating around when even theoretically
they couldn't be better than 1/4 wave.
A lot like fast Newtonian owners who claim coma is a matter of taste and it
doesn't bother them in an F4 scope (no flames here please) .

best regards,
Matt Tudor

>
> Hmmm, good point. It would be nice to see articles about SA and other scope
> "gotchas" in ASTRONOMY and SKY AND TELESCOPE; I believe most amateurs are
> simply ignorant about these matters. [Note: "ignorant" does NOT mean stupid,
> it simply and non-disrespectfully means a lack of knowledge and experience.]


I fall into this category. I do understand what SA is, in general terms, but
I can in no way estimate the SA on my SCT, by star test or otherwise. I also
cannot find my way around the night sky, owing to both the ambient light in
my area (less than 10 miles outside Philadelphia, and right next to a sizeable
industrial park. You can literally count the visible stars in my night sky,
especially on full moon nights)

I sold my 8" celestron dob about 2 years back, and bought a Nexstar11 GPS to
help me find the faint fuzzies, and expand my limited viewing beyond the solar
system, but it mostly has not helped, since my skies are so bright the faint
fuzzies often aren't even visible. (On moonless nights, it's better)

There's good info to be found here, and I've found S.A.A to be a great resource.
Thanks, everyone. (Of course, you need to learn to whom to listen - MANY trolls
here) But I agree that more articles on subjects like SA or CA would be great
in magazines like Astronomy and S&T.

Ted Kord wrote:
>>Hmmm, good point. It would be nice to see articles about SA and other scope
>>"gotchas" in ASTRONOMY and SKY AND TELESCOPE; I believe most amateurs are
>>simply ignorant about these matters. [Note: "ignorant" does NOT mean stupid,
>>it simply and non-disrespectfully means a lack of knowledge and experience.]
>
>
>
> I fall into this category. I do understand what SA is, in general terms, but
> I can in no way estimate the SA on my SCT, by star test or otherwise. I also
> cannot find my way around the night sky, owing to both the ambient light in
> my area (less than 10 miles outside Philadelphia, and right next to a sizeable
> industrial park. You can literally count the visible stars in my night sky,
> especially on full moon nights)
>
> I sold my 8" celestron dob about 2 years back, and bought a Nexstar11 GPS to
> help me find the faint fuzzies, and expand my limited viewing beyond the solar
> system, but it mostly has not helped, since my skies are so bright the faint
> fuzzies often aren't even visible. (On moonless nights, it's better)
>
> There's good info to be found here, and I've found S.A.A to be a great resource.
> Thanks, everyone. (Of course, you need to learn to whom to listen - MANY trolls
> here) But I agree that more articles on subjects like SA or CA would be great
> in magazines like Astronomy and S&T.

My own experience is that from light polluted urban skies, one can
enjoy the moon, planets, double stars and the dozen or two brightest
open clusters, fairly well, if one uses a small enough exit pupil (high
enough magnification) to darken the sky background. With an aperture of
8 inches, one can also enjoy the dozen or so brightest globular from
such a site. DSCs or go-to will help you find them despite not having
enough stars to star hop from.
But a dark sky is always better. Much better.
From a light polluted urban site I would give up on galaxies entirely.
Clear skies,
Bill Meyers