Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy
I was told that aluminium absorbs the particular wavelentgh of light the laser uses and because of this they have to turn up the wick just to get it to cut - which then over heats the aluminium then it does not give you a clean edge. That is why they suggested the Stainless steel. I am leaning more towards this and if we can get a design secured and tested then have the CAD drawings made (i can do that) then send it off for a final quote and get quantities. Probably ask them for a black non reflective finish to be applied to it - if not then spray the bugger with some flat black spray paint 
was the design I did worth following up or have you a better design?
what I thought of was to get the part to fit inside the dew shield and be supported by foam spacers to keep it off the optical train. then its flat, easy to install and remove. if we can agree on a design - and get some punters in on it - maybe enough for each standard size for the more popular models you could get an economy of scale for the manufacture - if not then they are $82.50 a pop!! |
Hi Dave
Thanks for your good work to date.
SS sounds good to me and I would certainly add my name to the list for two masks:
- 1 for the C9.25 and Mewlon 180 (6mm bars).
- 1 for the Vixen 4" refractor and Canon 400mm F5.6 lens (3mm bars).
I would order the larger size for each and then insert a home made foam ring to reduce the mask for the smaller tube in the OTA pairs above.
So far, my testing has led me to believe that I can use one mask per OTA either at prime focus, barlowed or with a reducer/corrector. Also, $82.50 doesn’t sound too exorbitant for such a crucial task as focusing, which we may perform several times per session over the life of the OTA. Worth every penny!
Cheers
Dennis