Posts Made By: Steve Vegos

Anybody seen APM's Dob debut at Stellafane? Any impressions or pictures?

Thanks

Steve

I keep wonering why 7x50's continue to be pushed for astro use. Considering Alan Alder's article in the recent S&T maginfication may play as big or bigger role for night time use than objective diameter. I think we've all seen the difference between 7x50's vs 10x50's on M81 and M82 for instance. But 10x is just to much trouble to hold steady for any length of time!

I am sold on Swift Audubon's for astro use, price considered. I realize the edge is soft, but so are the edges of any other $250 + bino I've looked through. With narrower FOV no less.

Am I the only astro person using birding binos? Any one else out there? If so, why do you use them?

Or why would you use 7 x 50's instead?

Steve

Never owned a refractor before.

Accumulated these parts from very fine Astromarter's in the last month or so: Sky90II, Bogen 3068, Tak Teegul Alt/Az.

Sweet rig. Pic attached.

Glenn:

Why 7x50's? Are you approaching 40?

Steve

Ryan:

Pentax Roofs:
http://betterviewdesired.com/new_roofs.htm#Pentax

Swift Audubons:
From an astro guy:
http://w1.411.telia.com/~u41105032/books/swift.htm

From a birder:
http://betterviewdesired.com/audubon/audubon.html

Steve

Ricky:

Call Gary Hand and ask him about the eyepiece for your scope. Since it's a Dob, would you be better off with wide eyepieces in the lower powers or the higher powers?

Just a thought.

Steve

Hi Tim:

You may be a good canidate for building your own Dob. A fellow that posts in these forums, Mark Harry, makes 6 to 10 inch mirrors. His customers seem quite satisfied.

Plans for Dob construction can be found all over the net. Ray Cash has a good site with plans, San Francisco Sidewalk Astonomers.

If that's not your bag, I've had the occasion to use a few 8" f/6 Discovery scopes and was surprised at how nice each performed.

Steve

Doug:

I posted a pic of my 16" f/4.5, but deleted it becasue I thought it might be viewed as an ad based on the "mood" of your post. My scope has no mirror box, the cell is the core of the lower end. The scope weighs 62lbs including the mirror. The rocker and ground board ~8lbs. It includes some other ideas that are proving to be very rewarding as well. I think I can shave a few more pounds off it as well. Done without exotics like CF or Foam core materials.

Al Highe has a line of scopes using three tubes that is very interesting and Litebox has done a fine job of re-engineering the typical Dob to a lighter more compact version. I was just at the OSP and Chuck Dethloff has made some simply stunning travel scopes that protect the sensitive componets of a scope during air flights. There is innovation. But the standard offerings are hugely successful, and I think for good reason.

So, I'd like to take a minute to defend the mirror box type scope your wondering about. There are many trade offs invloved in making telescopes and I think the offerings from the big guys repesents an excellent compromise on these trade offs.

For instance, setting up Greg Babcocks scope, or mine is not quite as hassle free as bolting four triangles to the mirror box as the Starmaster or Night Sky does. The mirror box provides protection for the primary that minimalist designs don't. Primary dewing is more easily control or headed of with the mirror box and secondary dewing with a full double ring UTA.

As for cooling, the current crop of scopes have fans, open backs, removable tailgates, etc. that don't seem to impede cooling efficiency. The full UTA of these scopes, coupled with there shroud provides maximum baffling against stray light from neighbors, street lights etc.

Let's face it, most of these scopes spend thier lives in the backyard of suburban neighborhoods. Once a year they travel to dark skies for a star party. Not all, but I would guess most. They're wheeled out of the garage already set up, to cool during dinner and observe. A home for the mirror so secure the cat can't even get in there for a nap! How big a factor is weight, or minimalist designs against sturdy, proven durablity and protection of the primay of the typical Dob to most folks? Considering the range of folks these are marketed too, and the range of mechanical ability, they represent an excellent product for the general high end market. How many times have you seen a post from someone that starts out like this, " I just recieved my new Starmaster 18" scope, and need help collimating it". You get the idea.

I am totally thrilled with my lightweight scope. Email me if you's like, I have a few pics, not very good, but I can take some more.

Steve Vegos
[email protected]

David:

Screw 'em. Go to Wally World and buy the Bouffant shower cap in any color or pattern you like...uh...or don't like.

IIRC, you get two to a package for $0.99. Then you'll look like a sourdough.

Steve Vegos

Hi Mike:

The pop culture will have you believe that logging is the cause of everything, including your hemmoroids.

Forest management seeks to mimick the successes of natural occurances. Fires like the ones we are having here in the west are for ALL practical purposes, a clearcut, ma natures clearcut. By not having logging in federal forests we are loading up the land base with biomass that must be removed somehow for the forest to be renewed. Either it can be utilized by the citizens or go up in smoke.

Of course the pop culture will tell you that it is forest management that is causing the huge fires. Well a little study of history say about 1910 before roads, fire bombers, fire trucks etc. will prove that huge fires occured pre-suppression acivities by the white man. Check out the history of Idaho, Wyoming and Oregon in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

In addition the pop ideas will tell you that pre-white settlement there was a carpet of old growth from coast to coast that didn't burn becasue the trees were to big. Pictures from early settlers clearly show that this is not the case. The Indians regularly burned off entire drainages near thier settlements primarily for two reasons. One was to improve game habitat, the other was to AVOID the huge uncontrollable fires we have this year. At least they were smart enough to see the forest for the trees. Us whiteies don't seem to be that wise, our vision is very short and we are easily swayed due a lack of cause and effect thinking.

Indians didn't log thier land pre-whites so they burned instead. BTW, some of the most productive timber producing tree farms in North America are Indian companies. They don't burn as they had in the past, but manage thier land by logging and related activities. And, the idea that old growth doesn't burn can only be sold to someone that never worked in the woods.

I suggest you listen to Mr. Bushes ideas. Keep in mind that the Enviormentalists Corporations are just that, Corporations. They are BIG BUSINESSES, multi-million dollar BUSINESSES. If you are skeptical of Bush, et. al, or the timber companies then to be intellectually honest you need to hold your eviro freinds to the same candle. They might not shine the light you think they do if you actually look at them with a questioning mind.

Thanks,

Steve