-DannyMy warehouseMy Channel
"A craftsman relies on science when knowledge allows it, tradition and experience when it does not, and makes art whenever he can." 14 built scopes from 4.25 to 18" and a 24" in (perpetual) progress. 15 ATM awards. Co-mounted CPC 1100 EdgeHD/TAK FS-102/Orion ED80T on a trash-cart for when I'm feeling lazy. "Simple minds discuss people. Good minds discuss events. Great minds discuss telescopes." http://stardazed.com/
Quote:I would turn the collimation bolts around so they pop thru the aperature plate on the mirror box.
Quote:I'm curious how you attached your mirror to your cell. Is it glued at the rubber pads?
Quote:And how did you balance it? Did you have to counterweight?
Quote:Very nicely done!
Cool router compass!
Quote:I'm wondering about the flex rocker style azimuth bearing assembly. Does this serve to lower the overall profile or is it mainly to reduce weight? I guess that if the mirror box can actually be recessed into the void created by the large central hole in the base ring then the overall height and the balance point can be lower?
Quote:Also, a weak link in these designs is the focuser mounting board, which is prone to flexure. I'm wondering how you solved this problem?
Quote:WOW, what a beautiful scope. I really like the way you designed and made the base.
Quote:Really, the main problem I'm having is with my truss design. After an extended observing session last night, the more I am finding that it's not keeping as rigid as I had originally thought it was. The entire idea was experimental, and while it still performs adequately, lesson learned: no more string trusses as the *only* structure for rigidity. Straight, clamped-down trusses supplemented by strings might hold shape better, but the only thing my poles do is create compression force against the string tension, and the strings just aren't enough to hold stability. It performs adequately, but only just. A six-truss or eight-truss design would have worked better.
Quote: Really, the main problem I'm having is with my truss design. After an extended observing session last night, the more I am finding that it's not keeping as rigid as I had originally thought it was.
Quote:I considered that, but opted not to for three reasons: I don't mind getting behind the scope to collimate, I *really* liked the feel of the 4" bolts I had on hand already, and I didn't want the hardware to be visible. You'll notice that there are no nails or screw heads exposed anywhere on the box or almost anywhere on the base...this was by design. I wanted it to be aesthetically pleasing as a finished piece, and the compromise of not having collimation handles sticking up wasn't a difficult trade-off.
Scopes & Stuff:
16" F5 Teeter/zambutoTom Osypowski equatorial platform10" F5 LightbridgeMid 70's RV-6Orion 100mm EDATMing:Low Profile Front Collimating Dob/Cell for 16" Conical MirrorFront Collimating Dob/Cell for 16" Standard MirrorDob Driver with novel azimuth friction clutch, and axial (rotating) electrical connection.Red Oak Observing PlatformRed Oak Combination Observing Chair (Post Pending!)
Quote:I think your big issues there might be 1. your choice of string material, 2. your choice of lower string mounting points (as required to keep the strings out of the light path with three struts) and 3. the small diameter of your struts.
Quote:I assume you have read this:http://dbpeckham.com/Telescope/String/StringScope.htm
Quote:Could not help but commenting though, a front collimation mechanism can be very uncluttered and aesthetic. You could almost miss it in this picture:Front Collimation
12 Skywatcher Collapsible Dobsonian (coming soon)
Celestron C102 HD " Carl"
Scope brand 60mmx 700mm " widger scope"
Celestron Comet catcher(orange tube)"Scott"
60mm Telescope Club