A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question - dealing with spherical ab in a cassegrain



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 3rd 11, 12:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
jwarner1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Question - dealing with spherical ab in a cassegrain

Simply put, does moving the eypiece position forward into the light cone

(toward the secondary) of a cassgrain system, have any effect in curing
or minimising
spherical aberration in cassegrain systems; the CAA 24" CAA Boller
Chivens is the
case in question.

This is the remedy Director of the CAA B&C, John Centala, has settled
on. John and
his colleagues John Leeson and Greg Frohner say this method was found in
some
mathematical treatise on cassegrain systems? (The exact reference
remains
'undisclosed'.).

Would moving the eyepiece forward into the light cone not be tantamount
to masking
the outer edge of the primary?

How would one determine which element in the system is causing the
'supposed'
spherical aberration?

(Note* After the telescope was assembled by those above I pointed out
that star
tests clearly indicated the secondary was being pinched. A year later,
the secondary
retainers were adjusted and stress relieved which resulted in improved
images but the
new claim of severe spherical aberration.)

Any comments appreciated.



..






  #2  
Old July 3rd 11, 05:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Question - dealing with spherical ab in a cassegrain

On 2011-07-03, jwarner1 wrote:
Simply put, does moving the eypiece position forward into the light cone

(toward the secondary) of a cassgrain system, have any effect in curing
or minimising
spherical aberration in cassegrain systems; the CAA 24" CAA Boller
Chivens is the
case in question.

This is the remedy Director of the CAA B&C, John Centala, has settled
on. John and
his colleagues John Leeson and Greg Frohner say this method was found in
some
mathematical treatise on cassegrain systems? (The exact reference
remains
'undisclosed'.).

Would moving the eyepiece forward into the light cone not be tantamount
to masking
the outer edge of the primary?

How would one determine which element in the system is causing the
'supposed'
spherical aberration?

(Note* After the telescope was assembled by those above I pointed out
that star
tests clearly indicated the secondary was being pinched. A year later,
the secondary
retainers were adjusted and stress relieved which resulted in improved
images but the
new claim of severe spherical aberration.)

Any comments appreciated.


The focal plane of the telescope and the focal plane of the eyepiece
must coincide for the telescope to be in focus - no ifs ands or buts.
You can't move the eyepiece "up into the light cone". The spacing between
the secondary and the primary on a classical cassegrainian telescope
has to be within a very tight range of only a few millimeters to avoid
spherical abberation. If fiddling with the secondary mount changed
the spacing between the hyperbolic secondary mirror and the parabolic
primary mirror too much the result would be spherical aberration.

Bud

  #3  
Old July 4th 11, 06:50 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
jwarner1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Question - dealing with spherical ab in a cassegrain



wrote:

On 2011-07-03, jwarner1 wrote:
Simply put, does moving the eypiece position forward into the light cone

(toward the secondary) of a cassgrain system, have any effect in curing
or minimising
spherical aberration in cassegrain systems; the CAA 24" CAA Boller
Chivens is the
case in question.

This is the remedy Director of the CAA B&C, John Centala, has settled
on. John and
his colleagues John Leeson and Greg Frohner say this method was found in
some
mathematical treatise on cassegrain systems? (The exact reference
remains
'undisclosed'.).

Would moving the eyepiece forward into the light cone not be tantamount
to masking
the outer edge of the primary?

How would one determine which element in the system is causing the
'supposed'
spherical aberration?

(Note* After the telescope was assembled by those above I pointed out
that star
tests clearly indicated the secondary was being pinched. A year later,
the secondary
retainers were adjusted and stress relieved which resulted in improved
images but the
new claim of severe spherical aberration.)

Any comments appreciated.


The focal plane of the telescope and the focal plane of the eyepiece
must coincide for the telescope to be in focus - no ifs ands or buts.
You can't move the eyepiece "up into the light cone". The spacing between
the secondary and the primary on a classical cassegrainian telescope
has to be within a very tight range of only a few millimeters to avoid
spherical abberation. If fiddling with the secondary mount changed
the spacing between the hyperbolic secondary mirror and the parabolic
primary mirror too much the result would be spherical aberration.

Bud


Thank you Bud. This makes sense. I have passed this on.
Jerry.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spherical trig help request Dave Typinski[_3_] Astronomy Misc 17 July 1st 09 08:27 AM
Schmidt-Cassegrain Question John Savard[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 29 November 14th 07 05:19 PM
Spherical Objects Matalog Amateur Astronomy 5 February 26th 06 11:48 PM
QUESTION HELP needed on a Celestron Cassegrain Gordon Gekko IDCC on the Nasdaq Amateur Astronomy 16 August 23rd 03 07:20 AM
Maksutov Cassegrain question Roger Hamlett Amateur Astronomy 2 July 29th 03 07:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.