Posts Made By: Tom Lacovik

Just sharing:

I went with an arc for my mirror box cutout and fully sanded all 4 MB side pieces. Just came in from the garage. My big delay has been due to wanting to learn some joinery on this project instead of just glue&screwing the box together (not that there's anything wrong with that...I just wanted a challenge).

So I cut finger joints for my mirror box (which took a LOT LOT longer than I thought not counting the time it took to make a jig). In the end I bet it will look great and be super strong (probably won't need corner braces with that much surface area glued up hey?)

Same goes for the rocker box (not done yet), but I will make finger joints for that too. Anyway, the MB pieces are cut and sanded and there is a pair of plywood sheets laminating under the weight of my car in the driveway, soon to be made into side bearings....

If I'm not careful I might finish this scope!

Thanks for listening...
TomL

Hi Everybody.
It seems that I wasn't quite clear on what I was getting at with my "cutaway" thought of the day yesterday. First of all, naturally I know the reason for the cutaway is to lower the height of the MB in the rocker box. The arc of the swing through (which is what I actually wound up cutting yesterday) is therefore the minimum cutout.

But what my posting was getting at was that I noticed that a 45 cut lands a lot higher (about twice as high) up the side meeting the front. That got me thinking about weight/strength issues and tradeoffs. Which led to the thought of the most radical cutout of all: all the way to the top corner.

That was what I was ruminating about out loud.

Somebody replied that this would be too weak if you went over 45, but I think I must have not been clear or misunderstood, because I believe the opposite is true: even though I decided on box #2 in the sketch, what I was getting at (box #4) was that the front of that box would clear the swingthrough and be stronger, not weaker than a 45 (box #3) or the minimal arc (#2).

Yet I've never seen a box #4 (like I said, it came from a "question everything" moment), so maybe it's just me and I'm crazy

Well I definitely know I'm bored to bits to bother scanning my sketch but there is truly NOTHING going on at work today, so just for academic discussion, I give you my kookie idea I was unable to parlay clearly yesterday:

All the best (hope your day isn't as boring as mine)
TomL

Just having some fun here, but I am predicting that the product is called CPC.
What does it stand for? Celstron PC? Cooler for Pina Coladas? I don't know... you tell me.
TomL

Hi Gang.
I have read over and over about the wonderstuff called ebony star. Actuallly, I have a 2' square of it in my hands, but. My trunion arcs came out to 38" not 24" so even on the diagonal I can't cut one strip of ebony star for them.

Just as well, as I actually don't like the look of the faux granite (so very 80s kitchen home depot remodel looking ! from a purely aesthetic point of view, and I tend to LOOK at things from that point of view. Of course function is important too, primary in fact, but since I can't use the ebony star I was intending to use, I have to buy some more laminate, and if I have my druthers, I would rather get something pure black.

Can one really not deviate from the sanctity of ebony star? Can any similar textured pebbled laminate not work just as well. Yes I read the tests KB conduct in their book, yes I understand the friction/stiction issue, but the question is can other very similar laminates be used to equal effect? Is this blasphemy?

For reference, I am building a 13.1 dob with 19" diameter trunions one inch thick, with a 38" arc measurement each.

Thanks for your insights/experience.
TomL

Can you guys recommend a lightweight binocular (about 26oz). I've found a couple out there in the 42mm aperture range. Probably no such thing as 50mm binocs that weigh less than 30 oz, and I might actually prefer a slighly smaller package than the standard 10x50 astro binocs everyone seems to settle on.

So a) is there a good 42mm binoc you could recommend (price is a factor)
and b) is there a good 28oz-ish (or lighter) binocular (of any size!) you would recommend.

Thanks!!
Tom.

Has anyone here ever tried out a pair of Eagle Optics Denali Binoculars? Can you comment on them. By specs alone the 8x42s seem pretty good...wonder about the quality.

Thanks.
Tom.

Hmmm..... so close to choosing.
Anyone have any experience with either of these?

I've narrowed my binoc choice down to these two plus the eagle optics super lightweight (20.5 oz) 8x42 Denali

The WO are phase coated roofs. for about $189 and a great 7 degree FOV and 24 oz
The Celestrons are not phase coated but have a greater 7.4 degree FOV (!) and only 23 oz, and $90 locally.

quality of these for astronomy?

http://www.buytelescopes.com/product.asp?t=&pid=10392&m=
versus
http://www.buytelescopes.com/product.asp?t=&pid=8636&m=

So sue me, I'm superficially aesthetic. (I believe a telescope should look as beautifully as it works).

To me ebony star looks like an inexpensive kitchen remodel of the 80s. But I can't argue it's good stiction/friction properties performance wise.

Does anyone know of a (specific) alternative that is just a solid color but equally pebbly/textured?

Do share if you can. Thanks.

Tom.

What are the top 10-20 (or more) knock your socks off DSOs to show a beginner?

(in very dark skies in central oregon's star party aug 25/26, with a 6"Mak, binoculars, and if i can finish by then, a 13.1" dob)

Nothing is too obvious. We're talking beginner here. Thank you in advance for helping me make a great observing list.

-Tom.

Trying to minimize top end weight, what is the lightest finder ~50mm that you know of?