Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 130 or 152?

Expand Messages
  • kaugens
    Hi Eric, I can tell you that it wasn t the scope. The seeing in southern New England this winter was generally bad to worse. I live in sothern Rhode Island
    Message 1 of 23 , Jun 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Eric,
      I can tell you that it wasn't the scope. The "seeing" in southern
      New England this winter was generally bad to worse. I live in
      sothern Rhode Island and experienced only one night of above average
      seeing all winter, and that one night wasn't all that great. I view
      with a 14.5 Starmaster (excellent Zambutto Optics) and I am
      currently awaiting a TMB 80/600. All in all, I ranked this winter
      as a washout for planetary viewing in our "neighborhood".
      Thanks,
      Karl Augenstein

      --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner <malkasten@o...>
      wrote:
      > Hi, Tom:
      >
      > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will complement the
      somewhat
      > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all the rage
      at star
      > parties.
      >
      > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've had a TMB
      130 f/6.0
      > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious telescope
      after a
      > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern was not
      biting off
      > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a scope that
      would be
      > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up for a
      couple of
      > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that
      portability would
      > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has proven to be
      the case.
      > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of aperture and
      portability. I
      > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and accurate
      polar align,
      > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle down,
      sometimes in as
      > little as 20 minutes.
      >
      > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal length. At
      780 mm,
      > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire Pleiades were
      spectacular
      > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls a little
      short in
      > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-year-old
      eyes, or the
      > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut, or a
      combination
      > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this winter (mostly
      using a 4
      > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed, a 3 mm
      Radian at
      > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some of the
      TMB 152
      > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
      >
      > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably would have
      opted for
      > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been
      prototyped, I
      > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing what (little)
      I know
      > now.
      >
      > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb performance just
      makes me
      > want more.
      >
      > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
      >
      > Eric Baumgartner
      > Redding, CT USA
      > malkasten@o...
      >
      >
      >
      > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
      >
      > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and then
      really getting to
      > > like a
      > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have a CGE
      mount. My present
      > > use is
      > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount to a dark
      site about 45
      > > minutes
      > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a new
      MiniCooper very
      > > thougthfully.
      > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE Eq head and
      tripod plus
      > > three ep
      > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for my 6'3"
      frame.
      > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have considered
      the to be
      > > made at
      > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the tubes I can
      see one in
      > > cosmic
      > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can stretch and get
      a 152.
      > >
      > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB mono's. The
      130 F/8.5 is
      > > at
      > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not prototyped the
      lens. Sounds
      > > like a
      > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming the
      telescope is
      > > everything
      > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the 152 be that
      much of a
      > > difference?
      > >
      > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether or
      not they would
      > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
      > >
      > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
      > >
      > > Thanks
      > > tom
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • tgpapa
      ... they ... OK Tim, just which one would you suggest, hmmmmm? tom
      Message 2 of 23 , Jun 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Tube Tim" <potentate@s...> wrote:
        > >--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...
        > > wrote:
        >
        > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether or not
        they
        > > would opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
        > >
        >
        > Would you be interested in the opinions of TMB-152 owners?
        >
        >
        >
        > Hint: I think you know which scope I'd say to go with.. :-))
        >
        >
        > Tim

        OK Tim, just which one would you suggest, hmmmmm?
        tom
      • tgpapa
        ... refractors ... mount. ... MiniCooper ... see ... a ... 130 ... telescope ... Jim, Thanks for the suggestion. The weight is about 1/2 of the very awkward
        Message 3 of 23 , Jun 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "jimhp29401us" <thefamily90@h...>
          wrote:
          > Tom,
          > I can only give an opinion beacuse I do not know you or how
          > important portability is. I am a huge Fan of Apochromatic
          refractors
          > and TMB in particular. Apos provide, in my opinion, the best image
          > per inch of aperture of any telescope design. My opinion after 37
          > years of visual observing having used Refractors (achromats and
          > apochromats), Reflectors, Schmidt-Cassegrains and Maksutovs. Having
          > said that,Aperture counts. I'd opt for the 152 if I felt I could
          > handle the weight. Tom has mentioned Carbon Fiber tubes. That could
          > bring the weight of the 152 down . My thoughts. Good Luck!
          >
          > Jim
          >
          >
          > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and then really
          > getting to like a
          > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have a CGE
          mount.
          > My present use is
          > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount to a dark
          > site about 45 minutes
          > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a new
          MiniCooper
          > very thougthfully.
          > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE Eq head and
          > tripod plus three ep
          > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for my 6'3"
          > frame.
          > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have considered
          > the to be made at
          > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the tubes I can
          see
          > one in cosmic
          > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can stretch and get
          a
          > 152.
          > >
          > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB mono's. The
          130
          > F/8.5 is at
          > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not prototyped the
          > lens. Sounds like a
          > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming the
          telescope
          > is everything
          > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the 152 be that
          > much of a
          > > difference?
          > >
          > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether or not
          > they would
          > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
          > >
          > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
          > >
          > > Thanks
          > > tom

          Jim,
          Thanks for the suggestion. The weight is about 1/2 of the very
          awkward 12" Meade that I briefly had. It was just too much especially
          with the long moment to deal with. Portability is a consideration
          most certainly. However there are quite a few 152 owners out there
          who seem to be OK with the weight and setup.
          I've mixed thoughts on carbon fiber. I've had a Nexstar 11 carbon
          fiber and frankly my biggest concerns were at the stress points where
          the tube was penetrated with a screw or other device. My other
          experience with carbon fiber is in a fly rod that I broke on a salmon
          last year!! The added weight of a CNC tube is a consideration but I
          think the jury remains out on the use of carbon fiber in long
          applications such as a refractor tube.

          tom
        • tgpapa
          ... somewhat ... at star ... 130 f/6.0 ... after a ... biting off ... would be ... couple of ... would ... the case. ... portability. I ... polar align, ...
          Message 4 of 23 , Jun 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner <malkasten@o...>
            wrote:
            > Hi, Tom:
            >
            > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will complement the
            somewhat
            > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all the rage
            at star
            > parties.
            >
            > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've had a TMB
            130 f/6.0
            > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious telescope
            after a
            > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern was not
            biting off
            > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a scope that
            would be
            > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up for a
            couple of
            > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that portability
            would
            > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has proven to be
            the case.
            > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of aperture and
            portability. I
            > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and accurate
            polar align,
            > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle down,
            sometimes in as
            > little as 20 minutes.
            >
            > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal length. At
            780 mm,
            > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire Pleiades were
            spectacular
            > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls a little
            short in
            > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-year-old
            eyes, or the
            > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut, or a
            combination
            > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this winter (mostly
            using a 4
            > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed, a 3 mm
            Radian at
            > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some of the TMB
            152
            > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
            >
            > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably would have
            opted for
            > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been prototyped,
            I
            > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing what (little)
            I know
            > now.
            >
            > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb performance just
            makes me
            > want more.
            >
            > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
            >
            > Eric Baumgartner
            > Redding, CT USA
            > malkasten@o...
            >
            >
            >
            > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
            >
            > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and then really
            getting to
            > > like a
            > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have a CGE
            mount. My present
            > > use is
            > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount to a dark
            site about 45
            > > minutes
            > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a new
            MiniCooper very
            > > thougthfully.
            > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE Eq head and
            tripod plus
            > > three ep
            > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for my 6'3"
            frame.
            > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have considered
            the to be
            > > made at
            > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the tubes I can
            see one in
            > > cosmic
            > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can stretch and get
            a 152.
            > >
            > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB mono's. The
            130 F/8.5 is
            > > at
            > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not prototyped the
            lens. Sounds
            > > like a
            > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming the
            telescope is
            > > everything
            > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the 152 be that
            much of a
            > > difference?
            > >
            > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether or not
            they would
            > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
            > >
            > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
            > >
            > > Thanks
            > > tom
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            Eric,
            Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer focal
            length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a bit further
            along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced. The result is
            that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB. I've
            corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject and the
            timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be ready in
            about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning with the 152
            will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like Vic's
            attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm most
            definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too cool to have
            a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way my Mini is
            Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible though!! At
            least we go to the same dealership.
            thanks for the comments
            tom
          • ryderc1
            Does anyone know the relative weight differential between a carbon fiber tube and an aluminum one? I thought the difference was not very significant and that
            Message 5 of 23 , Jun 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Does anyone know the relative weight differential between a carbon
              fiber tube and an aluminum one? I thought the difference was not very
              significant and that the lens in cell and focuser accounted for most
              of the weight of the scope. Anoter factor might be the baffles--would
              the carbon fiber tube also have carbon fiber baffles?

              Charlie




              --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
              > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner
              <malkasten@o...>
              > wrote:
              > > Hi, Tom:
              > >
              > > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will complement
              the
              > somewhat
              > > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all the rage
              > at star
              > > parties.
              > >
              > > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've had a
              TMB
              > 130 f/6.0
              > > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious telescope
              > after a
              > > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern was not
              > biting off
              > > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a scope
              that
              > would be
              > > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up for a
              > couple of
              > > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that
              portability
              > would
              > > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has proven to
              be
              > the case.
              > > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of aperture and
              > portability. I
              > > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and accurate
              > polar align,
              > > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle down,
              > sometimes in as
              > > little as 20 minutes.
              > >
              > > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal length. At
              > 780 mm,
              > > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire Pleiades were
              > spectacular
              > > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls a little
              > short in
              > > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-year-old
              > eyes, or the
              > > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut, or a
              > combination
              > > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this winter
              (mostly
              > using a 4
              > > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed, a 3 mm
              > Radian at
              > > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some of the
              TMB
              > 152
              > > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
              > >
              > > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably would have
              > opted for
              > > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been
              prototyped,
              > I
              > > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing what
              (little)
              > I know
              > > now.
              > >
              > > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb performance just
              > makes me
              > > want more.
              > >
              > > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
              > >
              > > Eric Baumgartner
              > > Redding, CT USA
              > > malkasten@o...
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
              > >
              > > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and then
              really
              > getting to
              > > > like a
              > > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have a CGE
              > mount. My present
              > > > use is
              > > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount to a dark
              > site about 45
              > > > minutes
              > > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a new
              > MiniCooper very
              > > > thougthfully.
              > > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE Eq head
              and
              > tripod plus
              > > > three ep
              > > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for my 6'3"
              > frame.
              > > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have
              considered
              > the to be
              > > > made at
              > > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the tubes I can
              > see one in
              > > > cosmic
              > > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can stretch and
              get
              > a 152.
              > > >
              > > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB mono's. The
              > 130 F/8.5 is
              > > > at
              > > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not prototyped the
              > lens. Sounds
              > > > like a
              > > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming the
              > telescope is
              > > > everything
              > > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the 152 be that
              > much of a
              > > > difference?
              > > >
              > > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether or
              not
              > they would
              > > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
              > > >
              > > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
              > > >
              > > > Thanks
              > > > tom
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              > Eric,
              > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer focal
              > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a bit further
              > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced. The result
              is
              > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB. I've
              > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject and the
              > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be ready in
              > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning with the
              152
              > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like Vic's
              > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm most
              > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too cool to
              have
              > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way my Mini
              is
              > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible though!!
              At
              > least we go to the same dealership.
              > thanks for the comments
              > tom
            • Tube Tim
              ... If you can spare the extra change and don t mind handling a little more weight I would go the 152. Personally I don t consider it heavy to drag about, my
              Message 6 of 23 , Jun 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                >--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...
                > wrote:
                >
                > OK Tim, just which one would you suggest, hmmmmm?

                > tom

                > Hi Tom,

                If you can spare the extra change and don't mind handling a little
                more weight I would go the 152. Personally I don't consider it heavy
                to drag about, my main concern when doing so is dropping it. I have
                an adapter that allows me to use a TMB-175 lens on the 152 tube. Now
                that combination is what I would consider heavy. However the increase
                in aperature was quite noticable. After putting the 152 lens back on,
                it feels positively light now.

                Either way you can't loose. So go with the one you'll feel you'll use
                the most.

                Not much help problably :-(


                Tim
              • W. Gondella
                * Get the 152 if you can afford it, but you ll need to upgrade to a much better mount as well. * If you wanna keep within budget, maximize portability, and
                Message 7 of 23 , Jun 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  * Get the 152 if you can afford it, but you'll need to upgrade to a much better mount as
                  well.

                  * If you wanna keep within budget, maximize portability, and use all the accessories you
                  listed on the mount you have, definitely stick with the 130. It certainly ain't no
                  slouch, and there can always be a 152 down the road some day in your future.

                  WayneG
                • Markus Ludes
                  the carbonfiber design is as follow: the whole tube with inside baffles will be made out of 1 form , dewshield and connecting adapters are completly made from
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jun 4, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    the carbonfiber design is as follow:

                    the whole tube with inside baffles will be made out of 1 form , dewshield and connecting adapters are completly made from carbonfiber, tuberings , finderbracket and focuser are made out of carbonfiber

                    only screws , rack and pinions are made from metall

                    the estimates total tubeweight for the 4" modells include tuberings, and 3" focuser without optics is 1.50 kg = 3.3 lbs plus optics and we ending at a total weight of about 7 lbs only.

                    only BORG with here thin douplets will have a more light weight tube

                    Markus
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: ryderc1
                    To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:07 AM
                    Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?


                    Does anyone know the relative weight differential between a carbon
                    fiber tube and an aluminum one? I thought the difference was not very
                    significant and that the lens in cell and focuser accounted for most
                    of the weight of the scope. Anoter factor might be the baffles--would
                    the carbon fiber tube also have carbon fiber baffles?

                    Charlie




                    --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                    > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner
                    <malkasten@o...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > Hi, Tom:
                    > >
                    > > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will complement
                    the
                    > somewhat
                    > > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all the rage
                    > at star
                    > > parties.
                    > >
                    > > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've had a
                    TMB
                    > 130 f/6.0
                    > > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious telescope
                    > after a
                    > > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern was not
                    > biting off
                    > > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a scope
                    that
                    > would be
                    > > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up for a
                    > couple of
                    > > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that
                    portability
                    > would
                    > > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has proven to
                    be
                    > the case.
                    > > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of aperture and
                    > portability. I
                    > > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and accurate
                    > polar align,
                    > > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle down,
                    > sometimes in as
                    > > little as 20 minutes.
                    > >
                    > > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal length. At
                    > 780 mm,
                    > > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire Pleiades were
                    > spectacular
                    > > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls a little
                    > short in
                    > > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-year-old
                    > eyes, or the
                    > > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut, or a
                    > combination
                    > > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this winter
                    (mostly
                    > using a 4
                    > > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed, a 3 mm
                    > Radian at
                    > > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some of the
                    TMB
                    > 152
                    > > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
                    > >
                    > > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably would have
                    > opted for
                    > > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been
                    prototyped,
                    > I
                    > > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing what
                    (little)
                    > I know
                    > > now.
                    > >
                    > > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb performance just
                    > makes me
                    > > want more.
                    > >
                    > > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
                    > >
                    > > Eric Baumgartner
                    > > Redding, CT USA
                    > > malkasten@o...
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and then
                    really
                    > getting to
                    > > > like a
                    > > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have a CGE
                    > mount. My present
                    > > > use is
                    > > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount to a dark
                    > site about 45
                    > > > minutes
                    > > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a new
                    > MiniCooper very
                    > > > thougthfully.
                    > > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE Eq head
                    and
                    > tripod plus
                    > > > three ep
                    > > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for my 6'3"
                    > frame.
                    > > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have
                    considered
                    > the to be
                    > > > made at
                    > > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the tubes I can
                    > see one in
                    > > > cosmic
                    > > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can stretch and
                    get
                    > a 152.
                    > > >
                    > > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB mono's. The
                    > 130 F/8.5 is
                    > > > at
                    > > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not prototyped the
                    > lens. Sounds
                    > > > like a
                    > > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming the
                    > telescope is
                    > > > everything
                    > > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the 152 be that
                    > much of a
                    > > > difference?
                    > > >
                    > > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether or
                    not
                    > they would
                    > > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
                    > > >
                    > > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
                    > > >
                    > > > Thanks
                    > > > tom
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    > Eric,
                    > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer focal
                    > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a bit further
                    > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced. The result
                    is
                    > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB. I've
                    > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject and the
                    > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be ready in
                    > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning with the
                    152
                    > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like Vic's
                    > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm most
                    > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too cool to
                    have
                    > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way my Mini
                    is
                    > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible though!!
                    At
                    > least we go to the same dealership.
                    > thanks for the comments
                    > tom


                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Donald Rosenfield
                    And, Markus, how does that compare with the weight of the normal tube? -- Donald Subject: Re: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152? the carbonfiber design is as follow:
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jun 4, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      And, Markus, how does that compare with the weight of the normal tube?
                      --
                      Donald

                      Subject: Re: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?


                      the carbonfiber design is as follow:

                      the whole tube with inside baffles will be made out of 1 form , dewshield and connecting adapters are completly made from carbonfiber, tuberings , finderbracket and focuser are made out of carbonfiber

                      only screws , rack and pinions are made from metall

                      the estimates total tubeweight for the 4" modells include tuberings, and 3" focuser without optics is 1.50 kg = 3.3 lbs plus optics and we ending at a total weight of about 7 lbs only.

                      only BORG with here thin douplets will have a more light weight tube

                      Markus
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: ryderc1
                      To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:07 AM
                      Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?


                      Does anyone know the relative weight differential between a carbon
                      fiber tube and an aluminum one? I thought the difference was not very
                      significant and that the lens in cell and focuser accounted for most
                      of the weight of the scope. Anoter factor might be the baffles--would
                      the carbon fiber tube also have carbon fiber baffles?

                      Charlie




                      --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                      > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner
                      <malkasten@o...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > Hi, Tom:
                      > >
                      > > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will complement
                      the
                      > somewhat
                      > > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all the rage
                      > at star
                      > > parties.
                      > >
                      > > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've had a
                      TMB
                      > 130 f/6.0
                      > > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious telescope
                      > after a
                      > > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern was not
                      > biting off
                      > > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a scope
                      that
                      > would be
                      > > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up for a
                      > couple of
                      > > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that
                      portability
                      > would
                      > > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has proven to
                      be
                      > the case.
                      > > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of aperture and
                      > portability. I
                      > > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and accurate
                      > polar align,
                      > > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle down,
                      > sometimes in as
                      > > little as 20 minutes.
                      > >
                      > > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal length. At
                      > 780 mm,
                      > > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire Pleiades were
                      > spectacular
                      > > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls a little
                      > short in
                      > > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-year-old
                      > eyes, or the
                      > > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut, or a
                      > combination
                      > > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this winter
                      (mostly
                      > using a 4
                      > > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed, a 3 mm
                      > Radian at
                      > > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some of the
                      TMB
                      > 152
                      > > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
                      > >
                      > > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably would have
                      > opted for
                      > > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been
                      prototyped,
                      > I
                      > > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing what
                      (little)
                      > I know
                      > > now.
                      > >
                      > > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb performance just
                      > makes me
                      > > want more.
                      > >
                      > > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
                      > >
                      > > Eric Baumgartner
                      > > Redding, CT USA
                      > > malkasten@o...
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and then
                      really
                      > getting to
                      > > > like a
                      > > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have a CGE
                      > mount. My present
                      > > > use is
                      > > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount to a dark
                      > site about 45
                      > > > minutes
                      > > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a new
                      > MiniCooper very
                      > > > thougthfully.
                      > > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE Eq head
                      and
                      > tripod plus
                      > > > three ep
                      > > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for my 6'3"
                      > frame.
                      > > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have
                      considered
                      > the to be
                      > > > made at
                      > > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the tubes I can
                      > see one in
                      > > > cosmic
                      > > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can stretch and
                      get
                      > a 152.
                      > > >
                      > > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB mono's. The
                      > 130 F/8.5 is
                      > > > at
                      > > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not prototyped the
                      > lens. Sounds
                      > > > like a
                      > > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming the
                      > telescope is
                      > > > everything
                      > > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the 152 be that
                      > much of a
                      > > > difference?
                      > > >
                      > > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether or
                      not
                      > they would
                      > > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
                      > > >
                      > > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
                      > > >
                      > > > Thanks
                      > > > tom
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      > Eric,
                      > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer focal
                      > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a bit further
                      > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced. The result
                      is
                      > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB. I've
                      > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject and the
                      > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be ready in
                      > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning with the
                      152
                      > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like Vic's
                      > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm most
                      > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too cool to
                      have
                      > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way my Mini
                      is
                      > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible though!!
                      At
                      > least we go to the same dealership.
                      > thanks for the comments
                      > tom


                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Markus Ludes
                      the result will be , the tubes will be front heavy like the custommade tube from Mike C. and like the apos frommmany other manufactors, but it will drop the
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jun 4, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        the result will be , the tubes will be front heavy like the custommade tube from Mike C. and like the apos frommmany other manufactors, but it will drop the total weight to about half of present weight

                        Markus
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Donald Rosenfield
                        To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:19 AM
                        Subject: Re: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?


                        And, Markus, how does that compare with the weight of the normal tube?
                        --
                        Donald

                        Subject: Re: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?


                        the carbonfiber design is as follow:

                        the whole tube with inside baffles will be made out of 1 form , dewshield and connecting adapters are completly made from carbonfiber, tuberings , finderbracket and focuser are made out of carbonfiber

                        only screws , rack and pinions are made from metall

                        the estimates total tubeweight for the 4" modells include tuberings, and 3" focuser without optics is 1.50 kg = 3.3 lbs plus optics and we ending at a total weight of about 7 lbs only.

                        only BORG with here thin douplets will have a more light weight tube

                        Markus
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: ryderc1
                        To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:07 AM
                        Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?


                        Does anyone know the relative weight differential between a carbon
                        fiber tube and an aluminum one? I thought the difference was not very
                        significant and that the lens in cell and focuser accounted for most
                        of the weight of the scope. Anoter factor might be the baffles--would
                        the carbon fiber tube also have carbon fiber baffles?

                        Charlie




                        --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                        > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner
                        <malkasten@o...>
                        > wrote:
                        > > Hi, Tom:
                        > >
                        > > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will complement
                        the
                        > somewhat
                        > > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all the rage
                        > at star
                        > > parties.
                        > >
                        > > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've had a
                        TMB
                        > 130 f/6.0
                        > > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious telescope
                        > after a
                        > > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern was not
                        > biting off
                        > > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a scope
                        that
                        > would be
                        > > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up for a
                        > couple of
                        > > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that
                        portability
                        > would
                        > > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has proven to
                        be
                        > the case.
                        > > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of aperture and
                        > portability. I
                        > > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and accurate
                        > polar align,
                        > > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle down,
                        > sometimes in as
                        > > little as 20 minutes.
                        > >
                        > > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal length. At
                        > 780 mm,
                        > > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire Pleiades were
                        > spectacular
                        > > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls a little
                        > short in
                        > > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-year-old
                        > eyes, or the
                        > > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut, or a
                        > combination
                        > > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this winter
                        (mostly
                        > using a 4
                        > > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed, a 3 mm
                        > Radian at
                        > > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some of the
                        TMB
                        > 152
                        > > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
                        > >
                        > > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably would have
                        > opted for
                        > > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been
                        prototyped,
                        > I
                        > > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing what
                        (little)
                        > I know
                        > > now.
                        > >
                        > > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb performance just
                        > makes me
                        > > want more.
                        > >
                        > > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
                        > >
                        > > Eric Baumgartner
                        > > Redding, CT USA
                        > > malkasten@o...
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and then
                        really
                        > getting to
                        > > > like a
                        > > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have a CGE
                        > mount. My present
                        > > > use is
                        > > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount to a dark
                        > site about 45
                        > > > minutes
                        > > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a new
                        > MiniCooper very
                        > > > thougthfully.
                        > > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE Eq head
                        and
                        > tripod plus
                        > > > three ep
                        > > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for my 6'3"
                        > frame.
                        > > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have
                        considered
                        > the to be
                        > > > made at
                        > > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the tubes I can
                        > see one in
                        > > > cosmic
                        > > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can stretch and
                        get
                        > a 152.
                        > > >
                        > > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB mono's. The
                        > 130 F/8.5 is
                        > > > at
                        > > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not prototyped the
                        > lens. Sounds
                        > > > like a
                        > > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming the
                        > telescope is
                        > > > everything
                        > > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the 152 be that
                        > much of a
                        > > > difference?
                        > > >
                        > > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether or
                        not
                        > they would
                        > > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
                        > > >
                        > > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
                        > > >
                        > > > Thanks
                        > > > tom
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > Eric,
                        > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer focal
                        > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a bit further
                        > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced. The result
                        is
                        > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB. I've
                        > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject and the
                        > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be ready in
                        > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning with the
                        152
                        > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like Vic's
                        > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm most
                        > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too cool to
                        have
                        > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way my Mini
                        is
                        > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible though!!
                        At
                        > least we go to the same dealership.
                        > thanks for the comments
                        > tom


                        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • ryderc1
                        Wow, that IS light! How much more would the same scope in aluminum tube weigh? Charlie ... dewshield and connecting adapters are completly made from
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jun 4, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Wow, that IS light! How much more would the same scope in aluminum
                          tube weigh?

                          Charlie


                          --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Ludes"
                          <apm_telescopes@w...> wrote:
                          > the carbonfiber design is as follow:
                          >
                          > the whole tube with inside baffles will be made out of 1 form ,
                          dewshield and connecting adapters are completly made from
                          carbonfiber, tuberings , finderbracket and focuser are made out of
                          carbonfiber
                          >
                          > only screws , rack and pinions are made from metall
                          >
                          > the estimates total tubeweight for the 4" modells include
                          tuberings, and 3" focuser without optics is 1.50 kg = 3.3 lbs plus
                          optics and we ending at a total weight of about 7 lbs only.
                          >
                          > only BORG with here thin douplets will have a more light weight tube
                          >
                          > Markus
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: ryderc1
                          > To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:07 AM
                          > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?
                          >
                          >
                          > Does anyone know the relative weight differential between a
                          carbon
                          > fiber tube and an aluminum one? I thought the difference was not
                          very
                          > significant and that the lens in cell and focuser accounted for
                          most
                          > of the weight of the scope. Anoter factor might be the baffles--
                          would
                          > the carbon fiber tube also have carbon fiber baffles?
                          >
                          > Charlie
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                          > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner
                          > <malkasten@o...>
                          > > wrote:
                          > > > Hi, Tom:
                          > > >
                          > > > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will
                          complement
                          > the
                          > > somewhat
                          > > > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all the
                          rage
                          > > at star
                          > > > parties.
                          > > >
                          > > > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've had
                          a
                          > TMB
                          > > 130 f/6.0
                          > > > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious
                          telescope
                          > > after a
                          > > > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern was not
                          > > biting off
                          > > > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a scope
                          > that
                          > > would be
                          > > > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up for a
                          > > couple of
                          > > > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that
                          > portability
                          > > would
                          > > > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has proven
                          to
                          > be
                          > > the case.
                          > > > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of aperture and
                          > > portability. I
                          > > > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and
                          accurate
                          > > polar align,
                          > > > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle down,
                          > > sometimes in as
                          > > > little as 20 minutes.
                          > > >
                          > > > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal
                          length. At
                          > > 780 mm,
                          > > > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire Pleiades
                          were
                          > > spectacular
                          > > > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls a
                          little
                          > > short in
                          > > > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-year-
                          old
                          > > eyes, or the
                          > > > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut, or a
                          > > combination
                          > > > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this winter
                          > (mostly
                          > > using a 4
                          > > > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed, a 3
                          mm
                          > > Radian at
                          > > > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some of
                          the
                          > TMB
                          > > 152
                          > > > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
                          > > >
                          > > > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably would
                          have
                          > > opted for
                          > > > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been
                          > prototyped,
                          > > I
                          > > > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing what
                          > (little)
                          > > I know
                          > > > now.
                          > > >
                          > > > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb performance
                          just
                          > > makes me
                          > > > want more.
                          > > >
                          > > > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
                          > > >
                          > > > Eric Baumgartner
                          > > > Redding, CT USA
                          > > > malkasten@o...
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and then
                          > really
                          > > getting to
                          > > > > like a
                          > > > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have a
                          CGE
                          > > mount. My present
                          > > > > use is
                          > > > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount to a
                          dark
                          > > site about 45
                          > > > > minutes
                          > > > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a new
                          > > MiniCooper very
                          > > > > thougthfully.
                          > > > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE Eq
                          head
                          > and
                          > > tripod plus
                          > > > > three ep
                          > > > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for my
                          6'3"
                          > > frame.
                          > > > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have
                          > considered
                          > > the to be
                          > > > > made at
                          > > > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the tubes I
                          can
                          > > see one in
                          > > > > cosmic
                          > > > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can stretch
                          and
                          > get
                          > > a 152.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB mono's.
                          The
                          > > 130 F/8.5 is
                          > > > > at
                          > > > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not prototyped
                          the
                          > > lens. Sounds
                          > > > > like a
                          > > > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming the
                          > > telescope is
                          > > > > everything
                          > > > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the 152 be
                          that
                          > > much of a
                          > > > > difference?
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether
                          or
                          > not
                          > > they would
                          > > > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Thanks
                          > > > > tom
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          > > Eric,
                          > > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer focal
                          > > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a bit
                          further
                          > > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced. The
                          result
                          > is
                          > > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB. I've
                          > > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject and the
                          > > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be
                          ready in
                          > > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning with
                          the
                          > 152
                          > > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like Vic's
                          > > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm most
                          > > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too cool
                          to
                          > have
                          > > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way my
                          Mini
                          > is
                          > > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible
                          though!!
                          > At
                          > > least we go to the same dealership.
                          > > thanks for the comments
                          > > tom
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                          Service.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Eric Baumgartner
                          Tom: I¹m amazed that the Mini will hold as much as you say. That makes it even cooler. I guess you¹re not ever going to press your wife¹s convertible into
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jun 4, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Tom:

                            I¹m amazed that the Mini will hold as much as you say. That makes it even
                            cooler. I guess you¹re not ever going to press your wife¹s convertible into
                            astro-service. I have a 330 convertible, and I know that what passes for a
                            trunk might handle accessories, but little else. BMW has just introduced a
                            modular trailer that looks like it could carry a dozen Starmasters. Check it
                            out at <http://www.fog-bmw.dk/Udstyr/trailer.htm>, and please pardon the
                            Danish text. (The trailer is probably bigger than your Mini!)

                            Maybe Vic Maris will custom paint the carbon or CNC tube for TMB/SV 152 s/n
                            001 matching Pepper White.

                            Clear skies,

                            Eric Baumgartner
                            Redding, CT USA
                            <malkasten@...>




                            On 06/03/03 8:43 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@...> wrote:

                            > Eric,
                            > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer focal
                            > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a bit further
                            > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced. The result is
                            > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB. I've
                            > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject and the
                            > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be ready in
                            > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning with the 152
                            > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like Vic's
                            > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm most
                            > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too cool to have
                            > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way my Mini is
                            > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible though!! At
                            > least we go to the same dealership.
                            > thanks for the comments
                            > tom



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Markus Ludes
                            ... From: ryderc1 To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:32 PM Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152? Wow, that IS light! How much
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jun 4, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: ryderc1
                              To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:32 PM
                              Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?


                              Wow, that IS light! How much more would the same scope in aluminum
                              tube weigh?
                              11 lbs

                              Markus


                              Charlie


                              --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Ludes"
                              <apm_telescopes@w...> wrote:
                              > the carbonfiber design is as follow:
                              >
                              > the whole tube with inside baffles will be made out of 1 form ,
                              dewshield and connecting adapters are completly made from
                              carbonfiber, tuberings , finderbracket and focuser are made out of
                              carbonfiber
                              >
                              > only screws , rack and pinions are made from metall
                              >
                              > the estimates total tubeweight for the 4" modells include
                              tuberings, and 3" focuser without optics is 1.50 kg = 3.3 lbs plus
                              optics and we ending at a total weight of about 7 lbs only.
                              >
                              > only BORG with here thin douplets will have a more light weight tube
                              >
                              > Markus
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: ryderc1
                              > To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:07 AM
                              > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?
                              >
                              >
                              > Does anyone know the relative weight differential between a
                              carbon
                              > fiber tube and an aluminum one? I thought the difference was not
                              very
                              > significant and that the lens in cell and focuser accounted for
                              most
                              > of the weight of the scope. Anoter factor might be the baffles--
                              would
                              > the carbon fiber tube also have carbon fiber baffles?
                              >
                              > Charlie
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                              > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner
                              > <malkasten@o...>
                              > > wrote:
                              > > > Hi, Tom:
                              > > >
                              > > > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will
                              complement
                              > the
                              > > somewhat
                              > > > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all the
                              rage
                              > > at star
                              > > > parties.
                              > > >
                              > > > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've had
                              a
                              > TMB
                              > > 130 f/6.0
                              > > > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious
                              telescope
                              > > after a
                              > > > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern was not
                              > > biting off
                              > > > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a scope
                              > that
                              > > would be
                              > > > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up for a
                              > > couple of
                              > > > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that
                              > portability
                              > > would
                              > > > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has proven
                              to
                              > be
                              > > the case.
                              > > > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of aperture and
                              > > portability. I
                              > > > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and
                              accurate
                              > > polar align,
                              > > > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle down,
                              > > sometimes in as
                              > > > little as 20 minutes.
                              > > >
                              > > > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal
                              length. At
                              > > 780 mm,
                              > > > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire Pleiades
                              were
                              > > spectacular
                              > > > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls a
                              little
                              > > short in
                              > > > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-year-
                              old
                              > > eyes, or the
                              > > > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut, or a
                              > > combination
                              > > > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this winter
                              > (mostly
                              > > using a 4
                              > > > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed, a 3
                              mm
                              > > Radian at
                              > > > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some of
                              the
                              > TMB
                              > > 152
                              > > > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
                              > > >
                              > > > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably would
                              have
                              > > opted for
                              > > > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been
                              > prototyped,
                              > > I
                              > > > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing what
                              > (little)
                              > > I know
                              > > > now.
                              > > >
                              > > > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb performance
                              just
                              > > makes me
                              > > > want more.
                              > > >
                              > > > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
                              > > >
                              > > > Eric Baumgartner
                              > > > Redding, CT USA
                              > > > malkasten@o...
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and then
                              > really
                              > > getting to
                              > > > > like a
                              > > > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have a
                              CGE
                              > > mount. My present
                              > > > > use is
                              > > > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount to a
                              dark
                              > > site about 45
                              > > > > minutes
                              > > > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a new
                              > > MiniCooper very
                              > > > > thougthfully.
                              > > > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE Eq
                              head
                              > and
                              > > tripod plus
                              > > > > three ep
                              > > > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for my
                              6'3"
                              > > frame.
                              > > > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have
                              > considered
                              > > the to be
                              > > > > made at
                              > > > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the tubes I
                              can
                              > > see one in
                              > > > > cosmic
                              > > > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can stretch
                              and
                              > get
                              > > a 152.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB mono's.
                              The
                              > > 130 F/8.5 is
                              > > > > at
                              > > > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not prototyped
                              the
                              > > lens. Sounds
                              > > > > like a
                              > > > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming the
                              > > telescope is
                              > > > > everything
                              > > > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the 152 be
                              that
                              > > much of a
                              > > > > difference?
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on whether
                              or
                              > not
                              > > they would
                              > > > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Thanks
                              > > > > tom
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > >
                              > > Eric,
                              > > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer focal
                              > > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a bit
                              further
                              > > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced. The
                              result
                              > is
                              > > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB. I've
                              > > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject and the
                              > > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be
                              ready in
                              > > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning with
                              the
                              > 152
                              > > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like Vic's
                              > > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm most
                              > > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too cool
                              to
                              > have
                              > > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way my
                              Mini
                              > is
                              > > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible
                              though!!
                              > At
                              > > least we go to the same dealership.
                              > > thanks for the comments
                              > > tom
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                              Service.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • tgpapa
                              How cool. You are correct about the 325ci for astro service. The Mini requires some t= hought to pack but it can be done. I have the sliding moon roof and
                              Message 14 of 23 , Jun 4, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                How cool.
                                You are correct about the 325ci for astro service. The Mini requires some t=
                                hought to
                                pack but it can be done. I have the sliding moon roof and glass over the re=
                                ar seat but
                                am going to get a roof rack which spans the glass and which will provide so=
                                me
                                rooftop storage. You know you gotta cool those tubes and lenses what better=
                                way
                                than on the roof at 60mph and 30 degrees? Acutally I think the Mini is pret=
                                ty tight
                                with the scope stuff but serviceable.
                                The BMW trailer looks pretty interesting. I had the fortune of living in Mu=
                                nich many
                                years ago for about a year. The Deutsch know how to get as much as possible=
                                into
                                and out of their vehicles. Entire families would go on holiday in the tinie=
                                st of cars.
                                OK, Mars look out 'cause I have decided on a TMB 152 with which to peer. It=
                                sounds
                                like you had skies a little worse than ours this past winter. Cincinnati ca=
                                n be dismal,
                                the Ohio Valley is prone to lots of spring rain and summer humidity. We hav=
                                e been
                                known to spring forth from the computers and couches at the first sign of c=
                                learing to
                                go to our local dark site just to get in a few hours of viewing.
                                clear skies
                                tom


                                --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner <malkasten@o...> wrote:=

                                > Tom:
                                >
                                > I¹m amazed that the Mini will hold as much as you say. That makes it even=

                                > cooler. I guess you¹re not ever going to press your wife¹s convertible in=
                                to
                                > astro-service. I have a 330 convertible, and I know that what passes for =
                                a
                                > trunk might handle accessories, but little else. BMW has just introduced =
                                a
                                > modular trailer that looks like it could carry a dozen Starmasters. Check=
                                it
                                > out at <http://www.fog-bmw.dk/Udstyr/trailer.htm>, and please pardon the
                                > Danish text. (The trailer is probably bigger than your Mini!)
                                >
                                > Maybe Vic Maris will custom paint the carbon or CNC tube for TMB/SV 152 s=
                                /n
                                > 001 matching Pepper White.
                                >
                                > Clear skies,
                                >
                                > Eric Baumgartner
                                > Redding, CT USA
                                > <malkasten@o...>
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > On 06/03/03 8:43 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                                >
                                > > Eric,
                                > > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer focal
                                > > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a bit further
                                > > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced. The result is
                                > > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB. I've
                                > > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject and the
                                > > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be ready in
                                > > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning with the 152
                                > > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like Vic's
                                > > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm most
                                > > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too cool to have
                                > > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way my Mini is
                                > > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible though!! At
                                > > least we go to the same dealership.
                                > > thanks for the comments
                                > > tom
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • jimhp29401us
                                ... peer. Hi Tom, Great choice! You re going to be very happy with your decision. Keep us informed! Jim Phillips
                                Message 15 of 23 , Jun 4, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > OK, Mars look out 'cause I have decided on a TMB 152 with which to
                                  peer.

                                  Hi Tom,
                                  Great choice! You're going to be very happy with your decision.
                                  Keep us informed!

                                  Jim Phillips
                                • stellarvue1
                                  As a point of clarification. I think Markus meant that the aluminum tube would weigh a total of 11 lbs, not 11 pounds more. So there is a 4 pound difference
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Jun 5, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    As a point of clarification. I think Markus meant that the aluminum
                                    tube would weigh a total of 11 lbs, not 11 pounds more. So there is
                                    a 4 pound difference between the two.

                                    Vic Maris



                                    --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Ludes"
                                    <apm_telescopes@w...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: ryderc1
                                    > To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:32 PM
                                    > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Wow, that IS light! How much more would the same scope in
                                    aluminum
                                    > tube weigh?
                                    > 11 lbs
                                    >
                                    > Markus
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Charlie
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Ludes"
                                    > <apm_telescopes@w...> wrote:
                                    > > the carbonfiber design is as follow:
                                    > >
                                    > > the whole tube with inside baffles will be made out of 1
                                    form ,
                                    > dewshield and connecting adapters are completly made from
                                    > carbonfiber, tuberings , finderbracket and focuser are made out
                                    of
                                    > carbonfiber
                                    > >
                                    > > only screws , rack and pinions are made from metall
                                    > >
                                    > > the estimates total tubeweight for the 4" modells include
                                    > tuberings, and 3" focuser without optics is 1.50 kg = 3.3 lbs
                                    plus
                                    > optics and we ending at a total weight of about 7 lbs only.
                                    > >
                                    > > only BORG with here thin douplets will have a more light
                                    weight tube
                                    > >
                                    > > Markus
                                    > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > > From: ryderc1
                                    > > To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:07 AM
                                    > > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Does anyone know the relative weight differential between a
                                    > carbon
                                    > > fiber tube and an aluminum one? I thought the difference was
                                    not
                                    > very
                                    > > significant and that the lens in cell and focuser accounted
                                    for
                                    > most
                                    > > of the weight of the scope. Anoter factor might be the
                                    baffles--
                                    > would
                                    > > the carbon fiber tube also have carbon fiber baffles?
                                    > >
                                    > > Charlie
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...>
                                    wrote:
                                    > > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner
                                    > > <malkasten@o...>
                                    > > > wrote:
                                    > > > > Hi, Tom:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will
                                    > complement
                                    > > the
                                    > > > somewhat
                                    > > > > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all
                                    the
                                    > rage
                                    > > > at star
                                    > > > > parties.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've
                                    had
                                    > a
                                    > > TMB
                                    > > > 130 f/6.0
                                    > > > > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious
                                    > telescope
                                    > > > after a
                                    > > > > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern
                                    was not
                                    > > > biting off
                                    > > > > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a
                                    scope
                                    > > that
                                    > > > would be
                                    > > > > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up
                                    for a
                                    > > > couple of
                                    > > > > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that
                                    > > portability
                                    > > > would
                                    > > > > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has
                                    proven
                                    > to
                                    > > be
                                    > > > the case.
                                    > > > > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of
                                    aperture and
                                    > > > portability. I
                                    > > > > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and
                                    > accurate
                                    > > > polar align,
                                    > > > > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle
                                    down,
                                    > > > sometimes in as
                                    > > > > little as 20 minutes.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal
                                    > length. At
                                    > > > 780 mm,
                                    > > > > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire
                                    Pleiades
                                    > were
                                    > > > spectacular
                                    > > > > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls
                                    a
                                    > little
                                    > > > short in
                                    > > > > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-
                                    year-
                                    > old
                                    > > > eyes, or the
                                    > > > > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut,
                                    or a
                                    > > > combination
                                    > > > > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this
                                    winter
                                    > > (mostly
                                    > > > using a 4
                                    > > > > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed,
                                    a 3
                                    > mm
                                    > > > Radian at
                                    > > > > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some
                                    of
                                    > the
                                    > > TMB
                                    > > > 152
                                    > > > > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably
                                    would
                                    > have
                                    > > > opted for
                                    > > > > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been
                                    > > prototyped,
                                    > > > I
                                    > > > > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing
                                    what
                                    > > (little)
                                    > > > I know
                                    > > > > now.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb
                                    performance
                                    > just
                                    > > > makes me
                                    > > > > want more.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Eric Baumgartner
                                    > > > > Redding, CT USA
                                    > > > > malkasten@o...
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and
                                    then
                                    > > really
                                    > > > getting to
                                    > > > > > like a
                                    > > > > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have
                                    a
                                    > CGE
                                    > > > mount. My present
                                    > > > > > use is
                                    > > > > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount
                                    to a
                                    > dark
                                    > > > site about 45
                                    > > > > > minutes
                                    > > > > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a
                                    new
                                    > > > MiniCooper very
                                    > > > > > thougthfully.
                                    > > > > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE
                                    Eq
                                    > head
                                    > > and
                                    > > > tripod plus
                                    > > > > > three ep
                                    > > > > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for
                                    my
                                    > 6'3"
                                    > > > frame.
                                    > > > > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have
                                    > > considered
                                    > > > the to be
                                    > > > > > made at
                                    > > > > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the
                                    tubes I
                                    > can
                                    > > > see one in
                                    > > > > > cosmic
                                    > > > > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can
                                    stretch
                                    > and
                                    > > get
                                    > > > a 152.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB
                                    mono's.
                                    > The
                                    > > > 130 F/8.5 is
                                    > > > > > at
                                    > > > > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not
                                    prototyped
                                    > the
                                    > > > lens. Sounds
                                    > > > > > like a
                                    > > > > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming
                                    the
                                    > > > telescope is
                                    > > > > > everything
                                    > > > > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the
                                    152 be
                                    > that
                                    > > > much of a
                                    > > > > > difference?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on
                                    whether
                                    > or
                                    > > not
                                    > > > they would
                                    > > > > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Thanks
                                    > > > > > tom
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Eric,
                                    > > > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer
                                    focal
                                    > > > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a
                                    bit
                                    > further
                                    > > > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced.
                                    The
                                    > result
                                    > > is
                                    > > > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB.
                                    I've
                                    > > > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject
                                    and the
                                    > > > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be
                                    > ready in
                                    > > > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning
                                    with
                                    > the
                                    > > 152
                                    > > > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like
                                    Vic's
                                    > > > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm
                                    most
                                    > > > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too
                                    cool
                                    > to
                                    > > have
                                    > > > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way
                                    my
                                    > Mini
                                    > > is
                                    > > > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible
                                    > though!!
                                    > > At
                                    > > > least we go to the same dealership.
                                    > > > thanks for the comments
                                    > > > tom
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    > > tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                    > Service.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    > tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                    Service.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Markus Ludes
                                    ... From: stellarvue1 To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 4:31 PM Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152? As a point of clarification. I
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Jun 5, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: stellarvue1
                                      To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 4:31 PM
                                      Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?


                                      As a point of clarification. I think Markus meant that the aluminum
                                      tube would weigh a total of 11 lbs, not 11 pounds more. So there is
                                      a 4 pound difference between the two.
                                      thats true

                                      Markus


                                      Vic Maris



                                      --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Ludes"
                                      <apm_telescopes@w...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: ryderc1
                                      > To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:32 PM
                                      > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Wow, that IS light! How much more would the same scope in
                                      aluminum
                                      > tube weigh?
                                      > 11 lbs
                                      >
                                      > Markus
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Charlie
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Ludes"
                                      > <apm_telescopes@w...> wrote:
                                      > > the carbonfiber design is as follow:
                                      > >
                                      > > the whole tube with inside baffles will be made out of 1
                                      form ,
                                      > dewshield and connecting adapters are completly made from
                                      > carbonfiber, tuberings , finderbracket and focuser are made out
                                      of
                                      > carbonfiber
                                      > >
                                      > > only screws , rack and pinions are made from metall
                                      > >
                                      > > the estimates total tubeweight for the 4" modells include
                                      > tuberings, and 3" focuser without optics is 1.50 kg = 3.3 lbs
                                      plus
                                      > optics and we ending at a total weight of about 7 lbs only.
                                      > >
                                      > > only BORG with here thin douplets will have a more light
                                      weight tube
                                      > >
                                      > > Markus
                                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > > From: ryderc1
                                      > > To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:07 AM
                                      > > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Does anyone know the relative weight differential between a
                                      > carbon
                                      > > fiber tube and an aluminum one? I thought the difference was
                                      not
                                      > very
                                      > > significant and that the lens in cell and focuser accounted
                                      for
                                      > most
                                      > > of the weight of the scope. Anoter factor might be the
                                      baffles--
                                      > would
                                      > > the carbon fiber tube also have carbon fiber baffles?
                                      > >
                                      > > Charlie
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, Eric Baumgartner
                                      > > <malkasten@o...>
                                      > > > wrote:
                                      > > > > Hi, Tom:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > A Mini, eh? Pretty cool car. Its retro styling will
                                      > complement
                                      > > the
                                      > > > somewhat
                                      > > > > retro/Machine Age look of your future TMB. You'll be all
                                      the
                                      > rage
                                      > > > at star
                                      > > > > parties.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > As you know from our previous email correspondence, I've
                                      had
                                      > a
                                      > > TMB
                                      > > > 130 f/6.0
                                      > > > > for about ten months now. As this was my first serious
                                      > telescope
                                      > > > after a
                                      > > > > very long hiatus away from astronomy, my main concern
                                      was not
                                      > > > biting off
                                      > > > > more than I could chew; that is, I didn't want to buy a
                                      scope
                                      > > that
                                      > > > would be
                                      > > > > too cumbersome and difficult to lug outside and set up
                                      for a
                                      > > > couple of
                                      > > > > hours of observing during the work week. I thought that
                                      > > portability
                                      > > > would
                                      > > > > equate with usefulness. And, to some extent, this has
                                      proven
                                      > to
                                      > > be
                                      > > > the case.
                                      > > > > I have found the TMB 130 is a nice compromise of
                                      aperture and
                                      > > > portability. I
                                      > > > > can set it up on a Losmandy G-11 mount, do a fast and
                                      > accurate
                                      > > > polar align,
                                      > > > > and get to viewing as soon as the tube currents settle
                                      down,
                                      > > > sometimes in as
                                      > > > > little as 20 minutes.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > In retrospect, however, I have one small regret: focal
                                      > length. At
                                      > > > 780 mm,
                                      > > > > the TMB 130 excels in wide-field views (the entire
                                      Pleiades
                                      > were
                                      > > > spectacular
                                      > > > > this winter in a 24 mm Panoptic, for example), but falls
                                      a
                                      > little
                                      > > > short in
                                      > > > > the magnification department. Maybe it was just my 46-
                                      year-
                                      > old
                                      > > > eyes, or the
                                      > > > > generally mediocre seeing of southwestern Connecticut,
                                      or a
                                      > > > combination
                                      > > > > thereof, but my views of the gas-giant planets this
                                      winter
                                      > > (mostly
                                      > > > using a 4
                                      > > > > mm Radian at 195x, or, when seeing occasionally allowed,
                                      a 3
                                      > mm
                                      > > > Radian at
                                      > > > > 260x) weren't as detail-filled as those reported by some
                                      of
                                      > the
                                      > > TMB
                                      > > > 152
                                      > > > > owners, with their scopes of 1200 mm focal length.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Had the 130 f/8.5 been available last year, I probably
                                      would
                                      > have
                                      > > > opted for
                                      > > > > it. But since it wasn't, and since it still hasn't been
                                      > > prototyped,
                                      > > > I
                                      > > > > perhaps should have opted for the 152 f/7.9, knowing
                                      what
                                      > > (little)
                                      > > > I know
                                      > > > > now.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Am I happy with the 130? Absolutely. Its superb
                                      performance
                                      > just
                                      > > > makes me
                                      > > > > want more.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Clear skies, and safe motoring,
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Eric Baumgartner
                                      > > > > Redding, CT USA
                                      > > > > malkasten@o...
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > On 06/02/03 8:08 PM, "tgpapa" <tgpapa@m...> wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > > I'd like the group's opinion. Having owned SCT's and
                                      then
                                      > > really
                                      > > > getting to
                                      > > > > > like a
                                      > > > > > TV101 I decided on a top of the line refractor. I have
                                      a
                                      > CGE
                                      > > > mount. My present
                                      > > > > > use is
                                      > > > > > largely visual and I need to tote the scope and mount
                                      to a
                                      > dark
                                      > > > site about 45
                                      > > > > > minutes
                                      > > > > > away. Not too difficult, but I am learning to pack a
                                      new
                                      > > > MiniCooper very
                                      > > > > > thougthfully.
                                      > > > > > Believe it or not I can get a 58" long case, the CGE
                                      Eq
                                      > head
                                      > > and
                                      > > > tripod plus
                                      > > > > > three ep
                                      > > > > > style cases into the Mini. There is some room left for
                                      my
                                      > 6'3"
                                      > > > frame.
                                      > > > > > Here is the question. I can afford a TMB 130 and have
                                      > > considered
                                      > > > the to be
                                      > > > > > made at
                                      > > > > > some point, 130 F/8.5. Now that Vic is to make the
                                      tubes I
                                      > can
                                      > > > see one in
                                      > > > > > cosmic
                                      > > > > > pearl with the feathertouch focuser :), or I can
                                      stretch
                                      > and
                                      > > get
                                      > > > a 152.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Next year will bring a CCD, binoviewer and more TMB
                                      mono's.
                                      > The
                                      > > > 130 F/8.5 is
                                      > > > > > at
                                      > > > > > this stage still a dream because Thomas has not
                                      prototyped
                                      > the
                                      > > > lens. Sounds
                                      > > > > > like a
                                      > > > > > very good planetary and Deep Sky instrument. Assuming
                                      the
                                      > > > telescope is
                                      > > > > > everything
                                      > > > > > that all TMB's seem to be would the added D for the
                                      152 be
                                      > that
                                      > > > much of a
                                      > > > > > difference?
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Would anyone who owns a TMB F/6 care to comment on
                                      whether
                                      > or
                                      > > not
                                      > > > they would
                                      > > > > > opt for the F/8.5 or the 152 given the opportunity?
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Very much appreciate any comments or guidance.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Thanks
                                      > > > > > tom
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Eric,
                                      > > > Good to hear from you again. Yeah I think that the longer
                                      focal
                                      > > > length is my choice. I had thought that the f/8.5 was a
                                      bit
                                      > further
                                      > > > along and then the Stellarvue partnership is announced.
                                      The
                                      > result
                                      > > is
                                      > > > that I ended up at a time of great change wanting a TMB.
                                      I've
                                      > > > corresponded with Vic Maris on the carbon fiber subject
                                      and the
                                      > > > timing of his CNC tubes. As to the latter he says he'll be
                                      > ready in
                                      > > > about two months except that the bigger tubes, beginning
                                      with
                                      > the
                                      > > 152
                                      > > > will be more or less made on a case by case basis. I like
                                      Vic's
                                      > > > attitude towards quality above all and his results. So I'm
                                      most
                                      > > > definitely interested in his tube and wouldn't it be too
                                      cool
                                      > to
                                      > > have
                                      > > > a cosmic pearl serial number 001 152 from Vic?? By the way
                                      my
                                      > Mini
                                      > > is
                                      > > > Pepper White. Love the car. Wife got the 325 convertible
                                      > though!!
                                      > > At
                                      > > > least we go to the same dealership.
                                      > > > thanks for the comments
                                      > > > tom
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      > > tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                      > Service.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      > tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                      Service.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                      ADVERTISEMENT




                                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      tmboptical-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • kkirk_sea
                                      Yep, I ll vouch for the weight. A 4 carbon fiber arrived last week from Markus. With Feathertouch focuser, rings, finder and OTA.... it comes in under 8.5
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Jun 5, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Yep, I'll vouch for the weight. A 4" carbon fiber arrived last week
                                        from Markus. With Feathertouch focuser, rings, finder and OTA.... it
                                        comes in under 8.5 lbs...and that's the prototype, so with a lighter
                                        weight focuser and refinement his weight target is probably spot near.

                                        It's also so short and cute and light when packed up, it'll leave one
                                        grinning from ear to ear.

                                        For those of you who've not seen a "raw" clear coated carbon fiber
                                        scope, it's a mosaic black/grey beauty. I think they may be shipping
                                        a white version in the future... but I like the way it is!

                                        Rings were ordered for mounting, and I've seen no stress anywhere on
                                        the assembly. I like that approach much better than the other
                                        options that might require penetrating the cf ota.

                                        Balance is a wee bit different since with big eyepieces it tends to
                                        be *back* heavy on my mount. ( It's a 650mm wide field, which
                                        contributes ).

                                        OT, the optics, as you all probably know, are wonderful. I may have
                                        to grit my teeth and trade in 8" SCT, if a 152CF is in the works!

                                        Karl
                                      • W. Gondella
                                        ... From: kkirk_sea To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:56 PM Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152? ...
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Jun 5, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "kkirk_sea" <kkirk_sea@...>
                                          To: <tmboptical@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:56 PM
                                          Subject: [tmboptical] Re: 130 or 152?


                                          > Balance is a wee bit different since with big eyepieces it tends to
                                          > be *back* heavy on my mount.

                                          Speaking of balance, my 152CNC in some of my configurations actually ends up balancing
                                          within a inch or so of the rings being at the far back of the tube. So, I would have a
                                          problem if the tube were carbon, or I didn't have the massive 4" TMB focuser.

                                          In this set-up, the focuser ends up being extended almost all the way out, with extension
                                          added.

                                          It is striking the metamorphosis seeing it go from diminutive in the case, all collapsed
                                          down, to the final, extended set-up, sitting up high on my HGM mount.

                                          WayneG
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.