From: "Russell Jocoy" 
To: jtmiller2{at}comcast.net
Cc: atm{at}shore.net
Reply-To: "Russell Jocoy" 


>From: "Jim Miller" 
>Reply-To: "Jim Miller" 
>CC: 
>Subject: Re: ATM Re: Minimalist dobs.
>Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:32:07 -0400
>
>
>IMO, the big advantage of a lightweight secondary would be the opportunity
>to dramatically reduce the suspended mass of the entire secondary
>hub/mirror/cell combination and as a result reduce the size of the
>suspension wires and resulting diffraction.
>
>Reducing the total upper end mass isn't quite as useful unless you have
>some
>sort of variable balancing mechanism built into the mount.
>
>jtm
>
>







("atm{at}shore.net")

  You can always use counter wieght on the opposite end, or redesign the
entire scope for one eyepiece.
Light wieght is great for transport but sucks for stability. A
featherwieght scope is nice if its on my
shoulder, but once it is on the ground, I want it fixed and stable.. Just
my thought...Remember that
your observing site is not as friendly as your workshop or garage..    RJ
("atm{at}shore.net")
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: 
>To: "at making" 
>Cc: ; ; 
>Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 9:36 AM
>Subject: Re: ATM Re: Minimalist dobs.
>
>
>
>
>Hello Fred,
>
> >a very intresting thing could indeed have large very light
> >secondary, a must for big dob.
>
>Yeah, I am well placed to know what you mean.
>In adition, if big Al ;) could make the Nagler 31 mm etc...
>out of lightweight material that would be great too.
>Plastic lenses? But what about quallity and durability? =:-|
>The same for CCD cameras etc etc...
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5