Tom Tele Vue 102mm f/8.6 on an EzTouch Vixen 80mm f/5 A80SSWT on a grab-n-go mount
In all designs, there are tradeoffs. This design is no different. These are designed to be ultra-light weight and they therefore don't have the mass of an Obsession style scope. This is evident when you push it around. Still...this design meets my criteria andthe reason I have based the design of my Dob on it. I want the lightest scope with the biggest mirror I can comfortably move around.
You do not need a parachute to skydive, you only need a parachute to skydive twice...
Quote:Any more thoughts on the baffling vs. local light pollution?
Quote:Is it risky removing the mirror cell in a truss?
Quote: Is it risky removing the mirror cell in a truss? Do I want to be taking a Zambuto mirror and its cell in and out of the mirror box? Or am I imagining a risk that's not really there?
LarryC Volunteer http://www.oregonobservatory.org
I do know that at the same star parties, I've looked through Starmassters and Obsessions that were shrouded and the Plettstone scopes held up very well against them.
Quote:Another benefit of a shroud (one that DOES matter at a star party) is that it blocks access to the mirror. It prevents dew/frost formation on the primary (yes, I've had this when I observed without), and the accidental dropping on something onto the mirror.Tom T.
LX850 blog: www.LX-850.com
personal website: www.wadsworthobservatory.com
Quote:Great feedback! The Plettstone site, IIRC, says that a shroud isn't needed because of how well baffled the scope is. But perhaps that doesn't work as well if a neighbor's deck light is on!Maybe the best baffling in the world isn't sufficient to block ALL stray light...OTOH, IIRC, the site also suggests that shrouds can produce tube currents.Everything in life really is a compromise, or filled with trade-offs, isn't it?
Jeff Morgan - Wile E. Coyote School of Telescope Making