Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
Lawrence Sayre
Abbe Normal
Reged: 10/16/04
Posts: 4747
Loc: N.E. Ohio
|
|
Quote:
Lawrence; that "spring & pulley system" looks pretty neat!
It works really well. It progressively provides more counterbalancing force as the scope is tilted more toward the horizon, which is exactly what is required to properly counterbalance a Dob.
I did not invent the idea. I saw it on the net a good number of years ago (perhaps 10), so the concept has been around for some time now. I want to say that the original idea belongs to David Knisley, but I am not 100% certain about that. I hope he is looking in so he can either confirm or correct me on this. I can't believe that every Truss Dob doesn't have a spring and pully counterbalance system by now, be it factory or homemade!
--------------------
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a moral being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Ayn Rand (in the appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')
|
Levine
sage
Reged: 03/24/06
Posts: 238
Loc: Indiana, Wabash County
|
|
Quote:
Another question...what are the lightest weight line of quality eyepieces?
And in your opinion...what are the worse offenders for the "Most Obese Eyepiece" award?
In my experience, one of THE most Oink-worthy in this regard is the 40 mm cousin of the better known (and much lighter!) Leitz 88: the Rodenstock.
It is built like, and I believe FOR, a tank.
It tips the scales at 3.2 lbs!
See it here: http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=327
    
--------------------
JMI NGT-18 f/4.5 GoTo Reflector, "Magellan"
C14/Homeyer Cradle f/11 XLT Fastar "Modoc"
C11 f/10 CFT XLT Fastar, "Dave"
CotoSKY 8.25" f/6 Achromat, "Blackjack"
Meade AR6 f/8 Achromat, "Kalliopi"
WO FLT 110 f/7 Apo, "Apollo"
Coronado PST f/10 "Icarus"
Canon IS 15 X 50 Binoculars
Losmandy G11/Gemini4
Discmounts DM-6, Sky Commander, StarBeam
Mallincam HPC/Watek monitor
Denk II Universal Power X Switch Binoviewer
Collins I3/Astronomik H-a/Starsweeper
...and some nice glass.
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 12222
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Lawrence; that "spring & pulley system" looks pretty neat!
It works really well. It progressively provides more counterbalancing force as the scope is tilted more toward the horizon, which is exactly what is required to properly counterbalance a Dob.
I did not invent the idea. I saw it on the net a good number of years ago (perhaps 10), so the concept has been around for some time now. I want to say that the original idea belongs to David Knisley, but I am not 100% certain about that. I hope he is looking in so he can either confirm or correct me on this. I can't believe that every Truss Dob doesn't have a spring and pully counterbalance system by now, be it factory or homemade!
Alas, the spring idea can only work with one weight of eyepiece. If you have eyepieces that vary in weight, a counterweight will still have to be added to the spring.
But, with the spring, a fixed-position counterweight of a known size will work. That beats my system where the amount and position of the counterweight have to vary with eyepiece and direction of pointing.
I've also seen people hang a chain off the mirror box to accomplish the same thing as the spring--the lower the scope, the more chain is off the ground acting as counterweight.
The spring idea was well-described by Tom Krajci's article in November '99 S&T.
I think the idea is even older. Jim Phillips
contributed a program to calculate the various parameters that was on Mel Bartels' site for a while.
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov, Fujinon Binos
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3945
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
Well I know some eyepieces are gratuitously heavy. The short focal length Radians, for example, have heavy brass barrels that are bored out with holes just large enough for the optical path. In the longer focal lengths a lot of material must be removed to fit the light path, but in the shorter focal lengths the result is much like a bull-barrel on a handgun. I think it turns out for some odd reason that the 5mm Radian is the heaviest.
However, in typical the longer focal length eyepieces I think the OP may be over-optimistic about the relative weight of the housing. I don't recommend taking eyepieces apart, but this is one way to take the guesswork out of it. Most of the eyepieces I've taken apart have had 1.25" barrels, but some have been long focal length 2" eyepieces. I'd guess that, typically, the vast majority of the weight is in the optics. On average I think the density of glass and aluminum are comparable, but as the focal length gets longer, the amount of glass goes up proportionally to the cube of the focal length, whereas the amount of aluminum goes up proportional to the square of the focal length, and c*x^3 eventually beats d*x^2--and badly. In order to combat this issue, the designer probably must fix the optical design. There may be some wasted ounces in the housing, but by itself, making the housing lighter can't fix the problem if it never was the problem.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt, eq platform, Pentax 40XW and 5XO, Tele Vue 13E and 2x Barlow, ZAO-II 6mm
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt with 7-21mm Nikon Zoom
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
Lawrence Sayre
Abbe Normal
Reged: 10/16/04
Posts: 4747
Loc: N.E. Ohio
|
|
Thanks Don! You are absolutely correct, it was Tom Krajci who inspired the spring counterbalance system!
--------------------
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a moral being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Ayn Rand (in the appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')
|
AlienFirstClass
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/13/09
Posts: 742
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The glass is the only important portion of the eyepiece...the rest is just support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't really mean that, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do.
It is true.
Well then, perhaps you could tell me which is the only important component in a simple peanut butter sandwich: the peanut butter or the bread? Would you contend that the bread is just there for support?
While you're pondering these weighty questions, take apart your favorite eyepiece. Discard all of those heavy, bulky and unimportant metal parts and stack up only the essential glass elements on your diagonal.
Let us know how that works out...
It sounds like you are trying to pick a fight...if so go else where.
In your analogy of the peanut butter sandwich, I would be keeping the peanut butter (maybe going with the lite spread) and definitely go with a lighter weight bread instead of a heavier weight bread.
The result would be a better sandwich. ;<)
|
russell23
sage
Reged: 05/31/09
Posts: 425
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The glass is the only important portion of the eyepiece...the rest is just support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't really mean that, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do.
It is true.
Well then, perhaps you could tell me which is the only important component in a simple peanut butter sandwich: the peanut butter or the bread? Would you contend that the bread is just there for support?
While you're pondering these weighty questions, take apart your favorite eyepiece. Discard all of those heavy, bulky and unimportant metal parts and stack up only the essential glass elements on your diagonal.
Let us know how that works out...
It sounds like you are trying to pick a fight...if so go else where.
In your analogy of the peanut butter sandwich, I would be keeping the peanut butter (maybe going with the lite spread) and definitely go with a lighter weight bread instead of a heavier weight bread.
The result would be a better sandwich. ;<)
I don't think anybody is trying to pick a fight, but I think there is some frustration (speaking for myself at least) that you seem unwilling to provide some more substantive descriptions of where the weight of eyepieces has given you problems. Even an example would be helpful.
You mentioned you have several scopes earlier. Could you give an example of a specific telescope and specific eyepiece that in combination provide a problem due to the weight of the eyepiece?
With regards to your suggestion that all eyepieces are the same weight, I don't think that is realistic. Eyepieces are not designed for weight, they are designed for specific optical purposes and the weight is a byproduct of the manufacturers design. Change the weight and you change the design.
Nor are plastic lenses a realistic solution. If plastic was feasible as a high quality optical product we'd all be able to get great optics for very low cost.
I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns about weight. It limits which eyepieces I can purchase. But we have to be realistic too.
|
AlienFirstClass
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/13/09
Posts: 742
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The glass is the only important portion of the eyepiece...the rest is just support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't really mean that, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do.
It is true.
Well then, perhaps you could tell me which is the only important component in a simple peanut butter sandwich: the peanut butter or the bread? Would you contend that the bread is just there for support?
While you're pondering these weighty questions, take apart your favorite eyepiece. Discard all of those heavy, bulky and unimportant metal parts and stack up only the essential glass elements on your diagonal.
Let us know how that works out...
It sounds like you are trying to pick a fight...if so go else where.
In your analogy of the peanut butter sandwich, I would be keeping the peanut butter (maybe going with the lite spread) and definitely go with a lighter weight bread instead of a heavier weight bread.
The result would be a better sandwich. ;<)
I don't think anybody is trying to pick a fight, but I think there is some frustration (speaking for myself at least) that you seem unwilling to provide some more substantive descriptions of where the weight of eyepieces has given you problems. Even an example would be helpful.
You mentioned you have several scopes earlier. Could you give an example of a specific telescope and specific eyepiece that in combination provide a problem due to the weight of the eyepiece?
With regards to your suggestion that all eyepieces are the same weight, I don't think that is realistic. Eyepieces are not designed for weight, they are designed for specific optical purposes and the weight is a byproduct of the manufacturers design. Change the weight and you change the design.
Nor are plastic lenses a realistic solution. If plastic was feasible as a high quality optical product we'd all be able to get great optics for very low cost.
I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns about weight. It limits which eyepieces I can purchase. But we have to be realistic too.
Others have offered examples of specific eyepiece balance problems...there is no additional value for me to add more examples.
I am attempting to address the wider spread design problem because eyepieces are overweight.
Eyepieces could be lighter if the designers desired it as a design goal...and again others have already mentioned cases where weight savings could be implemented.
As for plastic, it is a viable optical quality material that is commonly used...most eyeglasses that we wear today are plastic lenses where they were glass years ago...mostly because of the weight and cost savings it offers.
Whether it is can be used depends on the optical design of the eyepiece in question. It already may be used...manufacturers would not be likely or willing to volunteer that information.
And as for using other lighter materials for the remaining components of the eyepiece, that is very possible and could easily be done.
|
Lawrence Sayre
Abbe Normal
Reged: 10/16/04
Posts: 4747
Loc: N.E. Ohio
|
|
Quote:
Alas, the spring idea can only work with one weight of eyepiece. If you have eyepieces that vary in weight, a counterweight will still have to be added to the spring.
Note that there are springs on both sides of the scope. If there is too much spring action (something I have yet to experience with either scope that I have this on) then the option is always available to simply unhook the spring from one of the two sides for the lightweight eyepieces, and then hook it back up for the heavy weight eyepieces. In my experience though it works fine with a fair range of eyepiece weights.
--------------------
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a moral being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Ayn Rand (in the appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')
|
russell23
sage
Reged: 05/31/09
Posts: 425
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
Others have offered examples of specific eyepiece balance problems...there is no additional value for me to add more examples.
The value is in gaining some perspective on the types of problems you've encountered that are caused by eyepiece weight. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to be specific. When you asked me the same question I gave you specifics. But ok - I'll just have to continue in a fog of uncertainty as to why eyepiece weight is such a problem for you.
Quote:
I am attempting to address the wider spread design problem because eyepieces are overweight.
And here is why I keep asking you for specifics. I've asked several times now - at what point do the eyepieces become overweight 1oz, 2oz, 3oz, 4oz, 5oz, 6oz, 7oz ... 16oz ...24oz ... 35oz ... 100oz ...
If the problem is eyepiece weight, then you should try to specify a weight where the problem arises. And you should also try to define the nature of the problem caused by the weight.
Earlier I provided 3 examples of weight problems potentially associated with heavy eyepieces. That is another consideration when you talk about weight problems.
I don't know why I continue to ask you - nothing in the eyepiece industry is going to change because of our discussion.
Quote:
could be lighter if the designers desired it as a design goal...and again others have already mentioned cases where weight savings could be implemented.
The purpose of an eyepiece is to perform a specific optical goal. Obviously people are willing to buy a 31mm Nagler T5 weighing in at over 2 pounds, so the 35oz weight of the 31mm Nagler is not a problem for some people. It would be for me ... but many have equipment that can handle that eyepiece.
Quote:
As for plastic, it is a viable optical quality material that is commonly used...most eyeglasses that we wear today are plastic lenses where they were glass years ago...mostly because of the weight and cost savings it offers.
Sure, I wear glasses with plastic lenses - and the light weight is great compared with glass. But have you ever looked closely at plastic lenses after even 1 year of use. I clean my lenses with a cotton clothe only (as I was told I should do) and they still get scratched up.
Glasses are only supposed to last 1-2 years before they are replaced. Eyepieces are supposed to be designed to last forever. Plastic lenses simply will not do for that purpose.
Quote:
And as for using other lighter materials for the remaining components of the eyepiece, that is very possible and could easily be done.
But unless you are willing to provide a target weight it really doesn't matter. Do you want a 24oz 22mm Nagler T4 to be reduced to 16oz? 14oz? 12oz? 10oz? 8oz? ... Perhaps, using something like Gary Russell's Delrin plastic would help you achieve your target. But Delrin still has some weight and the glass isn't going to change. What do we do if it is not even possible to achieve that weight because the glass weight already exceeds what you're looking for?
Of course we don't even know what the target weight is.
Ok, I'm done. I've tried to make it clear why some specifics would help in this discussion. You'll do what you're going to do with that request.
Let's hope for some clear skies so we can observe instead of having free time to fritter away on this discussion.
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 12222
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
The question could be asked, "Why aren't eyepieces heavier?"
I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing that all eyepieces were 2" in diameter so I wouldn't have to use a (possibly misaligned) 1.25" adapter.
And it's annoying to have my scope perfectly balanced with a large 2" eyepiece only to have it be out of balance when switching to a smaller 1.25" one.
I don't think it's the weight that's the problem, but the lack of uniformity of the weights.
But picture the different demands:
1) I wear glasses and demand a lot of eye relief (think large eye lenses, here).
2) I don't wear glasses and I demand as few elements as possible (think small field of view and small size, here)
3) I demand an ultrawide field of view with no distortion (think many elements and larger cells).
4) I demand small sizes for binoviewing.
5) I demand ultrawide fields AND long eye relief.
6) I demand superb correction at the edge of a 100 degree field of view (think many elements and large lenses, here)
All those demands simply aren't compatible with the desire to make all the eyepieces small and light.
But, a little judicious choosing of eyepiece brands and types (there are about 1600 choices) could get all the eyepieces within a fairly narrow range of weights.
If you had a "planetary set", they could all be fairly close in weight. If you had a set of large 2" ultrawide field eyepieces for DSO viewing, you could confine your choices to a fairly narrow range of weights. Ditto with widefields (e.g.Pentax XWs).
So the issue is being able to choose ANY eyepiece at ANY focal length and have them all balance equally. To do that, the manufacturers would have to add weight to the short focal lengths since the lenses in them are going to be smaller due to the laws of physics. If fact, you can buy a heavy brass 1.25" to 2" adapter to do just that type of balancing.
Of course, having them be all the same weight isn't going to matter to all scope users on all mounts, so the extra mass, and cost, added to the small focal lengths will be complained about ad nauseum.
It also depends on how big and heavy your scope is. The 60" at Mt. Wilson is heavy enough you can step off the ladder and stand with one foot on the scope to look through the eyepiece and it doesn't notice your weight! On that scope, every eyepiece made (including the huge 4" monsters they use for low powers) is a lightweight. 
Ultimately, I don't think it matters much to the marketplace what the weights of eyepieces are unless they're too heavy for YOUR scope.
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov, Fujinon Binos
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member
|
BillP
Post Laureate
Reged: 11/26/06
Posts: 3942
Loc: Vienna, VA
|
|
I don't think the gas mileage is as good the heavier they are as they seem to stay parked in the case more. Hmmmm 
--------------------
Bill Paolini
XT10i Dob---TSA-102 S-APO---APM80/480 S-APO--- P.S.T.
TMB Supermonos---Meade UWAs---TV Panoptic---AT Titan II ED
To your own eyes be true...
|
AlienFirstClass
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/13/09
Posts: 742
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Alas, the spring idea can only work with one weight of eyepiece. If you have eyepieces that vary in weight, a counterweight will still have to be added to the spring.
Note that there are springs on both sides of the scope. If there is too much spring action (something I have yet to experience with either scope that I have this on) then the option is always available to simply unhook the spring from one of the two sides for the lightweight eyepieces, and then hook it back up for the heavy weight eyepieces. In my experience though it works fine with a fair range of eyepiece weights.
FWIW...I have seen users actually add weights to their eyepieces in the form of a collar so they all weight the same...so balance is done but once.
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4940
Loc: MA
|
|
>>>And it's annoying to have my scope perfectly balanced with a large 2" eyepiece only to have it be out of balance when switching to a smaller 1.25" one.<<<
You need pargravitizing rings. These add weight to your lighter EPs to make them pargravitational with your heavier ones. The better ones are made of osmium, btw.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
Eddgie
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/01/06
Posts: 2703
|
|
This tread is rather dubious in terms of wheter any practical benefit or knolwedge will come from it.
Almost anything one can buy CAN be made lighter, but the market place drives what the designer does. If people refused to buy heavy eyepieces, then eyepieces would get lighter.
The market wants lighter more fuel efficient cars, and the US Auto Industry wasn't prepared for that market, so it failed.
But this was not always the case.. 4 years ago, people couldn't get ENOUGH big heavy SUVs.
But somehow, I don't think the same thing will happen with eyepieces. The weight savings of a few ounces by using carbon fiber for the eyepiece barrel is simply not going to sway any manufacturer to use it.
UNLESS... Some manufacturer introduces a line of carbon fiber barreled lightweight eyepieces and THEY SELL LIKE HOTCAKES! Then all of the other manufacturers will want a piece of their action and will add ultra-light eyepieces to their line.
Don't hold your breath though.
That being said, I hated the extra bulk of the Meade 18mm UWA I owned, so I sold it. It was just too gigantic for an 18mm 1.25" eyepiece. So I "GET" the issue in a way.
It is just not an issue that is going to change anytime soon most likely.
I think there is one company that sells eyepieces that use Delrin plastic for the barrels. Perhaps these are lighter (though I am not actuallly sure that they are, and my bet is that he uses plastic because it is far cheaper to machine and not necessarily because it weighs less).
Anyway, this is totally a markeing issue. Eyepieces COULD be lighgter, but until a substantial percentage of consumers start demanding this, they won't be.
Good luck with those windmills...
--------------------
Celestron C14, CGE (Big Al)
Astro-Physics 6" f/8 (Buffy)
Televue 101 (No name, but I call it my Widescreen HD Space TV)
The night sky is my mistress. She seduces me away from all other lovers.
|
russell23
sage
Reged: 05/31/09
Posts: 425
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
I think there is one company that sells eyepieces that use Delrin plastic for the barrels. Perhaps these are lighter (though I am not actuallly sure that they are, and my bet is that he uses plastic because it is far cheaper to machine and not necessarily because it weighs less).
The manufacturer is Gary Russell (no relation). I recently bought his 19mm 2" Konig. I originally planned to just compare the masses of the 19mm Russell Optics Konig to the 19mm Smart Astronomy EF (1.25") but I ended up getting more involved with this than I intended. So here goes:
When you mass different eyepieces you have to keep in mind that if you're using both 2" and 1.25" eyepieces the 2-1.25 adapter must be factored in. For my 2" diagonal, the 2-1.25 adapter has a mass of 85 grams.
So here is the breakdown of my eyepieces based upon mass. For 1.25 eyepieces I also provide the mass with the adapter:
24mm Brandon: 84g; 169g
19mm SA EF: 106g; 191g
24mm UO Konig: 124g; 209g
19mm RO 2" Konig: 151g
12.5mm Orion edge on: 153g; 238g
9mm Oriong edge on: 200g; 285g
32mm 2" UO Konig: 257g
27mm 2" TV Panoptic: 465g
Notice that with the Delrin plastic, the 2" 19mm Konig is actually the lightest eyepiece when the 2-1.25 adapter is factored in.
Next I decided to see how the different would influence the balance of my refractor in my Williams Optics EZ mount. So I set up the scope (120mm f/8.3 achromat) as I do when observing. Since I use the 32mm 2" Konig as a finder I decided to balance the scope in the rings with the 32mm Konig in the focused position. Now the 32mm Konig focuses with the focuser drawn out the most of any eyepiece in my collection.
So when I switched to the 19mm 2" RO Konig and adjusted to the focused position the objective end will drop if the altitude of the scope is below ~55 degree altitude. Switching to the 19mm EF, the scope maintains balance until the scope is lowered to only 30 degree altitude. Then I switched to the 12.5mm edge on which has a mass (with the adapter) only 19grams less than the 32mm Konig. With this small mass difference you can drop the scope to the horizon and it holds balance.
If I switch to the heavier 27mm Pan the scope's diagonal end drops to the ground.
Next I decided to balance the scope for my lightest eyepiece - the RO Konig. For this I found that when I switched to the 9mm edge, the 32mm Konig, and the 12.5mm edge on that the diagonal end drops quickly toward the ground. When I switch to the 24mm Konig which has a mass 58 grams more than the 19mm Konig the diagonal end dropped slowly to the ground. When I switched to the 19mm EF which is only 40 grams more massive than the 19mm Konig, the scope dropped very slowly but steadily to the ground. With the 24mm Brandon there was no noticeable drop.
I don't know if any of this is useful. It is one set of eyepieces with one specific mount. Obviously the "dropping" of the scope is not really a significant problem. I lock the altitude axis when switching eyepieces so that I don't bump the scope out of position. And when I adjust the scope's position my hands are on the tube, so again the weight difference is not a problem.
Anyway, I have a few more Russell-Optics eyepieces on the way, so I will let you know their masses when I get them.
Dave
|
Eddgie
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/01/06
Posts: 2703
|
|
Ok, PERFECT.. The OP can buy Russel eyepieces with Delrin barrels is he wants the lightest weight eyepieces.
Whew. Glad we got to the bottom of THAT.
--------------------
Celestron C14, CGE (Big Al)
Astro-Physics 6" f/8 (Buffy)
Televue 101 (No name, but I call it my Widescreen HD Space TV)
The night sky is my mistress. She seduces me away from all other lovers.
|
AlienFirstClass
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/13/09
Posts: 742
|
|
Why do some posters turn so negative when discussing a simple design issue??
Lighter eyepieces would be a boon to amateurs.
|
Jim Rosenstock
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/14/05
Posts: 3714
Loc: MD, south of the DC Nebula
|
|
Quote:
Why do some posters turn so negative when discussing a simple design issue??
Perhaps they're not mature enough to scroll through four pages of pointless discussion without responding sarcastically. It's a common failing; you should pity them, Pal.
Quote:
Lighter eyepieces would be a boon to amateurs.
I bring a few helium balloons with me to my observing sessions, and tie them to my big Naglers. Works like a charm....
...and at the end of the session, I get to talk like Donald Duck!
Jim
|
AlienFirstClass
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/13/09
Posts: 742
|
|
LOL...good point.
Some people just aren't meant to design products.
|
|
44 registered and 25 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Greg K., Jason B, csa/montana
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1186
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
