Custom Wood Tripods?

Dang.. it's almost sexual! Is this about wood in general or certain types
of wood..ie. pine vs.
maple ?



What you're looking for is something with high stiffness to weight
ratio. The heavier the tripod, the greater the tendency toward low
frequency vibrations that take a long time to dampen out. So pine is OK
(fir and spruce are better), but the best are ash, maple and oak. The
setup I made for my C8 is made of pine and maple butcher block, based on
the Tuthill isostatic A-frame design. Works very well.

Rich wrote:
Michal wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

With Al out of business, does anyone know if there is a source for nice
wood tripods?
Thanks!


Whats the big deal with wood?


Nostalgia, nothing more.


Bull.

starburst wrote:
Rich wrote:
Michal wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

With Al out of business, does anyone know if there is a source for nice
wood tripods?
Thanks!


Whats the big deal with wood?


Nostalgia, nothing more.


Bull.

Wood tripods look nice, they cost alot if they match a metal tripod in
terms
of rigidity. But there is no reason for wood other than looks, just
like there is
no reason for brass tubed refractors anymore.

Nostalgia, nothing more.


Bull.

Wood tripods look nice, they cost alot if they match a metal tripod in
terms
of rigidity. But there is no reason for wood other than looks, just
like there is
no reason for brass tubed refractors anymore.


I tens to agree. Where is the emperical evidence that says wood is
significantly better
at ...dampening?? Dampening what? Who's going to try to do astro photo
work in the wind
or breeze?

Michal said the following on 5/31/2006 6:42 PM:


Nostalgia, nothing more.


Bull.

Wood tripods look nice, they cost alot if they match a metal tripod in
terms
of rigidity. But there is no reason for wood other than looks, just
like there is
no reason for brass tubed refractors anymore.


I tens to agree. Where is the emperical evidence that says wood is
significantly better
at ...dampening?? Dampening what? Who's going to try to do astro photo
work in the wind
or breeze?

Actually, I think metal might stand up better against moisture. :-)

Personally, I like the look of wood, but its equal to better damping
qualities (depending on the metal tripod quality) are a benefit to
observers as well as imagers.
--

---- Len Philpot --------
------- ------------- http://members.cox.net/lenphilpot/

Michal wrote:

Nostalgia, nothing more.


Bull.

Wood tripods look nice, they cost alot if they match a metal tripod in
terms
of rigidity. But there is no reason for wood other than looks, just
like there is
no reason for brass tubed refractors anymore.



I tens to agree. Where is the emperical evidence that says wood is
significantly better
at ...dampening?? Dampening what? Who's going to try to do astro photo
work in the wind
or breeze?



You can tens all you want, or even twenties. ;?} But take a look at John
Brooks' article "Structural Considerations for Telescope Makers," _Sky
and Telescope_, June 1976, pp. 423-8. As for the vibration
characteristics of metal, there's a reason why they don't make bells out
of wood. Wood tripods are expensive, but there are advantages to them.

Cheers - Chris

On Wed, 31 May 2006 22:23:06 -0500, starburst wrote:

Michal wrote:

Nostalgia, nothing more.


Bull.

Wood tripods look nice, they cost alot if they match a metal tripod in
terms
of rigidity. But there is no reason for wood other than looks, just
like there is
no reason for brass tubed refractors anymore.



I tens to agree. Where is the emperical evidence that says wood is
significantly better
at ...dampening?? Dampening what? Who's going to try to do astro photo
work in the wind
or breeze?



You can tens all you want, or even twenties. ;?} But take a look at John
Brooks' article "Structural Considerations for Telescope Makers," _Sky
and Telescope_, June 1976, pp. 423-8. As for the vibration
characteristics of metal, there's a reason why they don't make bells out
of wood. Wood tripods are expensive, but there are advantages to them.

Cheers - Chris

How many do you see supporting really large telescopes?

You can tens all you want, or even twenties. ;?} But take a look at John
Brooks' article "Structural Considerations for Telescope Makers," _Sky
and Telescope_, June 1976, pp. 423-8. As for the vibration
characteristics of metal, there's a reason why they don't make bells out
of wood. Wood tripods are expensive, but there are advantages to them.

Cheers - Chris


How many do you see supporting really large telescopes?

Depends, I suppose, on your definition of "really large." At a certain
point wood for the same stiffness coefficient becomes too massive to
move around, and the beauty of a wooden tripod lies in its portability.
If you don't have to move a telescope then you can beef up the mount
with metal beyond the point that wood might be conveniently used. I
remember back in the 90s seeing a guy advertising his portable
astrophotography setup - it was a newtonian in the 12" range set on a
beautiful german EQ mount, a questar maybe, on a portable short tripod
made out of hardwood. The pictures he took with it were fantastic.
There's more to astronomy than imaging, too. Some people simply like to
look through their telescopes, and pound for pound wood is a better
material for building a tripod than metal. It weighs less and dampens
vibration more. It's not as durable, but it works well.

Hi Dave!

wrote:
With Al out of business, does anyone know if there is a source for nice
wood tripods? Thanks!

You might check out: http://www.jakejacobson.info/tripodshome.html

I haven't seen these in person yet, but the design concept looks very
nice and the red oak is a nice material.

Regards,

-Dann
================================================== =============
Dann McCreary http://flyinghouse.com creator-at-subarcsec.com
SubArcSecond Tracking Accuracy! -- Visit http://subarcsec.com
================================================== =============
"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse
is declaring the work of His hands" - Psalm 19:1 (NASB)
================================================== =============

See:
http://www.astro-electronic.de/stative.htm