![]() |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There are lens brushes for this purpose. If
canned air will blow it off, then a brush will brush it off. Hi Bill: Certainly there are differences of opinion, but, in general in my _opinion_, canned air is more than safe enough for optics (other than mirrors) and is less apt to cause damage than a brush. Peace, Rod Mollise Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_ Like SCTs and MCTs? Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers! Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chris L Peterson wrote in message . ..
On 01 Mar 2004 14:32:52 GMT, (Wfoley2) wrote: Canned air might be OK for cleaning crap out of a keyboard or smoke alarm. It is NOT a good idea for optics. There are lens brushes for this purpose. If canned air will blow it off, then a brush will brush it off. Be sure the brush is clean and without oils on it. I couldn't disagree more. I've used it for years for cleaning all sorts of optics in the lab. It isn't difficult to use it in a way that prevents liquid propellants from getting on the optics. You just need to start the air flowing while it is pointing away from things. It does a much better job of cleaning than a brush in many cases. I wouldn't use it on a front surface mirror, but on just about anything else, no problem. Worst case, the propellant isn't going to hurt glass or coated optics, even if you screw up. Why even worry? I use a hand-squeezed air bulb to blow off the last droplets of distilled water after cleaning a front surface mirror. Been doing it for decades with NO problems whatsoever, and the bulb is extremely inexpensive. I bought mine at a photo shop so these should be readily available. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My telescope is new so I haven't found the need to clean the corrector
yet, but when I do, I decided to use what is called a "hurricane blower" for camera lenses. This is basically a largish squeeze bulb with a nozzle. It works very well for even large camera lenses. Now my Telescope is MUCH bigger, but I expect that it will work just as well. Any good camera store should have one. The cost is about $5 (US). |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Chris L Peterson wrote: On 01 Mar 2004 14:32:52 GMT, (Wfoley2) wrote: I couldn't disagree more. I've used it for years for cleaning all sorts of optics in the lab. It isn't difficult to use it in a way that prevents liquid propellants from getting on the optics. You just need to start the air flowing while it is pointing away from things. It does a much better job of cleaning than a brush in many cases. I wouldn't use it on a front surface mirror, but on just about anything else, no problem. Worst case, the propellant isn't going to hurt glass or coated optics, even if you screw up. I guess a lot of us are just incompetent. Im sorry we are screwing up the world so badly! Jerry _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:02:58 GMT, Edward Smith wrote:
My telescope is new so I haven't found the need to clean the corrector yet, but when I do, I decided to use what is called a "hurricane blower" for camera lenses. This is basically a largish squeeze bulb with a nozzle. It works very well for even large camera lenses. Now my Telescope is MUCH bigger, but I expect that it will work just as well. Any good camera store should have one. The cost is about $5 (US). Usually, correctors get contaminated by a mixture of atmospheric deposits dissolved in dew. I've never found any kind of blower, including the high pressure of canned air, sufficient for cleaning. Normally, you need some kind of solvent. I use Windex, others use various homemade formulas consisting of water, alcohol, or detergents. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chris,
You have it dead on with below statement. At the various thin film companies I worked for we found that contamination of substrates was occurring within the first few seconds when using even so-called dry nitrogen. We created the 10 second rule (blasting the nozzle away from the substrate before aiming at the substrate). And the same is true for canned air. Dan McShane Chris L Peterson wrote in message ... You just need to start the air flowing while it is pointing away from things. Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If it comes in a Can, it must be Spam! The 10-second WWII rule.
Jerry Dan McShane wrote: Chris, You have it dead on with below statement. At the various thin film companies I worked for we found that contamination of substrates was occurring within the first few seconds when using even so-called dry nitrogen. We created the 10 second rule (blasting the nozzle away from the substrate before aiming at the substrate). And the same is true for canned air. Dan McShane Chris L Peterson wrote in message ... You just need to start the air flowing while it is pointing away from things. Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Orbiter shape. | Peter Fairbrother | Policy | 241 | September 1st 04 07:54 AM |