Ultra Flat Paint or Flocking Paper
mbo...@my-deja.com
try in my street-light coated suburbia is to darken the inside of my
telescope tube. I have heard of using ultra flat black paint, flocking
paper, and even velvet material.
I have looked into Protostar flocking paper, but it seems rather
expensive. Is it really worth it? Will I get just as good of a result
with ultra flat black paint? Are there other alternatives or materials
that I can use or purchase locally?
Thanks for all your help in advance - I will look forward to changing my
grey tube to some form of black.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Ford
>
> I have looked into Protostar flocking paper, but it seems rather
> expensive. Is it really worth it? Will I get just as good of a
result
> with ultra flat black paint? Are there other alternatives or
materials
> that I can use or purchase locally?
>
> Thanks for all your help in advance - I will look forward to changing
my
> grey tube to some form of black.
Darkening the inside of the tube is worth it for some folks, but it's
not going to make a breathtaking difference. I find that it enables me
to reach better contrast levels that makes it possible to see some very
faint deepsky objects.
On the other end of the spectrum, it dampens the "halos" and reflection
ghosts around bright objects like planets, moon, etc.
If you know you suffer(or might be suffering) from these issues, then
the flocking will help. It won't do any harm.
The Protostar flocking is the best(IMO), but Edmund Scientific has a
less expensive variety that many people have used.
The felt cloth that you buy at the fabric local store is OK, but should
be "dusted" with flat black spray paint after installation to knock of
the shine from individual fibers.
Just painting with flat-black will help a bit, but looses it
effectiveness when the light hits it at low(shallow) angles.
The best (IMO) is to install appropriately-designed flat-black annular
baffles in your tube, but that is labor-intensive and borders on
artwork.
--
Clear skies,
John Ford
South-Eastern Michigan
jf...@inac.net
--
Clear skies,
John Ford
South-Eastern Michigan
jf...@inac.net
John Bevan
I have heard of using ultra flat black paint, flocking
> paper, and even velvet material.
Well, for what it's worth, I just "flocked" the draw tube on a certain
version of the Short tube 80. I bought it for $80 at Astrofest, just as
the vendors were closing, intending it to be a Xmas present for my
grandson. When I got it home, however, I noticed that the exit pupil
indicated effectively a 40 mm objective diameter, due the very
restrictive field/scatter stop in the draw tube. I punched this out and
saw how relatively shiny inside of the tube was. That was obviously why
the stop had been placed in the tube. The exit pupil was full size but
now surrounded with a bright halo. The images of Jupiter & Saturn were
pleasingly sharp and color free but they were also immersed in a halo of
light.
So, I removed the draw tube, taped the outer surface and sprayed flat
black paint inside, from both ends. With the paint still wet, I filled
the tube with saw dust and then shook it around, discarding that which
didn't adhere. I then resprayed the remaining sawdust with more flat
black paint. It looks like the inside of a chimney flue that's way
overdue for cleaning, but the halo's gone and my grandson should now
have a full 80 mm telescope.
This technique, of course, is not original - it's well documented for
the insides of telescope tubes but I was glad to see that it could
easily be applied to 1.24 inch draw tubes, as well.
I've used black paper before but painted sawdust seems better.
--
John
change refuse to fuse and com to net
Axel
of light could reflect directly into your focuser. Flocking paper will
scatter it, making it very diffuse and greatly reducing the chances of
it going into your focuser.
Ritesh
In article <8tk8rn$oqa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mbo...@my-deja.com wrote:
fasted...@my-deja.com
stuff, self adhesive in 20" x 30" sheets), but really good flat-black
paint is better than the dark grey stuff that seems to be common in a
lot of mass-produced scopes, and it only costs a few bucks.
The Krylon Ultra-Flat Black is a good choice, but there may be other
brands that are as good or better.
In article <8tk8rn$oqa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mbo...@my-deja.com wrote:
Aunt Gertrude
You didn't say what kind of telescope you have. If it's a refractor,
look through it without an eyepiece, in the daytime. You should be able to
see the walls of the tube closest to the objective. Even though it is
painted with flat black paint, you will see a bright reflection from the
cylindrical surface. This is the worst area for reflection and should be
covered with flock paper or velvet. Rutten & van Venrooij (Telescope
Optics, Willman-Bell, 1999, pp 227-228) report that the reflectance of
flock paper is about twice that of black velvet, when the light is striking
it at an angle. Black paint reflects about a hundred times as much!
Many telescopes don't have enough space to install effective annular
baffles. You need a tube that is considerable larger than the objective.
In a Newtonian, your problems are doubled since you have scattered
light from two or more sources--light reflected by the wall opposite the
eyepiece is the worst. Flock paper here will help noticable.
You can flock or baffle the whole tube, but the improvement becomes
marginal after the two big problem areas are corrected. I also blackened
the outside of my tube around my focuser so I can keep both eyes open while
viewing. Closing one eye contracts the muscles of your open eye and can
effect visual acuity , as well as be tiring. You can wear a black eye patch
but you'll look like a "dork" (according to my science students). Painting
the tube black on the outside works quite well.
Baffled in Vermont. --Aunt Gertrude
Esmail Bonakdarian
>
> Hi, I have read numerous posts that one improvement I should definitely
> try in my street-light coated suburbia is to darken the inside of my
> telescope tube. I have heard of using ultra flat black paint, flocking
> paper, and even velvet material.
Re flocking paper, does everyone use the self-adhesive kind? I have a
Celestron ST80 and have been thinking about doing this too.
Other than adhesive vs non-adhesive, is all flocking paper pretty much
the same?
Esmail
--
Esmail Bonakdarian - esm...@uiowa.edu - http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~bonak
Axel
> Re flocking paper, does everyone use the self-adhesive kind? I have a
> Celestron ST80 and have been thinking about doing this too.
>
> Other than adhesive vs non-adhesive, is all flocking paper pretty much
> the same?
I used Protostar's self-adhesive paper, it worked fine! Noticeable
improvement in the city with streetlights around. No experience with
other brands....
Ritesh
fasted...@my-deja.com
productid=1502)indicates that the non-self-adhesive type is actually a
bit better at light absorbtion, but the self-adhesive type seemed
easier to install.
In article <39FDF9FA...@uiowa.edu>,
Steve Forrest
The entire inside of my 12" dia. aluminum tube is covered with it, and
it makes the flat-black paint look "shiney". In full daylight on the
workbench with three shoplights on, I can see NOTHING inside the tube
without using a strong flashlight. I don't think you could use anything
better. It also weighs effectively nothing.
--
-------------------------------------------------
STEVE FORREST.
(Why Do You Think They Paint Some Tubes Black?)
-------------------------------------------------
Jeff Morgan
> Hi, I have read numerous posts that one improvement I should definitely
> try in my street-light coated suburbia is to darken the inside of my
> telescope tube. I have heard of using ultra flat black paint, flocking
> paper, and even velvet material.
>
> I have looked into Protostar flocking paper, but it seems rather
> expensive. Is it really worth it? Will I get just as good of a result
> with ultra flat black paint? Are there other alternatives or materials
> that I can use or purchase locally?
To answer your question about the ProtoStar paper, absolutely YES. I
haven't checked the price on this item lately, the last time I bought it I
was able to do a four inch refractor for about $15. A bargain compared to
eyepieces and filters, no?
I have used Kyrlon UFB over smooth surfaces, and impregnated with sawdust
and fine sand. The key is to put some texture on the inside of the tube, a
smooth surface is to be avoided.
A big consideration is the difficulty of accessing the inside of the tube,
and getting good adhesion. Although, flocking paper can be applied to
small tubes without adhesive by rolling it tight and letting in "relax"
inside the OTA.
Overall, I found sawdust to drink paint like a sponge. Used lots of paint
to get good coverage. It added noticeable weight to the scope. Sand worked
quite well, much better in the respect.
In terms of performance, this is easy to measure. Buy some PVC pipes and
treat each with these items. Then lay them flat on the gound on a sunny
day and look down the tube. I think that you will find flocking paper or
velvet noticeably darker than any paint/texture combination.
--
Jeff Morgan
email: substitute mindspring for nospam
Mike Boehk
if you have a moment.
To clarify I have a 6" equatorial reflector and am looking at a 12.5"
dobson reflector. You mention two problem areas, one on the opposite side
of the focuser and I didn't catch the second one. If I were to maximize
my time and effort would you agree to paint the entire tube flat black and
then put flocking or velvet across from the focuser? You mentioned doing
the whole tube would not improve much more, what would be your suggested
reasonable amount? (i.e. If I were to strategically place two 18" square
sections where would they do most good?
Thanks for you help, I appreciate it.
"Aunt Gertrude" <AGertrud...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39FDFA5...@earthlink.net...
Aunt Gertrude
also the most lightweight solution, as sawdust and paint combinations make the
tube very heavy. Even if the tube is flocked, it helps to put additional
baffles or black velvet at the front side of the tube opposite the eyepiece.
Light from a refractor comes in through the objective only. Light in a
Newtonian comes from two sources: the open end and the mirror. It can get quite
bright around the secondary. On my 8-inch f/8 Newtonian, I found it sufficient
to paint the inside black and use flock paper opposite the secondary. You can
spend a lot of time adding baffles, and I have seen people do this, but the
extra effort seems to produce rather marginal effects. Anything you can do
around the secondary, however, will make a noticeable improvement.
-Aunt G.
Aunt Gertrude
> (i.e. If I were to strategically place two 18" square
> sections where would they do most good?
>
> I peered into the focuser with no eyepiece and covered everything that I
> could see, since light reflected from surfaces opposite the focuser opening
> can reach the eyepiece directly. Others may choose to cover the whole tube,
> but on very long closed tubes, I am not convinced that this is entirely
> necessary. Others may disagree. It may also depend, to some extent, on how
> much light pollution you have around you. It may also depend on how much work
> you want to do to the scope.
Frank Bov
secondary, around the primary.
I put flocking paper in my tube, for not a heck of a lot of money, from around
the primary to the top of the tube. What everyone has said is true; the whole
tube is black, even in daylight, except for a big reflective thing at the
bottom. There's only one better way. That's baffling, which I'm going to try on
a 4.25" f/4 in a 6" ID tube - lots of room to work. Velvet on the walls,
sand-impregnated flat black on the baffles. We'll see.
HAve fun,
Frank
"Mike Boehk" <mbo...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:4jqL5.1439$Mo5.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
Esmail Bonakdarian
Esmail
Paul Manoian
purchase it?
-- Paul Manoian
Axel
Li0N_iN_0iL
>I have looked into Protostar flocking paper, but it seems rather
>expensive. Is it really worth it? Will I get just as good of a result
>with ultra flat black paint? Are there other alternatives or materials
>that I can use or purchase locally?
When my wife told me that she was going to buy some brushed
felt for her sewing and crafts, I had her buy some extra for
my 'scope. It cost $1.50 a yard (one-twelfth the price of
Protostar) and seems a lot blacker than paint.
Mark Wagner
: When my wife told me that she was going to buy some brushed
: felt for her sewing and crafts, I had her buy some extra for
: my 'scope. It cost $1.50 a yard (one-twelfth the price of
: Protostar) and seems a lot blacker than paint.
Felt is pressed fiber. It sheds. The ProtoStar paper is supposed to be
excellent for darkening, but difficult to install (from what I've heard).
--
Mark Wagner
Astronomy-Mall: http://Astronomy-Mall.com TAC: http://observers.org
La Caja de Los Gatos Observatory: 37:13:36N 121:58:25W
Jeff Morgan
(Li0N_iN_0iL) wrote:
> When my wife told me that she was going to buy some brushed
> felt for her sewing and crafts, I had her buy some extra for
> my 'scope. It cost $1.50 a yard (one-twelfth the price of
> Protostar) and seems a lot blacker than paint.
How much does the felt weigh per yard?
Jeff Morgan
(Mark Wagner) wrote:
> Felt is pressed fiber. It sheds. The ProtoStar paper is supposed to be
> excellent for darkening, but difficult to install (from what I've heard).
The ProtoStar paper itself isn't difficult, it's the tube you want to put
it in.
Small tubes are kind of tough because you can't get enough room for your
hands inside. For this application you would either forgo the adhesive, or
switch to a paint-based method. Large tubes or relatively open surfaces
are easy and fast with flocking paper.
Mark Wagner
: Small tubes are kind of tough because you can't get enough room for your
: hands inside. For this application you would either forgo the adhesive, or
: switch to a paint-based method. Large tubes or relatively open surfaces
: are easy and fast with flocking paper.
Thanks for the clarification!
Axel
flocking paper! Determine the inside circumference of your tube, then
cut an appropriate number of strips about 3-4" wide. Then the two of
you sit on opposite sides of the tube and hold a strip in tension an
inch or so above the wall. One person starts at the end and presses
the paper down against the wall and smoothes it in toward the center as
far as he can reach. Then the other person reaches in with one hand
(the other is still holding the end up) and smoothes it down from the
center towards him. Repeat for the rest of the strips. That's it!
Ritesh
In article <8tt00i$o23$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
mgw@Astro*remove*nomy-Mall.com (Mark Wagner) wrote:
Esmail Bonakdarian
Hi Jeff,
If I am thinking of flocking the inside of my little ST80, should I get
non-sticky flocking paper? Is it thick enough that it would "unfold" and
stay up against the tube if I first rolled it up and let it unroll inside
the tube (contorted sentence I know .. hopefully you get the idea).
Jeff Morgan
<esm...@uiowa.edu> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> If I am thinking of flocking the inside of my little ST80, should I get
> non-sticky flocking paper? Is it thick enough that it would "unfold" and
> stay up against the tube if I first rolled it up and let it unroll inside
> the tube (contorted sentence I know .. hopefully you get the idea).
Esmail,
I think you might have a couple of options here. First, call or email
Brian Greer at ProtoStar about how much a roll will "unwind". My
recollection was that the paper does have some stiffness to it, so I think
you would be ok.
Next, check out the post by Ritesh, me mentions using two people (an extra
set of hands essentially) to get the job done.
I am not familiar with the ST80, but since it is a short tube, access
might not be too bad. (OTOH, if it were f/15 you would be kind of
screwed.) Just pop off the lens cell and the focuser and use lengthwise
strips. Should be real easy if there are no baffles. If it has a baffle or
two, the tube will be divided into sections. Just do the outer sections
that you can reach. Even if you can't access the center section, you will
probably see an improvement.
Good luck!
Steve
Here's a link to Jim Fly's page on installing black velvet:
http://home.earthlink.net/~flyj/velvproc.html
I've not used the MacMaster Carr velvet but I have used these instructions
to install self-adhesive Protostar paper in my C5. I don't think installing it
in an ST80 would be that hard although you would have to sand off the black
paint inside the tube for the Protostar paper to stick (based on the Protostar
instructions and my own experience). Lining the inside of the C5 with a single
sheet of paper was easy but lining the baffle/tube that the primary rides on was
more of a challenge and I could only do it by cutting the paper into two
strips. The biggest challenge of the whole operation was getting up the nerve
to pull the C5 apart in the first place.
I think the Protostar paper might be stiff enough to hold itself against the
wall of the scope if you leave the backing on and keep the edges of the sheet on
the bottom of the tube so they don't sag into view. Protostar could certainly
give you some advice on this.
Clear skies,
Steve
Esmail Bonakdarian wrote:
> <snip>
Esmail Bonakdarian
Zane
Esmail
You can get some stuff at art/craft stores that is tacky but not _real_
sticky. You can put in on something and tack it down and take it off
several times before it quits holding. At least one type is a roll-on like
a small deodorant applicator.
I use this type of thing for some photography tasks, and have used it on
paper for telescopes. You just leave the adhesive backing of the paper on
and tack it in place with a few dabs of gook here and there. You can
adjust it several times until you get it like you want, and it doesn't
leave a residue to speak of.
Zane
Esmail Bonakdarian
Hi Zane
I like the trial-and-error approach this makes possible. Do you happen
to have some product/brand names of something that worked well for you?
Thanks for the suggestion
Esmail
PS: I tried mailing you directly, but no no luck.
Zane
>Zane wrote:
>>
>> Esmail
>>
>> You can get some stuff at art/craft stores that is tacky but not _real_
>> sticky. You can put in on something and tack it down and take it off
>> several times before it quits holding. At least one type is a roll-on like
>> a small deodorant applicator.
(snip)
>I like the trial-and-error approach this makes possible. Do you happen
>to have some product/brand names of something that worked well for you?
Well, to be frank, I usually use whatever my wife has around after testing
them for stickiness. She has a few different types -- is into various
types of crafts. She's not around right now, but I'll see what she has
later.
The one I've used the most (and have stolen from her cache) is "Aleene's
TACK-IT over and over" (really!). My wife didn't remember exactly where
she got it.
Zane
Lawrence Sayre
black and non reflective I mixed standard concrete sand (the kind with
grit of all sizes ranging all the way up to small pebbles in it, not the
play sand type stuff) and high temperature flat black wood stove paint
at a heavy ratio of close to 50/50 paint and sand by volume. One quart
of this paint was easily more than enough. I applied 3 coats of this to
the inside of my cardboard tube (which was previously primed inside and
out with 3 coats of white Kilz2 primer and allowed a few days for this
to fully dry). Each time before dipping my small paint roller (on a
broom stick) into the paint and sand, I vigorously stirred the mixture
to keep the sand from dropping out (which it tends to do quite
rapidly). Soon I had my daughter stirring it continuously as I painted,
and this worked far better. I allowed a few hours or more between
coats. It took about three weeks after the final coat for the paint to
fully cure and stop out-gassing (smelling like wet paint), probably
because this stuff normally cures at ~1400 degrees or so on a wood stove
and is intended for use on metal, and because I truly slopped it on
thick, but when it was done it was (and is) truly as black as coal.
This paint is far more flat and black than all of the flat black paints
I've seen and tried, and the heavy load of sand in all sizes and shapes
has broken the surface continuity completely, so light coming into the
tube at a high angle of incidence (the kind flat black paint alone can't
even absorb) has no chance at all to become a problem. Looking into
this tube, even in the daytime, is nearly like being in a cave when the
lights are turned out. My other (store bought) Dob with its standard
flat black interior paint job looks bright gray inside by comparison.
In case you are wondering about it, the sand pebbles are firmly cured
and imbedded into the paint, and they have not not come loose. I've
even picked at them with my finger nails as a test and they don't budge.
Lawrence Sayre
---------------------------------------------
"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival!"
(a quote from the famous 'John Galt' speech
in the equally famous book "Atlas Shrugged")
---------------------------------------------
Steve
I made a tube extension for my dob and lined it with Protostar paper glued
onto the "qwiktube" with Duro contact cement. I left the backing on the
Protostar paper as you and others suggest. It's worked out well enough but
after about a year it's developing some small bubbles that appear to be caused
by separation of the paper from its backing rather than separation of the
backing from the tube. In hindsight this makes sense to me because the
backing is, after all, designed to come off of the paper. It's hardly a
problem in a dob's tube (I just smooth out the bubbles by hand) but it might
be a pain in a refractor.
Clear skies,
Steve
Zane wrote:
> Esmail
>
> You can get some stuff at art/craft stores that is tacky but not _real_
> sticky. You can put in on something and tack it down and take it off
> several times before it quits holding. At least one type is a roll-on like
> a small deodorant applicator.
>
> I use this type of thing for some photography tasks, and have used it on
> paper for telescopes. You just leave the adhesive backing of the paper on
> and tack it in place with a few dabs of gook here and there. You can
> adjust it several times until you get it like you want, and it doesn't
> leave a residue to speak of.
>
> Zane
Li0N_iN_0iL
>> When my wife told me that she was going to buy some brushed
>> felt for her sewing and crafts, I had her buy some extra for
>> my 'scope. It cost $1.50 a yard (one-twelfth the price of
>> Protostar) and seems a lot blacker than paint.
>
>How much does the felt weigh per yard?
Six ounces.
Li0N_iN_0iL
>: When my wife told me that she was going to buy some brushed
>: felt for her sewing and crafts, I had her buy some extra for
>: my 'scope. It cost $1.50 a yard (one-twelfth the price of
>: Protostar) and seems a lot blacker than paint.
>
>Felt is pressed fiber. It sheds. The ProtoStar paper is supposed to be
>excellent for darkening, but difficult to install (from what I've heard).
Paper is also pressed fiber. Whether pressed fiber sheds or
not depends upon its treatment, and my wife tells me that
one reason she buys *brushed* felt is that it does *not*
shed. I'll pull the 'scope apart and look for signs of
shedding in any case.
Mark Wagner
: Paper is also pressed fiber. Whether pressed fiber sheds or
: not depends upon its treatment, and my wife tells me that
: one reason she buys *brushed* felt is that it does *not*
: shed. I'll pull the 'scope apart and look for signs of
: shedding in any case.
I don't follow your reference to paper. But, as for the felt, consulting
my wife, I get the reply "eventually, felt deteriorates and falls out like
a guy going bald"... (I winced at that one, since I have much less hair
than when I was 20). I'm sure people are happy with felt... go for it.
Larry Brown
paper is about twice that of black velvet, but the direction of the pile
makes a difference.
Li0N_iN_0iL
>Li0N_iN_0iL said. . . :
>
>: Paper is also pressed fiber. Whether pressed fiber sheds or
>: not depends upon its treatment, and my wife tells me that
>: one reason she buys *brushed* felt is that it does *not*
>: shed. I'll pull the 'scope apart and look for signs of
>: shedding in any case.
>
>I don't follow your reference to paper.
See the last word in the Subject line, or word number nine,
below:
>>Felt is pressed fiber. It sheds. The ProtoStar paper is
>>supposed to be excellent for darkening, but difficult to
>>install (from what I've heard).
>But, as for the felt, consulting my wife, I get the reply
>"eventually, felt deteriorates and falls out like a guy
>going bald"... (I winced at that one, since I have much
>less hair than when I was 20).
Eventually everything deteriorates, but the question is
always "how much time until that happens?". My wife assures
me that the brushed felt, safely ensconced within a
telescope tube, will not fall out for a *long* time (nor
will my 54-year-old hair, she says). I'll keep checking both
anyway.
Bryan Greer
The flocked "paper" sold by ProtoStar is not really paper. It's a bit
of a misnomer. It is a 100% Rayon (i.e., synthetic) product, and the
fibers are pulled out of the base material during manufacturing. The
fibers are not applied as a secondary operation. This is why it
doesn't shed the fibers.
BTW, the test I did to choose this material from a bunch of candidates
was to scrub it with a toothbrush over a white sheet of paper.
Sincerely,
Bryan Greer
Columbus, OH
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Bryan Greer
Greer) wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>The flocked "paper" sold by ProtoStar is not really paper. It's a bit
>of a misnomer. It is a 100% Rayon (i.e., synthetic) product, and the
>fibers are pulled out of the base material during manufacturing. The
>fibers are not applied as a secondary operation. This is why it
>doesn't shed the fibers.
>
>BTW, the test I did to choose this material from a bunch of candidates
>was to scrub it with a toothbrush over a white sheet of paper.
>
>Sincerely,
>Bryan Greer
>Columbus, OH
>
BTW, someone brought it to my attention that I should have identified
myself as working at ProtoStar. They are exactly right. My intention
was to provide some information about the product, and not to plug
ProtoStar, though I see how my post could have looked kind of sleazy.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Sincerely,
Bryan Greer
ProtoStar
P.O. Box 258
Worthington, Ohio 43085
U.S.A.
phone (614)-785-0245 fax (614)-785-0401
e-mail: prot...@fpi-protostar.com
WWW: http://www.fpi-protostar.com/