well....... its not just initial cool down, its adjustment time as the
wears on in spring, summer, fall, but only you would be out there at -20
looking for the great unknown.
> On 21 Jun 2005 00:45:12 -0700, "atasselli@xxxxxxxxxxx"
> <atasselli@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >How can you possibly prove what you previously posted, eh? They do (or
> >at least did) NOT use the same multicoatings (MK67DL's are f...ing
> >better) and baffling is quite different. Optical quality in not even
> >comparable. Plus, when something really never cools down what do you
> >really expect?
> >Andrea T.
> "Never really cools down" is wrong. I've used the 7" in temps down to
> -20 and though it does take time (2 hours) it does cool down.
> Under more moderate observing conditions (summer) it's ready in
> 30 minutes or less.
> None of what you've said about multicoatings or baffling or optical
> differences (which are minor) could possibly account for a major
> difference in image contrast. Like most, you are over-emphasizing
> the differences for whatever reason. I have't seen a graphic
> difference in telescope performance since the bad SCTs of the 1980s.
> Since then, "like" scopes have all been similar in performance.