From: "Russell Jocoy" 
To: mbartels{at}efn.org, atm{at}shore.net
Reply-To: "Russell Jocoy" 


>From: "Mel Bartels" 
>Reply-To: "Mel Bartels" 
>To: 
>Subject: ATM minimalist and other alternative scope designs
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:21:15 -0700
>
>
>My experience here on the ATM list and in person at star parties and club
>gatherings is that telescope makers readily acknowledge the work of others.
>Once you've built a telescope, you understand the effort and rewards
>involved, and greatly appreciate the work of others.
>
>Any delitorious comments are along the lines of friendly ribbing that we do
>with people we trust and whom we call friends.
>
>I think Chuck Dethloff is being too modest.  He scopes have impressive
>innovations including his fan mounted an inch above the primary on thin
>wire
>that blows air off the mirror's face.  In addition, he himself has ventured
>far from the modern base design as presented in Kreige's book with his
>precision travel scopes.
>
>I build telescopes because it is rewarding.  I like the challenge of the
>design and I like observing with them and connecting to the cosmos.  I like
>minimalist designs because they force me to confront and solve engineering
>problems - no sliding by by tossing in oddles of margins of safety.  The
>result besides the personal satisfaction of the design and construction is
>more aperture for the transport effort.
>
>I want to dispell this idea that occasionally pops up along the lines of,
>"Gee, you're telling me that MY 18 point mirror flotation system was
>designed on wrong principles, so my scope suddenly has become worthless".
>However a scope performed yesterday, it will continue to perform tomorrow.
>However carefully a scope was constructed yesterday, it will continue to
>display careful construction in the future.
>
>How many of us admire the Palomar 200 inch any less because today it
>represents an obsolete design?
>
>Because we think we have more efficient designs, and more to the point,
>understand better how to support glass, does not mean that scopes built
>with
>previous best designs are somehow less worthy now.  Instead, they are to be
>admired for what they are: working monuments to an amateur's inspiration
>and
>sweat.
>
>Telescopes and their craftmanship are timeless.  Historical telescopes
>built
>by thinkers long dead talk to us today; we hear their voices as we gaze up
>and down the instrument, and as night falls, turn the captured star light
>to
>our eyes.
>
>Mel Bartels
>
>
>


("atm{at}shore.net")

  Mel, No truer words were spoken, This is the heart of the ATMer to produce
an instrument to look
at the cosmos. Whether or not it is cosmetically pleasing , is only vanity
on the workmans ego.
   These creations can be ugly and produce the most beautiful images that we
can imagine.
    They will always be improved, and this is part of the quest, to learn
from others and improve
on what we learn.   Just because I make an obsolete design from 50 yrs ago
does not mean
I can"t enjoy the view.    Russ J.
("atm{at}shore.net")

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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