Jump to content

Narrowband

Astrokev's ROR - The Build


Astrokev

Recommended Posts

11 sheets of ply ordered and should be here tomorrow - just in time for the impending snowstorm ?.

Keeping everything crossed that the weather will be kind enough to stay dry, at least to allow me to get the sheets into my shed. If the delivery is early enough, hopefully I may be able to get a piece or two cut to size, which would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the delivery of ply arrived as expected. I even had a bit of time to cut and install the first sheet. And in case you're wondering following recent discussion, I plumped for 9mm in the end. For only an extra £2 per sheet, it seemed daft not to :) .

I decided to raise the bottom edge by 18mm (supporting it on some 18mm ply while I screwed it in place). The main reason is to make it easier for me to take the floor up, should this be necessary, without having to remove the wall panels, but, as mentioned in a recent post, it also provides a bit of room around the bottom for the foam floor tiles to expand into the gap in Summer.

Barring unforeseen events, hoping to get a few more sheets up tomorrow. All panels will be screwed in place, so I can easily take them down when I do the electrics.

EDIT - now I'm looking at the picture, I'm wondering whether it might be worth insulating this wall. This is the south facing end of the observatory and gets the full sun all day in summer. Would insulating it help reduce heat penetration? I think it's likely the roof will contribute most of the heat load into the scope room due to the black EPDM, so the effect of insulating the wall may not be that significant in comparison.

IMG_5195a.jpg

Edited by Astrokev
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JamesF said:

What thickness ply did you go for in the end?

James

9 (stated above, although this was an added edit, so maybe you didn't see this when you posted ?)

Edited by Astrokev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JamesF said:

Ah yes, that bit wasn't in the version I read.  I even scanned through the last few posts before replying just to make sure I'd not missed it :)

James

I got 6 (actually 5.5 on the label) for the warm room ceiling. The extra 3mm head clearance may make all the difference!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A louvered panel will block direct sunlight while allowing air movement.

It need not be in direct contact with the building.

A similar arrangement could be suspended over a "hot" roof if it proved necessary.

A grid of crossed slats [with halving joints] will cast a shadow without adding massive weight.

Conifers or dense shrubs in moveable pots will cast shade in summer.

A trolley, or sack truck, would allow rapid withdrawl if the shrubbery blocks the view.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JamesF said:

If it was as cold as it was here this afternoon, I'd not blame you :)  In fact I'm amazed you even bothered to start.

James

I had 4 layers on my top half and sawing wood helped keep me pretty warm, but when I could no longer feel my toes it was time to pack up ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a blanket of snow overnight, I've given in to my better judgement today. Curled up in the warm with a Brian Cox book but struggling to get my head around Einstein's theory of gravity ?

 

Edited by Astrokev
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Dr_Ju_ju said:

 

but then to really screw with your mind, consider Spacetime.....

Yup, it's spacetime I struggle with.......and the Big Bang and age and size of the universe. You read it and it makes sense, then when you think about it a few days later it turns your brain into mush, and you're left with a gazillion questions. The price we pay for having an enquiringly mind!

I'm going to see Brian Cox in a few weeks. Maybe I can ask him ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's the thing, from what I've read & seen, there was no big bang per se, apart from an initial 'pop', which was followed by subsequent 'enlargements', but these took some considerable time to occur.

And as there doesn't appear to be enough mass in the universe, everything is still spreading outwards...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Astrokev said:

After a blanket of snow overnight, I've given in to my better judgement today. Curled up in the warm with a Brian Cox book but struggling to get my head around Einstein's theory of gravity ?

 

Brian Cox ? the BBCs expert in dumbing it down. 

You would be better off with Hawking I think. 

Edited by Adam J
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr_Ju_ju said:

Well that's the thing, from what I've read & seen, there was no big bang per se, apart from an initial 'pop', which was followed by subsequent 'enlargements', but these took some considerable time to occur.

And as there doesn't appear to be enough mass in the universe, everything is still spreading outwards...

Without wanting to derail my own thread (and at the risk of declaring myself an idiot) -

The bit (amongst many other bits!) I currently can't get my head around is - the most distant objects visible are c. 13.5 billion l.y. away, the light having taken 13.5 billion years to reach us. From the red-shift and Hubble constant etc, they reckon the BB occurred 13.5 billion years ago. But, approaching that long ago, the universe was much smaller. So, speed of light being a constant, how come it has taken 13.5 billion years to traverse a comparatively smaller distance?

Please can someone put me out of my misery?

Theres probably a better forum on SGL to discuss such things.....

Meanwhile, back on the subject of my build - the thaw has already set in and the observatory no longer has a white roof. All being well, I may get out there tomorrow ?

Edited by Astrokev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No thaw here!  Except off the house roof which I'm paying for in my heating bill even though there's oodles of insulation in the loft.  But the wind has blown most of the snow off my observatory roof.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My simplistic understanding\interpretation, is that the objects we can see, came into existence quite some time after the initial expansions occurred.

What was created at the start were super powerful plasma (energy) streams. Only later on, were short lived, proto stars being created, whose subsequent demise (super novae), which then started the process of 'true' star\galaxy formation. So by the time of the 'true' galaxies the universe had already expanded to a considerable size, hence the shifts we observe now...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Adam J said:

Brian Cox ? the BBCs expert in dumbing it down. 

You would be better off with Hawking I think. 

Have you read his book for the masses on quantum mechanics?  If that's dumbed down then there's no hope for any of us. I've started it twice and still can't get more than half way through before my brain throws the towel in. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Astrokev said:

Have you read his book for the masses on quantum mechanics?  If that's dumbed down then there's no hope for any of us. I've started it twice and still can't get more than half way through before my brain throws the towel in. 

Honestly no, not that one anyway. I will admit that I am going by his TV appearances mostly, but he seems to spend most of his time saying the same thing in 50 different ways, so that if you got it the first time it gets annoying. I am a physicist myself so perhaps I am looking at it with a different perspective to the masses mind you.

 

2 hours ago, Astrokev said:

Was it Einstein who said - if you think you understand quantum theory, then you don't understand quantum theory!

Apologies if I haven't got this fully correct; I'm rubbish with quotes!

Honestly now sure but I do know he did not believe in quantum theory so maybe not.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Usually attributed to Richard Feynman, though he may not have originated it.  It might appear in one of his "Six Easy Pieces" books, but I'm not sure.  It's been a while since I read them.  It's certainly the sort of off-the-cuff remark he'd make.  I seem to remember another quote attributed to him about being asked to run some undergraduate lectures on QM and deciding that he couldn't adequately explain it, therefore we didn't really understand it properly.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JamesF said:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Usually attributed to Richard Feynman, though he may not have originated it.  It might appear in one of his "Six Easy Pieces" books, but I'm not sure.  It's been a while since I read them.  It's certainly the sort of off-the-cuff remark he'd make.  I seem to remember another quote attributed to him about being asked to run some undergraduate lectures on QM and deciding that he couldn't adequately explain it, therefore we didn't really understand it properly.

James

Ah yes, Feynman. Thanks James. His lectures on YouTube are fabulous. I confess I haven't read any of his books. I'll add them to my reading list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.