Re: [ATM] 6-pole

["David Harbour" <stainless_steel@suddenlink.net>]

Richard,


It is a square at the top; it is a square at the bottom; straight corner 
poles, in addition, would transform it into a single bay of a Warren Truss. 
Then it would be square all along its length, and be a Warren Truss with the 
members set at a way less than ideal angle (45 degrees is ideal, as in my 
tube; UNBELIEVABLY strong and light). Car-toppable, too.

http://www.atmsite.org/contrib/Harbour/Photos,%20med/ROLL2JPEG-11.JPG

R-101

Does anyone want that picture of the 25" "training telescope" at Cornell, 
that has three bays, like mine, that is a Pratt Truss tube? I have it on my 
hard drive and could change it from a huge tif file into a jpg.

Any takers? Why should we all slavishly follow the stack of poles on top of 
the car? Conformity. I call some to rebell.

R-101(2)





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Sackett" <rsackett00@yahoo.com>
To: "Richard" <cnc@cncservo.co.uk>; "Nils Olof Carlin" <atm@atmlist.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: [ATM] 6-pole


>
> --- Richard <cnc@cncservo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In the case of 8 rods in the usual
>> arrangement, it is a square
>>
>> No, it's an octagon.
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> We might be talking about different things, but I
> think Nils description is accurate.  While octagons
> are possible, that is not the most common geometry in
> the ubiquitous Obsession-class scopes. In plan view,
> the most common arrangement of an 8-pole truss is a
> square, with the mirror-box pole clamps in the
> corners, and the UTA clamps at the midpoints of the
> sides of the square (or at 3-6-9-12 o'clock on the
> ring.  This avoids the compound angles in an octagonal
> arrangement.
>
> Best,
> Ross
> _______________________________________________
> ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/
> 


_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/