Re: Astrosib RC's
- From: Chris L Peterson <clp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:57:37 GMT
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:27:11 GMT, "George Normandin"
<georgepn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While it is possible for an amateur to make an RC, the
design does have greater mechanical tolerance requirements than other
designs.
IMO, not significantly so. I did mechanical designs for both a 0.5m and
a 1.0 meter RC, and the mechanical requirements are not significantly
different than for a classical Cassegrain. Unless I were designing for
an optimum minimal design (for instance, a scope that needed to be
optimally light for some reason), I wouldn't be looking at a different
mechanical system for either. Both would be sufficiently over-engineered
that flexure would be significantly smaller than necessary to impact
optical performance.
Again, building an RC is well within the capabilities of many ATMs.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Astrosib RC's
- From: M104galaxy@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Astrosib RC's
- From: William C. Keel
- Re: Astrosib RC's
- References:
- Astrosib RC's
- From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
- Re: Astrosib RC's
- From: atasselli@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Astrosib RC's
- From: KLM
- Re: Astrosib RC's
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Astrosib RC's
- From: George Normandin
- Astrosib RC's
- Prev by Date: Re: Flat Black - where, what ??
- Next by Date: Re: Flat Black - where, what ??
- Previous by thread: Re: Astrosib RC's
- Next by thread: Re: Astrosib RC's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|