Re: [ATM] weight, was RE: Thin glass and cost

["Bob May" <rmay@nethere.com>]

Remember that you really don't have to take the mirror out of the
mirror box to transport it.  One of the girls in the club (she
might weigh 100 lb. after a big meal!) has a nice 25" Obsession
and she handles it all just fine with a pair of handles and some
wheels on the other side of the box so she can push it around by
herself.  She had serial number 7 for a while before she sold it
and got a bigger one.
Bob May

rmay at nethere.com
http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay
http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net

----- Original Message -----
From: bbastro1 <mbartels@bbastrodesigns.com>
To: 'ATM list' <atm@atmlist.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:37 PM
Subject: [ATM] weight, was RE: Thin glass and cost


> I suppose people think first of the cost of the blank.  It's an
important
> consideration.  However, I look at the weight.  The largest
thin mirror that
> I've done by hand is 30 inch diameter x 1 5/8 inch thick (f/4).
It weighed
> 85 pounds, the most that I could safely lift and gently place
on the tool.
> A full thickness mirror would take four people to lift safety -
who's going
> to get that kind of help day after day?
>
> And the difficulty and increased expense of aluminizing such a
beast?
>
> Then there's the issue of making the scope transportable.  One
has to at
> least be able to push around the mirror box sitting in the
rocker box on
> wheels.  Hundreds and hundreds of pounds is simply not movable.
>
> The weight really matters!
>
> Mel Bartels
>
> _______________________________________________
> ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/
>

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