That sounds about right. I was not worried about collimation. That part is
a given every now and then anyway. Was more worried about throwing off the
optics in other ways.

As for flocking, I think it does make a difference. I did the inside of the
OTA a couple years ago with Edmund scientifics self-adhesive flocking paper
(there are other suppliers also) and it works well. Hasn't started to peel
off yet, and seems to retain its fibers.

The new advenutre puts it on the inside and outside of the plastic secondary
shroud also, but haven't had a chance to get out with the CCD yet and see
how much it helps.

Anthony J. Kroes
Green Bay, WI

> -----Original Message-----
> Jim and Susan Williams
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 2:31 PM
> Subject: [M]: Re: Secondary Spinning
>
>
> Anthony,
> I also have an 8"LX200 and was out the other night collimating and
> noticed that when I turned the hex wrench in one of the more stubborn
> collimation screws, the secondary housing turned rather freely around
> despite no movement by the corrector plate. I noticed that as I turned it
> more counterclockwise it spun more freely and when spinning back clockwise
> it tightened back up. I decided to tighten it as much as possible with my
> hand and then recollimated from there. It was a strange experience but
> surely not fatal to good collimation. I was able to readily get back to
> perfect diffraction rings.
> In regards to the flocking of your scope, was it worthwhile? I have
> been thinking about trying this for several weeks and am
> uncertain that the
> end result will justify removing the corrector plate. If it is
> useful, what
> material did you use (synthetic or natural)?
> Thanks,
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 6:56 AM
> Subject: [M]: Secondary Spinning
>
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Had a small issue and thought I would go to those 'in-the-know' about
> > possible problems with it. I recently removed the corrector plate on my
> 8"
> > f6.3 Lx200 to finish flocking the interior. Specifically the secondary
> > housing/shroud. In doing so, I noticed it (the inner shroud)
> seemed a bit
> > loose. A small (<1/4") turn tightened it up, and I was careful
> not to let
> > it spin when doing so, however, the question came to mind:
> >
> > Is the rotated position of the secondary 'matched' to the
> primary the way
> > that the corrector plate is? That is, does it make any difference where
> the
> > secondary may have spun around to? I am sure is wasn't much spin in my
> > case, as it was only a tad loose, but I don't know for sure.
> It has been
> a
> > year or two since I had the tube open last (it was tight then)
> but it got
> me
> > thinking whether it makes any difference at all, or all the
> difference in
> > the world, and if it does, how would one get it back to the original
> > position?
> >
> > Anthony J. Kroes
> > Green Bay, WI
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: 16" Meade OTA Specifications, R. A. Greiner
Next message: RE: [M]: Secondary Spinning, Anthony J. Kroes
Next message in thread: RE: [M]: Secondary Spinning, Anthony J. Kroes
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: Secondary Spinning, Cliff PETERSON