A shroud is not necessary, even not if it isn't windy at all, if the sope is
well baffled. I never use one in my 20" and when I look through the focuser
without an eyepiece, the whole tube lookes black like hell. I don't see any
kind of reflection. The only thing I see is the primary.

Jan
http://www.geocities.com/janvangastel/

----- Original Message -----
From: "john kagey" <scopeking@...>
To: <bigdob@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [bigdob] Re: More cooling fan questions - newbie


are you saying that on a windy night views are better without the veil on
the scope?
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Tom & Lou Krajci
   To: bigdob@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 1:46 PM
   Subject: [bigdob] Re: More cooling fan questions - newbie


   >    From: "Bartolini, David" <dbartolini@...>

   > Tom,
   >
   > Do you observe with or without a shroud over your truss dob? I'm
guessing
   > that you use a shroud but I wanted to be certain to get the correct
   picture.

   No shroud on the sixteen inch truss tube dob.  Since I live in a windy
   climate...shrouds are the kiss of death for many observing evenings.

   This is also why one weekend I spent some time with a dremel and
   cutting/grinding wheels...to cut away the interior of my Protostar spider
   vanes...outer bands of about 3/8 inch width remain...less tendency to
   flutter in the breeze.

   Tom Krajci


   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>    From: "john kagey" <scopeking@...>

> are you saying that on a windy night views are better without the veil on
the scope?

Yes, because of the large wind profile a shroud adds to the tube
assembly...the scope gets pushed away from the object...and in strong enough
breezes the scope 'weather vanes' and always swings to point downwind.  If
you don't live in a windy climate then you don't have to suffer this.

But as I've posted before - a well baffled dob does not need a shroud.  I've
used my no-shroud scope to observe Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and
Saturn...all of them while the sun was still above the horizon.  My eyeballs
were the weakest in that harsh lighting condition, but the scope's contrast
performance was fine.  ;-)

Tom Krajci

>
> Duane Ott



    I uploaded a picture to the "files" area of this web site called
clamps.jpg. Maybe a picture can explain better what to do with those
UTA clamps.

/ rodger blake

This may be an obvious question to some but I'll ask it anyway since
others are likely curious about this when deciding which eyepieces to
purchase. I have been thinking about the difference between 2 inch
and 1.25 inch eyepieces. What are the advantages, if any, to the 2
inch versus 1.25 inch eyepieces becides the fact that they are way
cool to look at and hold? I am assuming that the entire light cone
coming off the diagonal mirror in a Newtonian can fit into the barrel
of a 1.25 inch eyepiece, since if it did not, then that would
essentialy decrease the aperture of ones scope. It seems to me then(
and this logic may be very flawed) that if the entire light cone
coming off the diagonal mirror can fit into the barrel of the 1.25
inch eyepieces, then what benefit is there to having an even larger
sized barrel as do the 2 inch eyepieces? Is the difference between
the eyepieces just a matter of field of view? If that is the case,
this advantage doesn't seem that important since there are many wide
field of view 1.25 inch eyepieces available these days. Thanks for
your response.  Mark

From: allanm08540@...

To: bigdob@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 5:42 PM

Subject: [bigdob] 2 inch vs 1.25 inch eyepieces?

This may be an obvious question to some but I'll ask it anyway since
others are likely curious about this when deciding which eyepieces to
purchase. I have been thinking about the difference between 2 inch
and 1.25 inch eyepieces. What are the advantages, if any, to the 2
inch versus 1.25 inch eyepieces becides the fact that they are way
cool to look at and hold? I am assuming that the entire light cone
coming off the diagonal mirror in a Newtonian can fit into the barrel
of a 1.25 inch eyepiece, since if it did not, then that would
essentialy decrease the aperture of ones scope. It seems to me then(
and this logic may be very flawed) that if the entire light cone
coming off the diagonal mirror can fit into the barrel of the 1.25
inch eyepieces, then what benefit is there to having an even larger
sized barrel as do the 2 inch eyepieces? Is the difference between
the eyepieces just a matter of field of view? If that is the case,
this advantage doesn't seem that important since there are many wide
field of view 1.25 inch eyepieces available these days. Thanks for
your response.  Mark


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Dear Folks:

I'm in the process of selling my 15" (yes, 15", not 14.5"
or 16.0") StarMaster. This was Rick Singmaster's first
scope, and was used as a demo scope for a number of years.

Please e-mail me for details (please e-mail me directly, to
avoid clogging the list with non-essential messages).

Thanks.

Fred Kiesche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

--- In bigdob@y..., allanm08540@h... wrote:
> This may be an obvious question to some but I'll ask it anyway
since
> others are likely curious about this when deciding which eyepieces
to
> purchase. I have been thinking about the difference between 2 inch
> and 1.25 inch eyepieces. What are the advantages, if any, to the 2
> inch versus 1.25 inch eyepieces becides the fact that they are way
> cool to look at and hold? I am assuming that the entire light cone
> coming off the diagonal mirror in a Newtonian can fit into the
barrel
> of a 1.25 inch eyepiece, since if it did not, then that would
> essentialy decrease the aperture of ones scope. It seems to me then
(
> and this logic may be very flawed) that if the entire light cone
> coming off the diagonal mirror can fit into the barrel of the 1.25
> inch eyepieces, then what benefit is there to having an even larger
> sized barrel as do the 2 inch eyepieces? Is the difference between
> the eyepieces just a matter of field of view? If that is the case,
> this advantage doesn't seem that important since there are many
wide
> field of view 1.25 inch eyepieces available these days. Thanks for
> your response.  Mark

Mark, the main diffrence is in the size of the field of view. The
field stop of an eyepiece (the clear diameter of the field lens) is
the limiting factor in the size of the field of view. So a 2"
eyepiece can have a maximum field stop of about 46mm, while a 1.25"
eyepiece can have a maximum field stop of about 28mm. The maximum
field of a 2" eyepiece is 1.6 times as wide as the field of the
largest field you can get in a 1.25" eyepiece, or over 2.5 times the
area.
Clear skies,
Shneor Sherman

Note - you may get more info at the telescopeeyepieces group.

--- In bigdob@y..., "john kagey" <scopeking@p...> wrote:
> are you saying that on a windy night views are better without the
veil on the scope?

I am sure he is saying that if it is windy, a shroud on a Dob turns
it into a big wind vane.

Mark,
What's not obvious at first is that using a telescope is a 2-step imaging
process.
- the telescope creates an image at the focal plane
- the eyepiece magnifies that image and projects it into our eye.

The size angular of the magnified image depends on how much of the focal plane
the eyepeice was able to magnify. This is determined by the "field stop" of the
eyepiece. Due to its larger internal diameter, a 2" eyepiece can have a larger
field stop than a 1.25", so is can show you more of the image the scope
projected to the focal plane, and thus more sky.

That's the basics. Complex eyepeice designs can muddy things a bit, and some
folks just like a larger hold on their precious optics, but the only intrinsic
advantage is wide field viewing.

Keep in mind that you can see about the same area of sky with a 55mm Plossl as
with a 40mm Superwide as with a 31mm Ultra-wide. They all have about the same
size field stop, but since the shorter focal lengths give higher magnifications,
you see a bigger, wider image of that chunk of sky.

That's also why you don't find many dedicated 2" designs below about 15mm; the
magnification is so high that an ultra-wide field stop still fits in a 1.25"
drawtube. A lot of 2"/1/25" designs, yes, to eliminate the need for 2" adapters,
but the field stops all fit in a 1.25" drawtube.

HAve fun,
Frank

|    Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 21:42:29 -0000
|    From: allanm08540@...
| Subject: 2 inch vs 1.25 inch eyepieces?
|
| This may be an obvious question to some but I'll ask it anyway since
| others are likely curious about this when deciding which eyepieces to
| purchase. I have been thinking about the difference between 2 inch
| and 1.25 inch eyepieces. What are the advantages, if any, to the 2
| inch versus 1.25 inch eyepieces becides the fact that they are way
| cool to look at and hold? I am assuming that the entire light cone
| coming off the diagonal mirror in a Newtonian can fit into the barrel
| of a 1.25 inch eyepiece, since if it did not, then that would
| essentialy decrease the aperture of ones scope. It seems to me
n(
| and this logic may be very flawed) that if the entire light cone
| coming off the diagonal mirror can fit into the barrel of the 1.25
| inch eyepieces, then what benefit is there to having an even larger
| sized barrel as do the 2 inch eyepieces? Is the difference between
| the eyepieces just a matter of field of view? If that is the case,
| this advantage doesn't seem that important since there are many wide
| field of view 1.25 inch eyepieces available these days. Thanks for
| your response.  Mark
|
|
|
| ________________________________________________________________________
| ________________________________________________________________________
|
| Message: 2
|    Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 18:42:32 -0400
|    From: "john kagey" <scopeking@...>
| Subject: Re: 2 inch vs 1.25 inch eyepieces?
|
| i dont claim to know all the benifits but i do know this,its not the barrel
you have to worry about so much as the bottem lens,often higher power lenses and
cheaper lens have a small lens that cuts off some of the light coming from the
primary some of the 2 inch lenses have too !!! also the barrels cut into the
light path in some cases on short F scopes.i have just recently become aware of
this and i hope this thread produces some solid answers.on my 11 inch F8 the
light cone comes down to about one inch in diameter and stops there so if the
lens is smaller then that i lose light!
|
|   also to me the 2 inch seem to produce larger images in spite of what is said
about this.
|
| john k                                             ----- Original Message
-----
|   From: allanm08540@...
|   To: bigdob@yahoogroups.com
|   Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 5:42 PM
|   Subject: [bigdob] 2 inch vs 1.25 inch eyepieces?
|
|
|   This may be an obvious question to some but I'll ask it anyway since
|   others are likely curious about this when deciding which eyepieces to
|
  purchase. I have been thinking about the difference between 2 inch
|   and 1.25 inch eyepieces. What are the advantages, if any, to the 2
|   inch versus 1.25 inch eyepieces becides the fact that they are way
|   cool to look at and hold? I am assuming that the entire light cone
|   coming off the diagonal mirror in a Newtonian can fit into the barrel
|   of a 1.25 inch eyepiece, since if it did not, then that would
|   essentialy decrease the aperture of ones scope. It seems to me
n(
|   and this logic may be very flawed) that if the entire light cone
|   coming off the diagonal mirror can fit into the barrel of the 1.25
|   inch eyepieces, then what benefit is there to having an even larger
|   sized barrel as do the 2 inch eyepieces? Is the difference between
|   the eyepieces just a matter of field of view? If that is the case,
|   this advantage doesn't seem that important since there are many wide
|   field of view 1.25 inch eyepieces available these days. Thanks for
|   your response.  Mark
|
|
|   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|
|
|
| [This message contained attachments]
|
|
|
| ________________________________________________________________________
| ________________________________________________________________________
|
| Message: 3
|    Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 16:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
|    From: Frederick Paul Kiesche III <FKiesche3@...>
| Subject: 15" StarMaster for sale
|
| Dear Folks:
|
| I'm in the process of selling my 15" (yes, 15", not 14.5"
| or 16.0") StarMaster. This was Rick Singmaster's first
| scope, and was used as a demo scope for a number of years.
|
| Please e-mail me for details (please e-mail me directly, to
| avoid clogging the list with non-essential messages).
|
| Thanks.
|
| Fred Kiesche
|
| __________________________________________________
| Do You Yahoo!?
| Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
| http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
|
| __
______________________________________________________________________
| ________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|

Hello all:

I have a l5" f/5 Tectron dob that seems to need mirror
work.  I am at least the third owner, and the mirror
probably has never been recoated.  I've noticed that
resolution on Mars was less than optimal.  Would it be
worthwhile to have the mirror refigured and recoated,
and if so who should I send it to for the service?
Mechanically the scope is fine, and it is a good deep
sky performer.  However, for planetary work, it
definitely needs some help. Thanks in advance.   Lou

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

----- Original Message -----

From: Louis Halikman

To: bigdob@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 8:39 PM

Subject: [bigdob] recoating mirror

Hello all:

I have a l5" f/5 Tectron dob that seems to need mirror
work.  I am at least the third owner, and the mirror
probably has never been recoated.  I've noticed that
resolution on Mars was less than optimal.  Would it be
worthwhile to have the mirror refigured and recoated,
and if so who should I send it to for the service?
Mechanically the scope is fine, and it is a good deep
sky performer.  However, for planetary work, it
definitely needs some help. Thanks in advance.   Lou

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

What I still don't understand is that if the entire light cone
coming off the diagonal can fit through the field stop of 1.25 inch
eyepieces, then the larger field stops, like those present on 2 inch
eyepieces, don't really seem necessary since the entire light cone
already can fit through the smaller field stops of the 1.25 inch
eyepieces. If the smaller field stop already receives the entire
light cone, then there doesn't seem like there should be a
difference  between the 1.25 and 2 inch eyepieces.  It seems to me
that once you are already receiving the entire light cone, then any
larger field stop doesn't do much for you.   Mark

Mark, the focal plane is made up of 3 basic components.

1) the fully illuminated (100%) zone

2) the 75% illuminated zone

3) the 50% illuminated zone

The size of these zones is dependent upon the size of the diagonal
mirror and some other factors.

For an example scope lets use a 10" f/4.5 with a 2.6" diagonal and an
inner tube diameter of 12" and a 2" low profile focuser.

The size of the 100% zone will be about 24mm.

The 75% zone is 46.5mm

This does not mean that an eyepiece with a field stop larger than 24mm
will have visible light dropoff at the edges of the field. The
difference in brightness between the 100% and 75% zones is
undetectable by the human eye.

It also doesn't mean that an eyepiece with a field stop smaller than
24mm will be "wasting light". Like a 20mm Plossl with its field stop
of 18mm or so. It means that an eyepiece with the same size or smaller
field stop will be fully illuminated across its field of view.

It has nothing to do about the cone of light fitting into the field
stop of the eyepiece. However if a scope has a too small diagonal
mirror the 100% illuminated zone can be too small or even non existant
and cause a dim view or being able to notice a brightness dropoff at
the edge of the field of view... But thats another story.

The field stop of a 2" eyepiece is limited to about 51mm. The diameter
of the barrel.

The 2" 31mm Nagler has a field stop of 42mm. The 2" 55mm televue
plossl has a 46mm field stop.

The field stop in a 1.25" eyepiece is limited to about 31mm, the
barrel diameter.

The standard 30 - 32mm plossl has a field stop of about 28mm or less.
So, the 1.25" format is limited to an apparent field of view of 50
degrees at a focal length of 32mm. Thats as much sky as can be seen in
a 1.25" eyepiece.

If you used a 30mm plossl with a AFOV of 50 degrees the in the same
10" f4.5 scope mentioned above would give a you an actual field of
view of about 1.3 degrees of sky at 38x.

The apparent field of view useable to a 2" eyepiece in the 30mm range
is 80 + degrees. Such is the case of the 31mm nagler and 30mm widescan
II eyepieces.

The 30mm 84 degree AFOV eyepiece in the same 10" f/4.5 scope will give
you the same power as the 30mm plossl (38x) but will show you a 2.2
degree shunk of the sky.

That is the purpose for 2" eyepieces. Wider field of view.

Jim

--- In bigdob@y..., allanm08540@h... wrote:
>  What I still don't understand is that if the entire light cone
> coming off the diagonal can fit through the field stop of 1.25 inch
> eyepieces, then the larger field stops, like those present on 2 inch
> eyepieces, don't really seem necessary since the entire light cone
> already can fit through the smaller field stops of the 1.25 inch
> eyepieces. If the smaller field stop already receives the entire
> light cone, then there doesn't seem like there should be a
> difference  between the 1.25 and 2 inch eyepieces.  It seems to me
> that once you are already receiving the entire light cone, then any
> larger field stop doesn't do much for you.   Mark

>   I have a l5" f/5 Tectron dob that seems to need mirror
>   work.  I am at least the third owner, and the mirror
>   probably has never been recoated.  I've noticed that
>   resolution on Mars was less than optimal. ...



I have not gotten round to it yet, but will evenutally send my
Starfinder 10 mirror to Swayze Optical in Portland, OR. They have a
service in which they check the mirror's figure first for a modest
fee, then forward to (i think) Clausing's for recoating. Swayze's
website is at

http://home.europa.com/~swayze/

Last i heard Swayze had a backlog of several months.

regards

Bob

----- Original Message -----

From: rjbrjb20022002@...

To: bigdob@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 5:07 PM

Subject: [bigdob] Re: recoating mirror

>   I have a l5" f/5 Tectron dob that seems to need mirror
>   work.  I am at least the third owner, and the mirror
>   probably has never been recoated.  I've noticed that
>   resolution on Mars was less than optimal. ...



I have not gotten round to it yet, but will evenutally send my
Starfinder 10 mirror to Swayze Optical in Portland, OR. They have a
service in which they check the mirror's figure first for a modest
fee, then forward to (i think) Clausing's for recoating. Swayze's
website is at

http://home.europa.com/~swayze/

Last i heard Swayze had a backlog of several months.

regards

Bob







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Has anyone tried out the Axiom Eyepieces?

I'm thinking of getting a couple of really nice 2" EPs for my
soon-to-be-finished 18" F/4.5 Obsession. I was thinking of 31mm and 17mm
Naglers, but then the Axioms caught my eye. The 19mm and 34mm look
interesting, although at 7.6, the exit pupil is a bit large on the 34mm. The
27mm Panoptic might be better. Unfortunately, where I live I can't try
before I buy. Has anyone compared these EPs?

Pete

----- Original Message -----

From: Roebber, Pete

To: 'bigdob@yahoogroups.com'

Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:17 PM

Subject: [bigdob] RE:Axiom EPs

Has anyone tried out the Axiom Eyepieces?

I'm thinking of getting a couple of really nice 2" EPs for my
soon-to-be-finished 18" F/4.5 Obsession. I was thinking of 31mm and 17mm
Naglers, but then the Axioms caught my eye. The 19mm and 34mm look
interesting, although at 7.6, the exit pupil is a bit large on the 34mm. The
27mm Panoptic might be better. Unfortunately, where I live I can't try
before I buy. Has anyone compared these EPs?

Pete


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

on 7/12/01 8:06 AM, bigdob@yahoogroups.com at bigdob@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> I have not gotten round to it yet, but will evenutally send my
> Starfinder 10 mirror to Swayze Optical in Portland, OR. They have a
> service in which they check the mirror's figure first for a modest
> fee, then forward to (i think) Clausing's for recoating. Swayze's
> website is at
>
> http://home.europa.com/~swayze/
>
> Last i heard Swayze had a backlog of several months.

I had a mirror made by Swayze that I am very happy with.  I have colleagues
who have mirrors made by or refigured by Steve and they all are very
satisfied.  Steve sent my mirror to Clausing and they were reliable and did
a good job on the Beral coating.  Although I have had two mirrors done there
with no complaints I have heard complaints about both time and sleaks from
others.  Steve also uses Spectrum (mostly for overcoated coatings).  I don't
have experience with them but others seem to be pleased with them.  If I
remember correctly Carl Zambuto also uses Spectrums standard coating on his
mirrors.

Hope that helps,

Curt

----- Original Message -----

From: Roebber, Pete

To: 'bigdob@yahoogroups.com'

Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:30 PM

Subject: RE: [bigdob] RE:Axiom EPs

http://www.celestron.com/access/axiom.htm

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: john kagey [mailto:scopeking@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 9:22 AM
To: bigdob@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bigdob] RE:Axiom EPs

 

can you send a link to these eyepieces,i would like to read about them. thabks

john.

ps,keep us updated

----- Original Message -----

From:

Roebber, Pete

To: 'bigdob@yahoogroups.com'

Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:17 PM

Subject: [bigdob] RE:Axiom EPs

 

Has anyone tried out the Axiom Eyepieces?

I'm thinking of getting a couple of really nice 2" EPs for my
soon-to-be-finished 18" F/4.5 Obsession. I was thinking of 31mm and 17mm
Naglers, but then the Axioms caught my eye. The 19mm and 34mm look
interesting, although at 7.6, the exit pupil is a bit large on the 34mm. The
27mm Panoptic might be better. Unfortunately, where I live I can't try
before I buy. Has anyone compared these EPs?

Pete


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Many thanks.  I have decided to go with Swayze because
of their reputation.  Nova optical also offers a
similar service.

The enhanced coatings are much more expensive than the
standard ones.  Are they worth the money?  I've also
been told that the enhanced coatings are not as
"smooth" as the standard coatings, and may increase
the wavefront error.  Any truth to this?  What are the
advantages to Beral coatings?  I'm new to the
telescope rehab department and just need some help.
     Thanks again     Lou




--- Curt Wittenberg <curtwitt@...> wrote:
> on 7/12/01 8:06 AM, bigdob@yahoogroups.com at
> bigdob@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > I have not gotten round to it yet, but will
> evenutally send my
> > Starfinder 10 mirror to Swayze Optical in
> Portland, OR. They have a
> > service in which they check the mirror's figure
> first for a modest
> > fee, then forward to (i think) Clausing's for
> recoating. Swayze's
> > website is at
> >
> > http://home.europa.com/~swayze/
> >
> > Last i heard Swayze had a backlog of several
> months.
>
> I had a mirror made by Swayze that I am very happy
> with.  I have colleagues
> who have mirrors made by or refigured by Steve and
> they all are very
> satisfied.  Steve sent my mirror to Clausing and
> they were reliable and did
> a good job on the Beral coating.  Although I have
> had two mirrors done there
> with no complaints I have heard complaints about
> both time and sleaks from
> others.  Steve also uses Spectrum (mostly for
> overcoated coatings).  I don't
> have experience with them but others seem to be
> pleased with them.  If I
> remember correctly Carl Zambuto also uses Spectrums
> standard coating on his
> mirrors.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Curt
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

The Axiom eyepieces have *very* little eye relief. The 2" 19mm has 4mm
of eyerelief. I had one and sold it at a huge loss because of this.

The 34mm has 3mm and the 23mm has 8mm according to Astronomics.
Terrible eyepiece design.

Jim

--- In bigdob@y..., "Roebber, Pete" <pete.roebber@i...> wrote:
> Has anyone tried out the Axiom Eyepieces?
>
> I'm thinking of getting a couple of really nice 2" EPs for my
> soon-to-be-finished 18" F/4.5 Obsession. I was thinking of 31mm and
17mm
> Naglers, but then the Axioms caught my eye. The 19mm and 34mm look
> interesting, although at 7.6, the exit pupil is a bit large on the
34mm. The
> 27mm Panoptic might be better. Unfortunately, where I live I can't
try
> before I buy. Has anyone compared these EPs?
>
> Pete

Interesting. The Celestron web site lists the eye relief for the Axioms as
follows:

19.0mm 10mm
34.0mm 16mm
40.0mm 21mm
50.0mm 38mm

Pete

  -----Original Message-----
From:  nightowl1130@... [mailto:nightowl1130@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:48 PM
To: bigdob@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bigdob] Re: RE:Axiom EPs

The Axiom eyepieces have *very* little eye relief. The 2" 19mm has 4mm
of eyerelief. I had one and sold it at a huge loss because of this.

The 34mm has 3mm and the 23mm has 8mm according to Astronomics.
Terrible eyepiece design.

Jim

--- In bigdob@y..., "Roebber, Pete" <pete.roebber@i...> wrote:
> Has anyone tried out the Axiom Eyepieces?
>
> I'm thinking of getting a couple of really nice 2" EPs for my
> soon-to-be-finished 18" F/4.5 Obsession. I was thinking of 31mm and
17mm
> Naglers, but then the Axioms caught my eye. The 19mm and 34mm look
> interesting, although at 7.6, the exit pupil is a bit large on the
34mm. The
> 27mm Panoptic might be better. Unfortunately, where I live I can't
try
> before I buy. Has anyone compared these EPs?
>
> Pete




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Pete

Get the best and forget the rest. Naglers are the eyepieces that all
others are out to beat. You will not go wrong with anything from Tele-
Vue.

John Kuhl

> Interesting. The Celestron web site lists the eye relief for the Axioms as
> follows: <snip>

     It *is* interesting. I had a chance to play with a 19mm Axiom at TSP and
found the eye relief to be so awful I immediately dismissed it as crud to be
avoided. It was otherwise an excellent lens, if a bit pricey all things
considered.

Just My Experience,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas
http://members.aol.com/NGC704/NGs.html

<snip>
Interesting. The Celestron web site lists the eye relief for the
Axioms as follows:

19.0mm  10mm
34.0mm  16mm
40.0mm  21mm
50.0mm  38mm
<snip>


It's interesting because Astronomics lists eye relief as to what is
*useable*. The Axiom's may have the eye relief that Celestron has
listed from the top of the eyelens. But.... the top eyelenses are
recessed into the body of the eyepiece, making the actual useable
eyerelief much less.

I took one look through the 19mm Axiom and immediately dimissed it as
an eyepiece to avoid just like Kurt. The really funny thing is the
huge eyecup they provide with the eyepiece. You can't even see a
tenth
of the FOV with it extended and its just in the way when you *try* to
jam your eye into the glass to see the whole field.

After finding out that the 15mm, 23mm and 34mm have similar poor
eyerelief #'s I try to at least let people know what the scoop is.

The 40mm and 50mm eyerelief seems fine though. at 19mm and 35mm
respectively.

Jim

----- Original Message -----

From: Louis Halikman

To: bigdob@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 4:24 PM

Subject: Re: [bigdob] recoating mirror

Many thanks.  I have decided to go with Swayze because
of their reputation.  Nova optical also offers a
similar service.

The enhanced coatings are much more expensive than the
standard ones.  Are they worth the money?  I've also
been told that the enhanced coatings are not as
"smooth" as the standard coatings, and may increase
the wavefront error.  Any truth to this?  What are the
advantages to Beral coatings?  I'm new to the
telescope rehab department and just need some help.  
    Thanks again     Lou




--- Curt Wittenberg <curtwitt@...> wrote:
> on 7/12/01 8:06 AM, bigdob@yahoogroups.com at
> bigdob@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > I have not gotten round to it yet, but will
> evenutally send my
> > Starfinder 10 mirror to Swayze Optical in
> Portland, OR. They have a
> > service in which they check the mirror's figure
> first for a modest
> > fee, then forward to (i think) Clausing's for
> recoating. Swayze's
> > website is at
> >
> > http://home.europa.com/~swayze/
> >
> > Last i heard Swayze had a backlog of several
> months.
>
> I had a mirror made by Swayze that I am very happy
> with.  I have colleagues
> who have mirrors made by or refigured by Steve and
> they all are very
> satisfied.  Steve sent my mirror to Clausing and
> they were reliable and did
> a good job on the Beral coating.  Although I have
> had two mirrors done there
> with no complaints I have heard complaints about
> both time and sleaks from
> others.  Steve also uses Spectrum (mostly for
> overcoated coatings).  I don't
> have experience with them but others seem to be
> pleased with them.  If I
> remember correctly Carl Zambuto also uses Spectrums
> standard coating on his
> mirrors.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Curt
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Thanks for everyone's comments. Looks pretty unanimous. I'll have to shell
out some more big bucks from my poor smarting wallet! Well, I've found the
same thing to be true with tools: there's a definite correlation between
cost and quality. I won't cheap out now and compromise the investment I've
already made in superb optics. TeleVue, here I come!

Pete

  -----Original Message-----
From:  nightowl1130@... [mailto:nightowl1130@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:44 PM
To: bigdob@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bigdob] Re: RE:Axiom EPs

<snip>
Interesting. The Celestron web site lists the eye relief for the
Axioms as follows:

19.0mm  10mm
34.0mm  16mm
40.0mm  21mm
50.0mm  38mm
<snip>


It's interesting because Astronomics lists eye relief as to what is
*useable*. The Axiom's may have the eye relief that Celestron has
listed from the top of the eyelens. But.... the top eyelenses are
recessed into the body of the eyepiece, making the actual useable
eyerelief much less.

I took one look through the 19mm Axiom and immediately dimissed it as
an eyepiece to avoid just like Kurt. The really funny thing is the
huge eyecup they provide with the eyepiece. You can't even see a
tenth
of the FOV with it extended and its just in the way when you *try* to
jam your eye into the glass to see the whole field.

After finding out that the 15mm, 23mm and 34mm have similar poor
eyerelief #'s I try to at least let people know what the scoop is.

The 40mm and 50mm eyerelief seems fine though. at 19mm and 35mm
respectively.

Jim







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/