Jack and Others,

Perhaps I'm wrong, but here is my model of what is going on here. The
chair sits on a piece of plywood that turns on a lazy susan bearing
connected to a second piece of plywood that is "the stand" which sits
on the ground. I see the top piece of plywood acting like a
soundboard in a piano and picking up the vibration through the legs of
the chair and perhaps amplifying them or at least transmitting them up
the struts to the binoculars. Using the sound analogy, if I want to
mute the vibrations, I want to damp the connection between the chair
and the soundboard. That is where I would put sorbothane or some
other damping material.

I do not believe that the connection between the stand and the ground
or the upper and lower pieces of plywood are a major issue, except
that if the stand were more rigid and rigidly connected to the upper
piece of plywood that might allow damping through pads on the ground.
However, beefing up the structure seems like a mistake both in terms
of portability and functionality.

Also, the vibration we are trying to damp is not a 1 cycle (heart
rate), but rather a set of higher frequency transients (10Hz-100Hz I
would estimate) caused by each beat, and they do actually damp out
pretty quickly.

BTW, for anyone who don't think heartbeat is noticeable in binoculars
try laying flat on the ground and lightly resting 10x binoculars in
your eye sockets while you try to split a fairly close double.

Regards,
Alan

--- In telescopes@yahoogroups.com, "Jack & Lynn Kramer"
<llranch339@...> wrote:
>
> From: "Gene Baraff" <g2baraff@...>
> > Anybody able to give a reason wny putting the anti-vibe between the
> > binculars and the frame is better or worse than putting it between
> > the chair and the ground?
>
> Alan, after looking at the Couch Potato mount, I'd say that at the
risk of
> reducing the portability of the assembly, the solution is to beef up
the
> wooden platform.
> <snip>
>
> Jack Kramer
> Lily Lake, Illinois
>