(meteorobs) Glass domes (was "Whizzer" - magnified and dissected)

[Mark Bowling]

Ok, so acrylic is still more desirable than the glass domes from Edmund.  Are the acrylic domes from Edmund Optics a good deal?  Who is a good source for those?

With respect to chemical breakdown/color, my dome has done fine the past 16 months or so.  My problem are scratches and chips which are bothersome.  I would really like a replacement and I was given mine by a friend and I don't know the source.

Wishing all your cameras and/or eyes a target rich environment,
Mark
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Peterson <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>
To: Meteor science and meteor observing <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Glass domes (was "Whizzer" - magnified and dissected)

Barring ground glass (very expensive), I think acrylic is the material 
of choice. We've had some of our domes out for more than seven years 
now, at high altitude where it's sunny nearly every day, with no milking 
and no weathering. They look like new. Obviously, there are different 
grades of acrylic- I suspect ours have a UV blocker. And optically, ours 
are near perfect- whatever distortion they introduce isn't detectable 
after astrometric calibration (i.e. the calibration parameters are the 
same with and without the domes).

Chris

*******************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On 1/6/2012 2:25 PM, James Beauchamp wrote:
> Hi Mark.  I've been wondering the same thing as Tom.    My acrylic dome is starting to milk due to the UV and weather exposure.
> There doesn't seem to be much "middle ground" with domes.  I don't need a dome with precision laboratory optical quality, yet want something better than the acrylic.
> Hobby manufacturer maybe?
>
_______________________________________________
meteorobs mailing list
meteorobs at meteorobs.org
http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs