Quote:
Originally Posted by ausastronomer
I haven't seen one of his cells in the flesh but I know exactly how his design works and the mechanics and theory behind it. I don't think his cells are any better than Peter Read's. Their 27 point cells are very similar in terms of pad support placement position with the main difference being that John Pratte uses whiffle tree edge supports on mirrors under 32" and a moving cable sling on mirrors over 32", whereas Peter Read uses a cable sling on all his cells, regardless of size. In addition to that however Peter uses a 27 point cell on all scopes over 24" whereas John Pratte is still only using an 18 point cell on his 25" scope. What I can tell you is that I have seen and used scopes from just about all of the custom US scope makers from the last 30 years, with the exception of JP Astrocraft and I haven't seen one yet that is as well designed and built as Peter Reads SDM's. I have no reason to suspect that the build quality of John Pratte's scopes is any better than the likes of Rob Teeter's or Rick Singmaster's. For starters no one else is using powder coated cast and machined aluminium altitude bearings like Peter has been using for the past 8 years.
Well a good bit of that research was done with Phil Townsend's mirror and your American friends are only telling you a very, very, very small part of the story in regard to that one 
Cheers,
John B |
Hey John, nice post. This isn't the place for me to divulge conversations I've had with Peter about John Prattes mirror cells. I'm sure you can ask him about that yourself. I have managed to organise Peter, John and Mike to work together, and the result will be a dob like nothing ever seen in Australia.
Also, one doesn't spend 50k ordering a scope without researching the people involved. I can honestly say I probably have more information about Phils case, from every side of the story than anyone.