Re: about the planetary eyepieces


Oct 31, 2003

 


----------------------------

#19339 Oct 31, 2003

Hello Roland and all,



I just had a look at the picture of the eyepieces in the files

section.

Will the planetary eyepieces have a securing groove in the barrel? It

would be useful for such precious accessories!



Gilles



----------------------------

#19341 Oct 31, 2003

I agrree too -- that this would be a very nice touch to give them a more

classic look -- and it would also be functional.

Rich Lapides in California



gillesc2003 wrote:

>Hello Roland and all,

>

>I just had a look at the picture of the eyepieces in the files

>section.

>Will the planetary eyepieces have a securing groove in the barrel? It

>would be useful for such precious accessories!

>

>Gilles

>

>

>

>To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-ug list

>see groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-ug

>

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

>

>

>

>

>



----------------------------

#19343 Oct 31, 2003

In a message dated 10/31/2003 9:34:27 AM Central Standard Time,

LapidesFamily@... writes:



> I agrree too -- that this would be a very nice touch to give them a more

> classic look -- and it would also be functional.

>



To tell you the truth, I care little for looks. These eyepieces will probably

not win any awards for prettyness. I don't fancy having colored rings or

bright chrome all over the place. The tops will be dull to prevent reflections

reaching your eye. The barrel will be basic machined stainless steel, unless

there is a savings to use chromed brass. Unfortunately, chroming is not

environmentally friendly.



Yesterday I used a Plossl ocular to observe the sun with my 130 refractor.

The top of this particular 17mm Plossl has a very shiny black anodized surface.

It has beautiful green lettering around the barrel. The glass surfaces reflect

all kinds of pretty colors - blues and greens and rose colors. It is actually

very handsome to look at. Unfortunately, the reflections from the top of the

barrel and the internal reflections from the glass surfaces did interfere with

what I was really trying to look at - the surface of the sun.



As far as using a safety undercut to prevent the eyepiece from falling out,

these are not very large or heavy eyepieces. The tops are made in such a way

that they can easily be replaced if damaged, however, you cannot damage them

even if you drop them from 10ft right down onto concrete. You would have to throw

them some distance against a brick wall. You would never break the glass

since it is pretty well shock mounted. You could dent the stainless barrel, but

again that can be easily replaced.



Nevertheless, I have an idea that could satisfy opponents and proponents of

the safety undercut. Let's leave it at that for now.



Roland Christen





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#19351 Oct 31, 2003

In a message dated 10/31/2003 12:04:13 PM Central Standard Time,

mjl_nyc@... writes:



> As I am sure there are likely to be many users who will want an entire set

> of these new planetaries, I would like to suggest that you think about

> designing a nice case for the set !

>

>



We have a sample case sent to us by a fellow amateur. It is really nice,

better than the cases we provided with the Zeiss Abbe sets. However, they will

probably be an optional item. We'll see how the costs stack up.



Roland Christen





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#19390 Oct 31, 2003

As far as safety undercut versus not, I'm somewhat ambivalent.

I don't dislike it on the eyepieces/scopes I own, but I've heard a

number of people mention problems getting them out of

scopes/diagonals with compression rings. So far I've never dropped

and eyepiece out any of my scopes and only 2 of my eyepieces have the

undercuts, so it seems relatively unimportant to me.



Roland, let me know if you want anyone to do some destructive testing

on the prototype eyepieces. I could arrange to see how they hold up

in real use by astronomy teaching assistants, I suspect they might

fare better in the brick wall test you mention than in the hands of

some of these guys, particularly the theoreticians... *grin*



John Stone

--- In ap-ug@yahoogroups.com, chris1011@a... wrote:

[...]

> As far as using a safety undercut to prevent the eyepiece from

falling out,

> these are not very large or heavy eyepieces. The tops are made in

such a way

> that they can easily be replaced if damaged, however, you cannot

damage them

> even if you drop them from 10ft right down onto concrete. You would

have to throw

> them some distance against a brick wall. You would never break the

glass

> since it is pretty well shock mounted. You could dent the stainless

barrel, but

> again that can be easily replaced.

>

> Nevertheless, I have an idea that could satisfy opponents and

proponents of

> the safety undercut. Let's leave it at that for now.

>

> Roland Christen

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g