Continual Revision of the Big Bertha Redesign
It turns out that Big Bertha's current diagonal mirror is larger than it should be (reducing image quality and light)--4.25". It turns out that if I reduce the mirror size to 3.1"--and increase tube diameter to 20.4" from 20"--I can get a nearly optimum combination of full illumination of the eyepiece and minimal obstruction. Of course, that means slightly enlarging the base plate the mirror cell (which I have not yet ordered), which increases the weight by a few ounces, and the weight of the two tube assemblies by an ounce or two. On the other hand, a 3.1" diagonal mirror is much lighter than the current diagonal.
However: my choices on the square tubes that hold the tube ends apart are becoming frustrating. I had plugged in the wrong value for Young's modulus--using the stiffness of carbon fiber composite instead of aluminum. Now my choices are to go to a larger, considerably heavier set of aluminum square tubes, or spend the money on carbon fiber composite. The net effect is that using 1", .125" wall aluminum square tube gives me a total telescope weight of 67 pounds to get the total deflection down into the thousandths of an inch range--just too heavy. Going to .995", .060" wall carbon fiber composite gets me a 48 pound telescope with a comparable worst case deflection down below .004". The price of this stuff, however, is breathtaking--like $400 for the four tubes. Unless, of course, you know of a surplus carbon fiber composite dealer...
Of course, I may be going too far on this. The deflection calculations are for the worst case--the telescope is pointing at the horizon. In practice, there is probably enough flex in a solid telescope tube that perhaps I can accept a few hundredths of an inch of deflection. I suppose that the worst that happens is I use somewhat smaller aluminum square tube (or two instead of four). For two square tubes, this gives me a total telescope weight of 57 pounds, and a maximum deflection of .014". If I need to, I suppose that I can add two more tubes.
No comments:
Post a Comment