Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
To be honest it was what I wanted to do from the beginning, especially for the creation of “cupola” which would have given to the mold and consequently to the curvature of disk I needed, but I will give up because the 3D printing just costs a lot of the dome.
Anyway I was starting to take their first accounts: it seems appropriate that a 406mm f5 have to dig an arrow of about 10mm? because in that case the thickness of the glass without the part with the “cavity” I would 15mmit is the first time
however I mirco I initially thought I was doing the hexagonal cavities as I have seen in many of the very light glazing. I would say at this point (as I advised me tiberini) by starting from the design of the support with Guiplop and try to find a way to bring together the vertices of the figures that form the cavity at the points where it should find the pivot of the support.I mean, being the rear part of the blank constituted by a me was a difficult moment series of cavities understand how best to position the “feet” for supporting the primary support (I do not know if I have explained). As for fusing I intend shortly to take a stroll in the Murano glassworks. Although they treat the glass to make artistic works I think will help me
A Udine. However, I read your article and you say that you did a complex job! My first problem was to create the back in order to have the supports to the support but after seeing your'm coming to a resolution. As for the merger rather I did not understand, You have created the mold and subsequently the molten glass inside or the two pieces were carved and then “bonded”?
in mechanical engineering, that is, I still miss a year, but I think the designs require all the time; I thought of asking for help to mechatronics teacher for the frame, that of geometric modeling for the whole of the CAD, to materials science and finally to that of turbulence as the turbulence in the tube concerns precisely. And of course the help of all of you
actually I explained evil, I do not speak of telescopes multi mirrors, but of telescopes that have mosaic mirrors as with that of Chile. Their aim is to lighten the structure (because the plates are very thin) and consequently limit any vibration resulting from the movement. What they failed to understand is if the hexagonal plates are flat or curved or, even, They are flat but so thin as to be curved from the support.
excuse me, but it is not possible to give the name of the company referred to by Lelio? because I'm calling dozens of random glass works in the Milan area with no results
Thanks for the reply, however, I asked the question because I contacted a Chinese company that cut astronomical quartz / borosilicate glass for rock bottom prices, in the end the price “facade” it was only symbolic, it actually turned out that they cost a lot more than what they showed; however my goal was a 350mm with a thickness of 30mm, but from what you told me for a 300mm you can go down to 20mm thick, even if this is an extreme case because it would leave no room for corrections: so I ask this question, a 300mm with 25mm thickness is enough? astronomy has always fascinated me and I am entering this world as a pure ignorant simply because I want to have the opportunity to observe the closest nebulae / clusters. for example, a 300mm is enough “thick” to allow me to see nebulae like that of Orion? because I have a 150mm shmidt-cassegrain and honestly I could not even see andromeda
hi again everyone!
after months of research I was able to find a company that could produce an astronomical glass for me; the problem is that the maximum thickness they can build with borosilicate is 19mm, I was then offered a “quartz glass” (in this case they arrive at thicknesses of 100mm); this type of glass is workable and therefore usable as astronomical glass?so if I'm not mistaken, the procedure used by Dobson and the one used in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ2emcoswKY&index=3&list=PLvQ11CcwJy0d5vKch44KthskeibiItXxf) I can be considered “complementary”: one of the two can be considered more precise and performing than the other?
