|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ASTRO: eyepiece help (orthoscopic)
I have an old 9mm celestron ortho that I just took apart. All the
diagrams I've seen of eyepieces show this lens configuration as Plossl. Are celeston orthos really plossls? It's a pair of cemented doublets. Also, if you happen to know the order they go in, drop me a line. I have one cemented pair slightly larger than the other, a spacer and two baffles (one wide and one narrow). Thanks! -- Adriano |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ASTRO: eyepiece help (orthoscopic)
Adriano wrote: I have an old 9mm celestron ortho that I just took apart. All the diagrams I've seen of eyepieces show this lens configuration as Plossl. Are celeston orthos really plossls? It's a pair of cemented doublets. Also, if you happen to know the order they go in, drop me a line. I have one cemented pair slightly larger than the other, a spacer and two baffles (one wide and one narrow). Thanks! Orthos I have all are a three element field lens and single eye lens. Determining which is end of the triplet goes toward the mirror is difficult. In theory it is the fatter of the two double convex lenses. First time I take mine apart I put an arrow on the side pointing to the objective. If that wears off I'm in trouble. The less convex side of the eye lens goes toward the eye. Symmetrical or plossl are doublets. Symmetrical are, well symmetrical so both lens pairs are the same, convex to convex. In a plossl the field lens is often larger than the eye lens. Also the objective side of the field lens is flat to concave and often thicker (not by much) than the eye lens. The flat side of the eye lens goes toward the eye. The convex lenses of each pair face each other. But there's so many variations out there, sounds like you have one of those. I can't say what the Celestron version is like. We got one with the C14 at Hyde in the mid 70's. It was awful and is never used. It was the only ortho I ever saw that was lousy. Even some cheap ones I saw were excellent. I've seen far better Kelners than that Celestron Ortho we got. I never took it apart to see what was inside. Since you are still using yours it obviously is a much improved version than ours so likely wouldn't help to open it up. The doublet arrangement sounds like a plossl design to me. See this URL for diagrams. http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/science/opt04.htm As a side note, my ortho's work best for eyepiece projection if they are used upside down. That is, with the objective side toward the film or CCD. I get far less curvature and edge distortion that way. But then I never took a Jupiter as clear as the one you just posted so you're way ahead of me! Rick -- Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct. Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh". |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ASTRO: eyepiece help (orthoscopic)
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:04:53 -0800, Adriano
wrote: I have an old 9mm celestron ortho that I just took apart. All the diagrams I've seen of eyepieces show this lens configuration as Plossl. Are celeston orthos really plossls? It's a pair of cemented doublets. Also, if you happen to know the order they go in, drop me a line. I have one cemented pair slightly larger than the other, a spacer and two baffles (one wide and one narrow). Usually the field lens is larger than the eye lens. The recess in the eye cap of the eyepiece should give you a clue as to which lens goes there. The crown faces of the lenses probably face each other. A little trial and error might be called for. Bud -- The night is just the shadow of the Earth. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ASTRO: eyepiece help (orthoscopic)
Thanks for the help Rick. The two cemented elements are the same
thickness but one has a larger diameter (barely) than the other. It is a very sharp ortho indeed. The image I recently posted is horrible compared to last year's best: http://edmar-co.com/adriano/astro/As...24_collage.jpg As far as I can tell, this ortho is definitely a plossl design. It's an old one from about '81 and is tack sharp. I reassebled it wrong and my magnification went down, I tried to fix it, following the standard plossl flat-sides-out larger lens to field, but it's all cloudy now I'll definitely try it upside down when I get the chance. Rick Johnson wrote: Adriano wrote: I have an old 9mm celestron ortho that I just took apart. All the diagrams I've seen of eyepieces show this lens configuration as Plossl. Are celeston orthos really plossls? It's a pair of cemented doublets. Also, if you happen to know the order they go in, drop me a line. I have one cemented pair slightly larger than the other, a spacer and two baffles (one wide and one narrow). Thanks! Orthos I have all are a three element field lens and single eye lens. Determining which is end of the triplet goes toward the mirror is difficult. In theory it is the fatter of the two double convex lenses. First time I take mine apart I put an arrow on the side pointing to the objective. If that wears off I'm in trouble. The less convex side of the eye lens goes toward the eye. Symmetrical or plossl are doublets. Symmetrical are, well symmetrical so both lens pairs are the same, convex to convex. In a plossl the field lens is often larger than the eye lens. Also the objective side of the field lens is flat to concave and often thicker (not by much) than the eye lens. The flat side of the eye lens goes toward the eye. The convex lenses of each pair face each other. But there's so many variations out there, sounds like you have one of those. I can't say what the Celestron version is like. We got one with the C14 at Hyde in the mid 70's. It was awful and is never used. It was the only ortho I ever saw that was lousy. Even some cheap ones I saw were excellent. I've seen far better Kelners than that Celestron Ortho we got. I never took it apart to see what was inside. Since you are still using yours it obviously is a much improved version than ours so likely wouldn't help to open it up. The doublet arrangement sounds like a plossl design to me. See this URL for diagrams. http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/science/opt04.htm As a side note, my ortho's work best for eyepiece projection if they are used upside down. That is, with the objective side toward the film or CCD. I get far less curvature and edge distortion that way. But then I never took a Jupiter as clear as the one you just posted so you're way ahead of me! Rick -- Adriano http://www.edmar-co.com/adriano/ 34°14'11.7"N "Contrary to all the evidence at hand, the entire universe is composed of only two substances: Magic and Bull****" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Baader Genuine Orthoscopic Eyepieces | Glen Baker | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | March 29th 05 04:59 AM |
Orthoscopic FOV ? | John Carruthers | Amateur Astronomy | 15 | March 16th 05 07:39 AM |
Orthoscopic FOV ? | John Carruthers | UK Astronomy | 5 | March 14th 05 05:17 PM |
orthoscopic EPs ? | John Carruthers | UK Astronomy | 0 | May 8th 04 11:30 AM |
Orthoscopic eyepiece question | Joe S. | Amateur Astronomy | 39 | July 29th 03 07:51 PM |