To: atm{at}shore.net
From: tkrajci{at}san.osd.mil
Reply-To: tkrajci{at}san.osd.mil


>From: kwhitefire{at}juno.com

>...I want something that I can look into, using my eyes.  The image has to
>look good.

This is a vague definition.  We can't help you decide on your design until
you nail the jello to the wall.  My wife's eyes do not appear sharp - or at
least she is not very picky in terms of optical performance.  What she
considers 'good' in a telescope is often unacceptable to me.

What is 'good' to you?

>I also want something that I can attach a camera, and make that same image
>look good on film.

I won't ask what your defintion of 'good' is again, but what size film do
you want to cover?  What image quality/resolution do you want in the
center?...at the very corners?

>I don't want to have to focus at different points to see the edge.  The
>fisheye look is out.

This is still vague.  If you use a short focal length eyepiece...just about
any design will avoid the 'fisheye look.'  Depending on the field stop of
your eyepiece, focal length of the eyepiece, the ability of your eye to
accomodate (focus), and other parameters...what works for you may not work
for others.

>So I'm a firm believer in the Uniscope.  It's that mythical creature we all
>dream about, what a perfect telescope would be.  What is it called?  That's
>what I'll make.  If it's unknown, then I'll invent it.

Please keep us appraised of your progress.  The more objective your design
and acceptance criteria are...the easier it will be for you to say whether
or not your scope is good enough.

Tom Krajci
Tashkent, Uzbekistan

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP