hm, mal wieder nicht alles gelesen oder dargestellt ?
meister vehrenberg bringt leider nur das, was ihm paßt!
war ja auch nicht anders zu erwarten <img src="/phpapps/ubbthreads/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />
ich bringe jetzt mal das, was mir bisher zugänglich ist.
und das ist dann der letzte beitrag, den ich dem herren vehrenberg opfere.
allen anderen, die da noch fragen haben, werde ich aber natürlich gern antworten, soweit ich kann!
da sollte man schon genau hingucken...
1.
> Hi "TeleVue´s"
>
> A friend of me has bought a new TV 85 apo. As he looked into the tube, he saw
> that emery paper was used inside the tube for reducing the reflections
> This is my question: Has you inside your TV´s also emery paper inside the
> tubes? I think, this is not good. Because, the TV refractor´s are not truly
> cheap and moreover there will be the risk af scratches in the optic, if the
> emery paper will fall to pieces.
>
> Here in Germany some people won´t buy TV-Apos because of this kind of
> production ...
>
> regards hannes
>
> 2.
> Hannes,
>
> I have never heard of the flocking material inside the TV tubes harming the
> optics in any manner and think this is no cause for concern at all. TeleVue
> uses this baffling method to keep the weight of the scope down and it works
> extremely well. Bottom line is, it works well. Tell your friend to point the
> scope at the moon and check the contrast. You might also check out some of the
> many online reviews of TV scopes against other scopes with traditional baffles
> and note the comments about contrast. Ed Ting's and Todd Gross' site are good
> places to start.
>
> Best,
>
> Clyde
>
> 3.
> I have been an amataur astronomer for the last 53 years,and owned many a scope
> since I was 10 years old. I've had a TV 85 for the past 4 years and it is one
> of the best overall scopes that I have ever owned. The flocking material
> inside is more like velvet then anything else. It works very well, better then
> some baffling I have seen in Russian and German scopes for that matter.
>
> Televue makes an excellant product, don't worry about the velvet material
> inside, it does what it suppose to do...."TV uber allus"
>
> Tom Baty
>
> 4.
> Hello there Hannes,
>
> I wonder how your friend conclude that it was Emery paper. Did he see the word
> "Emery" written on it ;-)?
>
> More seriously, Tele Vue uses different baffle design, and look sort of like
> sand material. Here's a review of the TV-102, same baffle and glass as the
> TV-85 only larger, and you'll see how well the baffle works.
>
http://www.teleskop-service.de/televue/TV102Test/102Test.htm
>
> Ron B[ee]
>
> 5.
> Hi RON,
>
>>> I wonder how your friend conclude that it was Emery paper. Did he see the
>>> word "Emery" written on it ;-)?<<
>
>
http://www.tbrumm.de/umbau_eines_televue_tv_85.htm
>
> This is a report of attaching a Feathertouch Focuser to the TV85, its all in
> German, but you will find some pictures of the dis- and re-assembled TV85
> (plus the EMERY paper...).
>
> Regards Dietmar
>
> 6.
> That's an excellent website, thanks Dietmar. I had a TMB 80/600 that had black
> velvet flocking paper, and often wondered whether there would be a visible
> difference between it and others that I have seen with more traditional
> baffles. Never did have a chance to compare.
> I remember reading the S&T article on the TV-102 and thinking at the time "how
> do they KNOW that the flocking paper works perfectly"? Sure the picture with
> the light shows little scattered light on the opposite side of the tube, but
> is there really not ANY? Baffles couldn't hurt in any case. Unless you put
> them in the wrong place - I sure wouldn't trust myself to get that job
> right...
>
> Nils
>
> 7.
> Nils,
>
> Have you read Ed Ting's write up of the TV102 where he compares the contrast
> in it to the AP Traveler and a C102 f/9 ED? He said he couldn't tell any
> contrast difference at all. I've had my TV85 side by side several times with a
> Tak FS78. To be fair, I'd give a very slight contrast edge to the Tak, but
> that may be aperture related. You're right that baffles probably couldn't
> hurt, but it appears that they don't make a "visible" difference and Al
> decided to opt for the lighter, more portable OTA. My TV85 is a good bit less
> cumbersome than my friend's FS78, despite more aperture. I'm trying to
> remember if there was a contrast comparision in the S&T write-up about premium
> refractors where the NP101 and TMB 100/f8 got the best marks. I don't recall,
> but I'll see if I can find it.
>
> Best,
>
> Clyde
>
> 8.
> I had no intention of giving this thread a "TV scopes aren't as good as X"
> flavor - I was only wondering (and really wondering, not taking a stand one
> way or the other) if flocking paper IS just as good as baffles. S&T said it
> was, but I remember thinking when reading that article that the only way they
> could know would be if they had taken one TV-102 with flocking paper and one
> with baffles and compared.
>
> If you start comparing brand x with baffles and brand y with flocking paper,
> you've got one too many variables. It would be interesting to compare
> Wolfgang's baffled TV-85 with a stock one. My guess would be that the folks at
> TV have already done this comparison, and they went for flocking. Was it
> exactly the same, just a little worse, or better than the baffles in
> controlling stray light? Other makers, presumably just as dedicated to
> perfection, still use baffles.
> Ideally, of course, I'd take both.
>
> Nils
>
> 9.
> I think you're right that the folks at TV have done the comparison and made
> the choice for the lighter but still well baffled OTA.
>
> C.
>
> Clyde
>
> 10.
> You may want to go to the Televue website and check the Ask Al forum.
> If I remember, Mr. Al addressed this question in a question & answer session
> sometime ago. It may still be archived on this site.
>
> Tom Baty
>
> 11.
> Strange..but when I had the focuser off of my TV 85 the inside material was
> soft and pliable, sort of like a felt material.
>
> Perhaps they use the "emery" liner on the European models as the felt would be
> to warm and fuzzy for the continentals??? Just kidding!!!
>
> Tom Baty
>
> 12.
> Wow thanks Dietmar, now it's no joke ;-) for sure. I can't read German but I
> can see the picture quite clearly. Very grateful for you to post the link. I
> must say, the fella was very brave indeed!
>
> Ron B[ee]
>
> 13.
> The ememry probably "cuts" the light better.
>
> peter
