Best tube material for a planetary Newtonian?

On Friday, 13 February 2015 12:49:00 UTC+1, wrote:

As an aside to any newbies who might be reading this: Even a cheapo, ready-made Dob can do 99% to 100% of what cb's scope could -potentially- do, but without all of the hassle.

Disingenuous garbage.

Or wilful ignorance from a [known] toxic source.

Post the URL to your ATM website.

Or to hosted images of your ATM creations.

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 7:26:09 AM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 13 February 2015 12:49:00 UTC+1, wsne... wrote:

As an aside to any newbies who might be reading this: Even a cheapo,
ready-made Dob can do 99% to 100% of what cb's scope could -potentially- do,
but without all of the hassle.

Disingenuous garbage.

How so?

On Friday, 13 February 2015 13:44:48 UTC+1, wrote:

How so?

I am not selling snake oil to the gawping crowds. Only you are. So it up to you to justify your false claims to your newly adoring audience. Explain why choice of telescope design is utterly meaningless according to the newly self-appointed and self-proclaimed s.a.a. optical and ATM expert, Dr Snell.. Explain why all reflector OTA designs are completely irrelevant to ultimate optical performance on the planets at high powers. Explain why mass produced primary and oversized secondary mirrors, often of very doubtful optical figure, are equally as worthy as anything claiming far more accuracy. Explain why OTA moment, on inadequate equatorial mountings, is utterly meaningless in the real world. Explain how you have magically overcome the difficulties of photography with unguided Dobsonian altaz mountings while using high powers and small fields of view. Explain why oversized secondary mirrors and typically tall focusers, with thick-vaned spiders, have zero impact on ultimate optical performance on low contrast planetary detail. The stage is yours: We wait with bated breath:

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 1:11:04 PM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 13 February 2015 13:44:48 UTC+1, wsne...wrote:

How so?

I am not selling snake oil to the gawping crowds. Only you are. So it up to
you to justify your false claims to your newly adoring audience. Explain why choice of telescope design is utterly meaningless according to the newly
self-appointed and self-proclaimed s.a.a. optical and ATM expert, Dr Snell.
Explain why all reflector OTA designs are completely irrelevant to ultimate
optical performance on the planets at high powers. Explain why mass produced
primary and oversized secondary mirrors, often of very doubtful optical
figure, are equally as worthy as anything claiming far more accuracy. Explain
why OTA moment, on inadequate equatorial mountings, is utterly meaningless in
the real world. Explain how you have magically overcome the difficulties of
photography with unguided Dobsonian altaz mountings while using high powers
and small fields of view. Explain why oversized secondary mirrors and
typically tall focusers, with thick-vaned spiders, have zero impact on
ultimate optical performance on low contrast planetary detail. The stage is
yours: We wait with bated breath:

Wow! You managed to cram no fewer than SIX strawman arguments into one paragraph! On the plus side, you did manage to write complete sentences this time.

On Friday, 13 February 2015 20:41:47 UTC+1, wrote:

Wow! You managed to cram no fewer than SIX strawman arguments into one paragraph! On the plus side, you did manage to write complete sentences this time.

Twaddlemonger!

Your rapt audience awaits your explanations of your unique telescope belief system. Instead of which you attack my grammar/punctuation in responding to an online forum? God help us all if we ever start using SMS shorthand. Herr Doktor Snell with have us all up against a wall for target practice with his [increasingly tatty] 3.45" [nominal aperture] cardboard cannon [with Fablon tube upgrade!]

You clearly stated that telescope design and quality have no bearing on performance. "99-100%" is a clear enough statement as to leave no doubt as to your very strange assertions. You addressed yourself clearly and openly to those yet to achieve your towering status in the ATM world. Or should we change that to a [breathless in awe] UTM [Ultimate Telescope Making] in your [very] exceptional case? Or would you prefer "Ultra" to describe your [stratospheric] skills and knowledge on the subject of [increasingly tatty] 3.45" {nominal aperture] cardboard cannons [with Fablon tube upgrade?] No doubt the heads of NASA/CIA/GCHQ/NSA/KGB/FBI/ISIS/Faux News are constantly on the phone. Begging you to become an optical consultant for their orbiting, people imaging platforms. No wonder you never have any time to repaint your [increasingly tatty] 3.45" [nominal aperture] cardboard cannon [with Fablon tube upgrade!]

But wait! Is the absence of publication of your website/images URL an indication that may we soon expect a heavy U/ATM tome to hit the shelves? To become an overnight sensation, best seller and classic reference work. Thereby propelling you to the international status [which you so richly deserve] with all the celeb trappings and heady [tax avoidance] wealth to go with it!

Which means that you can finally upgrade your [increasingly tatty] 3.45" [nominal aperture] cardboard cannon [with Fablon tube upgrade.] Will the tatty workhorse finally be replaced by a gold plated, 30.45" [clear aperture] Astrophysics [fluorite] triplet SDA [Super-Dooper-APO] with fully rotating tube?

Perhaps if you ask really nicely they might fix your [increasingly tatty] 3..45" [nominal aperture] cardboard cannon [with Fablon tube upgrade] to the monster OTA as a finder? Except, of course, that you were never brought up to say [or ask for] anything nicely.

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 3:02:07 AM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 13 February 2015 20:41:47 UTC+1, wsne... wrote:

Wow! You managed to cram no fewer than SIX strawman arguments into one
paragraph! On the plus side, you did manage to write complete sentences this time.

You clearly stated that telescope design and quality have no bearing on
performance.

No, you misquoted me. What I wrote was:

"Even a cheapo, ready-made Dob can do 99% to 100% of what cb's scope could -potentially- do, but without all of the hassle."

It is up to the individual owner to not buy a defective example. And notice that I did NOT specify that the Dob couldn't be a 12-inch!

"99-100%" is a clear enough statement as to leave no doubt as to your very
strange assertions.

Allowing for stability, practicality and ergonomics, etc., and the rapidly diminishing returns of going after that last bit of "performance" from a given aperture, a commercial 10-inch Dob should be able to come very close (~99%) and a 12-inch version should exceed (100% to 120%) your spindly 10-inch f/8.

(Think of how much fun could be had, and how much popcorn would have to be eaten, if you were blogging about some tilted-component scope that you were making!)

On Saturday, 14 February 2015 12:32:56 UTC+1, wrote:

No, you misquoted me.

Bull****ter.

What I wrote was:

"Even a cheapo, ready-made Dob can do 99% to 100% of what cb's scope could -potentially- do, but without all of the hassle."

Bull****ter.

It is up to the individual owner to not buy a defective example. And notice that I did NOT specify that the Dob couldn't be a 12-inch!

Bull****ter.

Allowing for stability, practicality and ergonomics, etc., and the rapidly diminishing returns of going after that last bit of "performance" from a given aperture, a commercial 10-inch Dob should be able to come very close (~99%) and a 12-inch version should exceed (100% to 120%) your spindly 10-inch f/8.

Bull****ting ignoramus.

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 11:57:38 AM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 14 February 2015 12:32:56 UTC+1, wrote:

No, you misquoted me.

Bull****ter.

What I wrote was:

"Even a cheapo, ready-made Dob can do 99% to 100% of what cb's scope could -potentially- do, but without all of the hassle."

Bull****ter.

It is up to the individual owner to not buy a defective example. And notice that I did NOT specify that the Dob couldn't be a 12-inch!

Bull****ter.

Allowing for stability, practicality and ergonomics, etc., and the rapidly diminishing returns of going after that last bit of "performance" from a given aperture, a commercial 10-inch Dob should be able to come very close (~99%) and a 12-inch version should exceed (100% to 120%) your spindly 10-inch f/8.

Bull****ting ignoramus.

What nice language! Do you have anything even remotely resembling an intelligent response?