|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
Its a term I have seen over and over again with little explanation. If I
understand it correctly this is a measurement of tolerance for accurate collmination... is that right? I came across a table that shows the relationship between aperture, f ratio and the resulting diffraction limited field diameter. Expert: 8" f4 ~100 arcsecs 8" f6 ~250 arcsecs In looking at the full chart it appears that the longer focal length the larger the diffraction limited field of view - really quite dramatic when comparing an 8'' f4 to say an f8 - a factor of near 4 times. Some questions.... So? What exactly is the difference any way? Sure an f4 is harder to collimate but beyond that does this really change the performance of a scope once it is done well? How can I translate this into something that means something to me... What is an Arcsecond and where exactly is it measured? Take for example a 8'' f4 Newt - does this mean my collmination of the light path from the primary to the secondary needs to be within a 100 arcseconds of where it is supposed to be? And how does that translate to something I can relate to? Any input would be appreciated thanks? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
Derek Overdahl wrote:
I came across a table that shows the relationship between aperture, f ratio and the resulting diffraction limited field diameter. Expert: 8" f4 ~100 arcsecs 8" f6 ~250 arcsecs In looking at the full chart it appears that the longer focal length the larger the diffraction limited field of view - really quite dramatic when comparing an 8'' f4 to say an f8 - a factor of near 4 times. Some questions.... So? What exactly is the difference any way? Sure an f4 is harder to collimate but beyond that does this really change the performance of a scope once it is done well? How can I translate this into something that means something to me... What is an Arcsecond and where exactly is it measured? Take for example a 8'' f4 Newt - does this mean my collmination of the light path from the primary to the secondary needs to be within a 100 arcseconds of where it is supposed to be? And how does that translate to something I can relate to? Any input would be appreciated thanks? The problem is that even assuming that a primary mirror in a Newtonian telescope is perfectly figured, the image it produces is only free of aberrations at the very center of the field of view. As you move away from the center of the field of view, coma becomes increasingly apparent. Coma is an aberration that makes point sources (like stars) take on a comet-like appearance, with the tails pointing away from the field of view. There is no coma at the center of the field of view, but coma increases linearly with "off-axis angle"--a measure of how far the object is away from the center of the field of view. The off-axis angle can be thought of as the angle between where the object is as seen from the telescope, and where the telescope is actually pointed. Therefore, it the telescope is pointed directly at the object, the off-axis angle is zero, and the object appears at the center of the field of view. So when we say that coma increases linearly with off-axis angle, we mean that if you double the off-axis angle, the coma too is doubled, and so on. If the object is far enough away from the center of the field of view, the coma effect is stronger than the diffraction effect that is inherent in the formation of the image. The area of the field of view within which coma is *less* than diffraction, so to speak, is the diffraction-limited field. Because the (true) field of view of a telescope plus eyepiece is generally fairly small (typically a degree or less), the off-axis angle for any object that you can see in the eyepiece is reasonably small. But in fast telescopes (those with low focal ratios), coma increases so rapidly that it becomes a major factor well within the field of view. To give you an idea of how small an angle is required to make coma readily apparent, a degree is 1/90 of a right angle--the angle between the zenith and the horizon. An arcminute is 1/60 of a degree, and an arcsecond is 1/60 of an arcminute (and therefore 1/3,600 of a degree). It is a very small angle. The fact that an 8-inch f/4 mirror has a diffraction-limited field of only 100 arcseconds across means that you have to be pointed within 50 arcseconds (1/72 of a degree) of an object for that object's image to be diffraction-limited. Fortunately, there are a number of solutions. One is to get a coma corrector, like Tele Vue's Paracorr. This is an accessory that you fit into the eyepiece holder like a Barlow, and you put eyepieces into it. It largely eliminates the coma. Another solution, if you are designing a telescope, is to use a slower (that is, larger) focal ratio. For a given aperture, coma decreases as the inverse square of the focal ratio, so that an 8-inch f/6 has only 16/36 = 4/9 of the coma that the 8-inch f/4 does. That is why the f/6 has a diffraction-limited field over twice as wide as the f/4 does. To first order, collimation merely centers the diffraction-limited field in the field of view. If the telescope is poorly collimated enough, the entire diffraction-limited field will be *outside* the field of view, resulting in poorer views. Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
"Derek Overdahl" wrote in message
... Its a term I have seen over and over again with little explanation. If I understand it correctly this is a measurement of tolerance for accurate collmination... is that right? sort of. I came across a table that shows the relationship between aperture, f ratio and the resulting diffraction limited field diameter. Expert: 8" f4 ~100 arcsecs 8" f6 ~250 arcsecs This depends on the telescope design. For a newt, coma is the main thing killing you. Let me also add that "diffraction limited" may have started out being used by some as a real term, but is now usually nothing more than sales department gas. So? What exactly is the difference any way? Sure an f4 is harder to collimate but beyond that does this really change the performance of a scope once it is done well? Hmm, to do this without tracing any rays or using math... Think of it this way. A sphere will have spherical aberation, but no coma --- simply put the field stop at the radius of curvature, and the star can't tell if it is on axis or off. Now if we go with an f/20, there is practically no difference between the parabola and the sphere --- therefore coma is tiny. As we move to f/8, there is a definite difference between the sphere and the parabola --- therefore the coma is definitely noticable. But when you go to f/4, the difference between the sphere and the parabola is huge --- therefore, when you go off axis, the difference is going to be huge --- this equals huge coma. How can I translate this into something that means something to me... What is an Arcsecond and where exactly is it measured? Take a degree. For reference, the moon is about a half a degree across. There are 60 arc minutes per degree. Therefore the moon is about 30 arcminutes in size. Each arcminute contains 60 arcseconds. To get a feel for this, look at some double stars. Take for example a 8'' f4 Newt - does this mean my collmination of the light path from the primary to the secondary needs to be within a 100 arcseconds of where it is supposed to be? And how does that translate to something I can relate to? You are taking this in the wrong direction. Don't worry about it from that angle (pun not intended). Learn to collimate. Then learn to collimate *very* well. Then learn to collimate very well quickly enough that you will do so at the start of every observing session. That way you don't have to worry about collimation error measurements. While you are at it, in the last stage of collimation, with the star out of focus and viewing the diffraction rings, notice how they change shape across the field. That will give you a quick read on what is happening across your field of view. Clear Skies Chuck Taylor Do you observe the moon? Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/ And the Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/ ************************************ Any input would be appreciated thanks? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
"Derek Overdahl" wrote in message ...
Its a term I have seen over and over again with little explanation ? So? What exactly is the difference any way?... How can I translate this into something that means something to me... Any input would be appreciated thanks? This discusses the "diffraction limited field" in the context of newtonian reflectors and double star work. Might give you useful pointers to more relevant information... http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org...or_article.pdf Cheers Beats |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
How can I translate this into something that means something to me...
It means that in an F4, outlying objetcs like the moons of Jupiter will be little comet shaped things when the scope is perfectly collimated and Jupiter is exactly in the center of the field. Roland Christen |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
This discusses the "diffraction limited field" in the context of newtonian reflectors and double star work. Might give you useful pointers to more relevant information... http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org...or_article.pdf Cheers Beats No one is going to get anything useful out of that crazy mathmatical explanation...BUCK UP will ya |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
misaligned astrognome wrote:
No one is going to get anything useful out of that crazy mathmatical explanation. Wrong! I did. (In fact, I get a lot of useful things from Chris Lord's PDFs) Best, Stephen Remove footfrommouth to reply -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
Thanks to both of you (Brian and CLT) your responses where very helpful!
Sometimes I wonder about this hobby.... Which is more interesting - the tools we observe with or the targets we observe? At least it gives us something to do when the sun is out during the day and the clouds and tropical humidity ruin the nights. thanks again - big help! "CLT" not@thisaddress wrote in message ... "Derek Overdahl" wrote in message ... Its a term I have seen over and over again with little explanation. If I understand it correctly this is a measurement of tolerance for accurate collmination... is that right? sort of. I came across a table that shows the relationship between aperture, f ratio and the resulting diffraction limited field diameter. Expert: 8" f4 ~100 arcsecs 8" f6 ~250 arcsecs This depends on the telescope design. For a newt, coma is the main thing killing you. Let me also add that "diffraction limited" may have started out being used by some as a real term, but is now usually nothing more than sales department gas. So? What exactly is the difference any way? Sure an f4 is harder to collimate but beyond that does this really change the performance of a scope once it is done well? Hmm, to do this without tracing any rays or using math... Think of it this way. A sphere will have spherical aberation, but no coma --- simply put the field stop at the radius of curvature, and the star can't tell if it is on axis or off. Now if we go with an f/20, there is practically no difference between the parabola and the sphere --- therefore coma is tiny. As we move to f/8, there is a definite difference between the sphere and the parabola --- therefore the coma is definitely noticable. But when you go to f/4, the difference between the sphere and the parabola is huge --- therefore, when you go off axis, the difference is going to be huge --- this equals huge coma. How can I translate this into something that means something to me... What is an Arcsecond and where exactly is it measured? Take a degree. For reference, the moon is about a half a degree across. There are 60 arc minutes per degree. Therefore the moon is about 30 arcminutes in size. Each arcminute contains 60 arcseconds. To get a feel for this, look at some double stars. Take for example a 8'' f4 Newt - does this mean my collmination of the light path from the primary to the secondary needs to be within a 100 arcseconds of where it is supposed to be? And how does that translate to something I can relate to? You are taking this in the wrong direction. Don't worry about it from that angle (pun not intended). Learn to collimate. Then learn to collimate *very* well. Then learn to collimate very well quickly enough that you will do so at the start of every observing session. That way you don't have to worry about collimation error measurements. While you are at it, in the last stage of collimation, with the star out of focus and viewing the diffraction rings, notice how they change shape across the field. That will give you a quick read on what is happening across your field of view. Clear Skies Chuck Taylor Do you observe the moon? Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/ And the Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/ ************************************ Any input would be appreciated thanks? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
"Derek Overdahl" wrote in message
... Thanks to both of you (Brian and CLT) your responses where very helpful! Sometimes I wonder about this hobby.... Which is more interesting - the tools we observe with or the targets we observe? Both! But only rarely is there an interesting fight over the targets! ;-) Chuck Taylor Do you observe the moon? Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/ And the Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/ ************************************ At least it gives us something to do when the sun is out during the day and the clouds and tropical humidity ruin the nights. thanks again - big help! "CLT" not@thisaddress wrote in message ... "Derek Overdahl" wrote in message ... Its a term I have seen over and over again with little explanation. If I understand it correctly this is a measurement of tolerance for accurate collmination... is that right? sort of. I came across a table that shows the relationship between aperture, f ratio and the resulting diffraction limited field diameter. Expert: 8" f4 ~100 arcsecs 8" f6 ~250 arcsecs This depends on the telescope design. For a newt, coma is the main thing killing you. Let me also add that "diffraction limited" may have started out being used by some as a real term, but is now usually nothing more than sales department gas. So? What exactly is the difference any way? Sure an f4 is harder to collimate but beyond that does this really change the performance of a scope once it is done well? Hmm, to do this without tracing any rays or using math... Think of it this way. A sphere will have spherical aberation, but no coma --- simply put the field stop at the radius of curvature, and the star can't tell if it is on axis or off. Now if we go with an f/20, there is practically no difference between the parabola and the sphere --- therefore coma is tiny. As we move to f/8, there is a definite difference between the sphere and the parabola --- therefore the coma is definitely noticable. But when you go to f/4, the difference between the sphere and the parabola is huge --- therefore, when you go off axis, the difference is going to be huge --- this equals huge coma. How can I translate this into something that means something to me... What is an Arcsecond and where exactly is it measured? Take a degree. For reference, the moon is about a half a degree across. There are 60 arc minutes per degree. Therefore the moon is about 30 arcminutes in size. Each arcminute contains 60 arcseconds. To get a feel for this, look at some double stars. Take for example a 8'' f4 Newt - does this mean my collmination of the light path from the primary to the secondary needs to be within a 100 arcseconds of where it is supposed to be? And how does that translate to something I can relate to? You are taking this in the wrong direction. Don't worry about it from that angle (pun not intended). Learn to collimate. Then learn to collimate *very* well. Then learn to collimate very well quickly enough that you will do so at the start of every observing session. That way you don't have to worry about collimation error measurements. While you are at it, in the last stage of collimation, with the star out of focus and viewing the diffraction rings, notice how they change shape across the field. That will give you a quick read on what is happening across your field of view. Clear Skies Chuck Taylor Do you observe the moon? Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/ And the Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/ ************************************ Any input would be appreciated thanks? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is the "Diffraction Limited Field of View"?
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:39:56 GMT, Derek Overdahl wrote:
Its a term I have seen over and over again with little explanation. If I understand it correctly this is a measurement of tolerance for accurate collmination... is that right? No. See below. I came across a table that shows the relationship between aperture, f ratio and the resulting diffraction limited field diameter. Expert: 8" f4 ~100 arcsecs 8" f6 ~250 arcsecs In looking at the full chart it appears that the longer focal length the larger the diffraction limited field of view - really quite dramatic when comparing an 8'' f4 to say an f8 - a factor of near 4 times. Not focal length, focal ratio. The diffraction-limited field is how much of the field has aberrations smaller than the Airy disc. The magnitude of image aberrations in basically all telescopes (the only exception I can think off off hand is a Schmidt camera) increase the further from the optical axis you go. In Newtonians, for example, you can easily see that the further off axis you are, the larger the effect of coma. The region of a Newtonian which is diffraction limited basically means the region where the comatic star image is smaller than the diffraction disc. All else being equal, the larger the focal ratio, the less severe all aberrations will be, which is why a f/6 will have a larger diffraction-limited field than a f/4 of the same aperture. How can I translate this into something that means something to me... What is an Arcsecond and where exactly is it measured? Take for example a 8'' f4 Newt - does this mean my collmination of the light path from the primary to the secondary needs to be within a 100 arcseconds of where it is supposed to be? And how does that translate to something I can relate to? As I said, it has nothing to do with collimation. An arcsecond is an angle measure. There are 60 arcseconds in one arcminute. There are 60 arcminutes in one degree. A degree, as you're no doubt aware, is 1/360th of the trip around a circle. That's true no matter how large the circle is, which is why it's used to describe astronomical sizes. The moon subtends an angle of about 30 arcminutes. That means if you imagine a circle with you at the center, and the moon somewhere on the edge, you will sweep out an angle of one half of a degree in moving from one edge of the moon to the other. In describing the diffraction-limited field, the size on film (or CCD) is typically what's talked about. If you attached a 35mm camera to an 8" f/4 Newtonian, the field captured on film will be not quite 9300 arcseconds across (in the long dimension). A diffraction-limited field of 100 arcseconds means roughly the middle 1% of the image on 35mm film will be diffraction limited. In practice, film spot sizes are larger than Airy discs, so you wouldn't be that strict when using film. CCD spot sizes are a single pixel (until overexposed, anyway), so are a better fit for talking about diffraction limited fields. On a 14mm CCD, the field will be about 3600 arcseconds across (one full degree), so not quite 3% of the middle will be diffraction limited. With an 8" f/6 Newtonian (focal length 1200mm, instead of 800mm), the field on CCD would be about 2400 arcseconds. While the field is smaller, a larger part of it (over 10%) will be diffraction limited. For visual purposes, smaller focal ratios means stars look fuzzier closer to the center of the FOV. You may have to go quite far from the center to start noticing, however. -- - Mike Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 04:33 AM |
Telescope alignment in limited sky view places | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | November 19th 03 03:06 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |