Re: [ATM] Newt imaging vs visual design tradeoffs -- ideas?

[Scott Carson <scottcarson@austin.rr.com>]

Hi Bob

Thanks for your inputs.  Given the tradeoffs, I'm definitely leaning 
more toward the 2.14" diag. so I can avoid the other challenges.  Based 
on my simple "analytical" vantage point, seems to me that more scopes 
would have sled focusers if that design was a better overall solution.

I did read a good article re: the diagonal size vs CO at:
http://legault.club.fr/obstruction.html

The larger 2.14" diagonal gives a 26.75% CO which per the article may 
have some noticeable (although hopefully small) impact on the image 
quality for visual observing.   But the 2.14" diag is still likely to be 
my best option given my primary reason for building the 8" was imaging.  
My C11 has proven to be a bit "too long" at this point in my learning 
curve.

Thanks again.

Scott



Bob May wrote:

>The difference between the two secondaries in obstruction really
>aren't that big.  I think that aftger you compare the two, you'll
>just stay with the larger one just so you don't have to keep
>collimating the scope.
>Bob May
>bobmay at nethere.com
>http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay
>http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net
>Replace the obvious words with the proper character.
>
>_______________________________________________
>ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/