|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What happened to the Classical Cassegrain?
All mainstream scopes now seem to have
found a place, but not the Classical Cassegrain. There are the Taks, but they are Dall-Kirkhams. Some outstanding shots seem to be taken by people with expensive, large ones, but there are no mainstream units out there. -Rich |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Unfortunately, for the visual observer, most of the commercially made RC's
are relatively fast (f8) which dictates a large CO. The D&G 20" CC is f16 with a 25% CO. A visual side by side of a 20" D&G CC with a 20" RC would be interesting! "John Savard" wrote in message ... The Ritchey-Chretien. Amateurs may grind Dall-Kirkham telescopes themselves because it is easier to do so than to make a classical Cassegrain. Originally, the Dall-Kirkham was popular because the ellipsoidal secondary was difficult to test, but a method of dealing with that was discovered. The thing is, though, that if you're in a position to make a classical Cassegrain, you can also make a Ritchey-Chretien, which corrects coma as well as spherical aberration - so there's no real reason not to go all the way. John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
But can an R-C be made with a reasonable sized secondary?
Seems like most of them from the past were setup for imaging and had large secondary mirrors. -Rich I thought the large secondary was inharent in the design and indeed necessary to achieve the correction. I also thought that main advantage was that it was possible to deconvolve the image rather easily making the R-C ideal for photography but not necessarily visual work.. jon |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Back in the days of old (pre-PC controlled) I built a very nice 12.5-inch
f/30 Classical Cass with a 2-inch secondary. Images were great. Before light pollution rendered my DSO's in my sky completely flooded out that telescope presented nice DSO's as well as planetary images. I considered a 16-inch f/50 before building my long Newt. Would have been nice me thinks. Good thing about long F/R Cass's is the depth of focus and nearly flat field near the center. Dusty "Jon Isaacs" wrote in message ... But can an R-C be made with a reasonable sized secondary? Seems like most of them from the past were setup for imaging and had large secondary mirrors. -Rich I thought the large secondary was inharent in the design and indeed necessary to achieve the correction. I also thought that main advantage was that it was possible to deconvolve the image rather easily making the R-C ideal for photography but not necessarily visual work.. jon |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dusty wrote:
Back in the days of old (pre-PC controlled) I built a very nice 12.5-inch f/30 Classical Cass with a 2-inch secondary. Images were great. Before light pollution rendered my DSO's in my sky completely flooded out that telescope presented nice DSO's as well as planetary images. I considered a 16-inch f/50 before building my long Newt. Would have been nice me thinks. Good thing about long F/R Cass's is the depth of focus and nearly flat field near the center. I have an 8" f/15 CC. It weighs 22 lbs - OTA+focuser+finder. I'm thinking of selling it because it's too heavy for my GP mount, and I can't afford something big enough to carry it. It gives great views of the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn. Once in a while, I will put it on a dob mount and look at the Moon. Wish I could use it properly. Eric. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
very nice summary. Collimation sometimes proved a little tricky
for amateurs. At higher f-numbers integrity of optical surfaces becomes an issue if homemade. One of the best large format cass makers was Edward Plamondon of the Lunar Planetary Lab. He made some real beaut's but they are very rare. Clif wrote: lid (John Savard) wrote in message ... The Ritchey-Chretien. Amateurs may grind Dall-Kirkham telescopes themselves because it is easier to do so than to make a classical Cassegrain. Originally, the Dall-Kirkham was popular because the ellipsoidal secondary was difficult to test, but a method of dealing with that was discovered. The thing is, though, that if you're in a position to make a classical Cassegrain, you can also make a Ritchey-Chretien, which corrects coma as well as spherical aberration - so there's no real reason not to go all the way. The Dall-Kirkham has a spherical secondary and an ellipsoidal primary, both of which are much easier to make (and test) zone free than the hyperboloid/paraboloid set of the classical Cass or the more extreme surfaces (both hyperboloidal) of the Ritchey-Chretien. Large obscurations are not inherent in any of the Cass type designs. They arise because of the need to achieve fast systems (small f/ratios) and wide fields for photography. Any of the Cassegrain designs can be made with an arbitrarily small obscuration just by going to a long focal ratio like f/25 or f/30. A Dall-Kirkham of this type makes an excellent planetary telescope and has a completely negligible coma over the complete (but small) field of view. Clif Ashcraft |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote in message . ..
But can an R-C be made with a reasonable sized secondary? Seems like most of them from the past were setup for imaging and had large secondary mirrors. -Rich Yes, an RC can be made with a small secondary, but by the time you are operating slower than F/10 there is no particular advantage to the RC design over a (slightly easier to execute) Classical Cass. But the advantages an RC brings to the table are best expressed in a wide field scope. If you are going to do an RC why not make it wide? Conversely, if you are going to make a long focal ratio Cass, why not make it CC or even DK? The RC has to have a slightly larger secondary in order to obey the sine condition (coma free). There is a nice picture illustrating the differences in "Reflecting Telescope Optics" R. Wilson Book 1 in easy to visualize geometric form. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
digest 2453240 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 38 | September 15th 04 02:18 AM |
digest 2453183 | Frederick Shorts | Astronomy Misc | 3 | July 1st 04 08:29 PM |
What do you think happened to Beagle? | Elysium Fossa | UK Astronomy | 4 | January 10th 04 10:13 AM |
OA Newt, Ultima 8-PEC better views than 16" Classical Cass | Stephen Paul | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | September 11th 03 06:04 PM |