|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Sunday, 5 July 2015 01:22:31 UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 17:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 11:09:47 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote: There is nothing stopping someone from making a "refractonian" where the refractor element replaces the top-end of the Newtonian and the primary mirror becomes a flat. I absolutely agree that one should not tolerate central obstruction unless one absolutely has to - and in a refractor, one doesn't. John Savard In a reflector, a central obstruction isn't absolute necessary either. William Herschel knew that. But, a central obstruction of 15% or less apparently has no impact on the image that can be seen. Or so I've heard. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Sunday, 5 July 2015 08:38:26 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 July 2015 01:22:31 UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 17:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 11:09:47 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote: There is nothing stopping someone from making a "refractonian" where the refractor element replaces the top-end of the Newtonian and the primary mirror becomes a flat. I absolutely agree that one should not tolerate central obstruction unless one absolutely has to - and in a refractor, one doesn't. John Savard In a reflector, a central obstruction isn't absolute necessary either. William Herschel knew that. But, a central obstruction of 15% or less apparently has no impact on the image that can be seen. Or so I've heard. A very small central obstruction can only be achieved by adopting a longer focus more typical of the modern, achromatic refractor. Short, fast Newtonians need much larger flats than the more "ungainly" [out of fashion] longer ones or they no longer utilise their full aperture. The demand is for compact instruments which are easy to store and quickly brought into use when the whim takes the owner. Only the very keen and/or relatively affluent will afford and use a large reflector or refractor. Protection from the weather becomes a serious headache. Dismantling/re-assembly/re-collimation places serious hurdles between the observer and regular use. Observatories are nice but bring their own thermal/humidity problems. Most refractors suffer from lack of aperture. Only small ones are relatively cheap. A small APO suffers from exactly the same lack of aperture regardless of cost or design. Longer achromats [and APOs] help to reduce colour errors, work with cheap eyepieces with comfortably long eye relief to still provide high powers. They also place the objective higher above ground's normal thermal effects in falling temperatures. Offset paraboloids are not normal fare and are far more difficult to make well by mass production techniques. They would need to be slow/long to reduce introduced errors by being offset. Placing the observer under the objective, or at the tube opening, is a *very* bad idea. The Springfield places the observer under the tube and forces a fixed eyepiece orientation. Which might well cause problems with floaters in the [typically] older owner. Fortunately, optical flats can now be made highly reflective and thermally stable to a [potentially] high optical standard. So Herschel's struggles with low reflectivity speculum metals and constant re-polishing and re-figuring and re-collimating *in a very damp environment* are no longer necessary. Almost every possible instrument design has been tried and all suffer from their own advantages and disadvantages in use. An ultra-lightweight, all-plastic, unobstructed, flat field, zero colour refractor, of 10-12" aperture and only twice the length, would be quite a nice toy. Except that it would need exotic eyepieces/Barlows to achieve higher powers. Which are likely to need multiple elements with slight loss of ultimate resolution and light at each surface. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 23:38:25 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: I absolutely agree that one should not tolerate central obstruction unless one absolutely has to - and in a refractor, one doesn't. John Savard In a reflector, a central obstruction isn't absolute necessary either. William Herschel knew that. But, a central obstruction of 15% or less apparently has no impact on the image that can be seen. Or so I've heard. That depends on how carefully you look, or on how sensitive your camera is. Causal observers will gladly accept large central obstructions. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 2:37:43 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Yes, I was around when the "boomers" got into astronomy. The ads of people sipping white wine, with blazing lights on, "observing," in a Celestron catalog...But, achromats haven't changed, they still have the same colour error and you are right, they are cheap, which allows a less discerning clientele to buy them than those who bought Unitrons. In the "old days" Jaegers sold refractor objectives in short focal lengths up to about six-inches aperture. Most "yuppies" (not all boomers are yuppies) weren't interested in building telescopes, but a few were interested in commercial telescopes for their "bling" factor and the "status" that might confer upon them in certain circles. You've probably run into a few such creatures, here and in real life. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 3:25:02 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
Most refractors suffer from lack of aperture. ALL telescopes suffer from a lack of aperture. It's just that the problem is MUCH easier to ameliorate by using Newtonian reflectors, especially Dobs, than with most other telescopes, with the possible exception of the 8-inch SCT. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 1:09:47 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Springfield design refractor? There is nothing stopping someone from making a "refractonian" where the refractor element replaces the top-end of the Newtonian and the primary mirror becomes a flat. The secondary mirror could be mounted on a stalk glued on the back surface of the objective or mounted on a traditional spider. Collimation would either have to be permanent (glued stalk) with the large flat being the tiltable component, or there would have to be a door in the scope tube to permit collimation from the side. But then you'd have to wonder if building a traditional Newtonian might just be a better idea, since the refractor would be obstructed. Seems to me thought that the moment you introduce mirrors (plural) any advantage to the refractor diminishes or disappears. I wrote in another thread: "A 12-inch f/6 Newt is probably worth the trouble, a 6-inch f/12 refractor is probably NOT worth the trouble." |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 1:02:40 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 4 July 2015 09:03:55 UTC-4, wrote: An 8-inch f/18 refractor is going to be an expensive, cumbersome monster no matter what you try. Fold it in half and one still has at least a six foot OTA with which to contend. There are potential collimation problems that might prove to be chronic. A flat large enough to fold such a scope is going to be expensive too. Mirrors tend to scatter more light.... Achromats make great small scopes... mid- to large-sized, not so much. People are more tolerant of faster achros today than 30 years ago. No one would have wanted to use a 120mm f/8.0 achromat in the time of Unitron owing to colour error. Today, some are willing to tolerate 150mm f/5.0 achromats which is beyond me. Short focus achromats have become relatively cheap, so the "what the h***, I'll get one!" factor comes into play more often. In the "old days" most people would have seen a comparably priced 8- to 10-inch Newtonian as a better use of scarce funds. And of course, people have always tolerated such fast achromats in binocular form. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 10:22:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In a reflector, a central obstruction isn't absolute necessary either. William Herschel knew that. That's certainly true, but off-axis designs have their own set of headaches, which one might choose to avoid. John Savard |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 07:15:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote: On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 10:22:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote: In a reflector, a central obstruction isn't absolute necessary either. William Herschel knew that. That's certainly true, but off-axis designs have their own set of headaches, which one might choose to avoid. John Savard There are reflectors without central obstructions which aren't off-axis designs. Decades ago, the ATM column in S&T described a Gregorian reflector where both the primary and the secondary mirrors were cut in half and then moved away sideways from one another by an amount just enough to make that telescope a big binocular Gregorian reflector with no obstruction in the optical path. The entrance apertures of each half of that binocular scope will then of course be a semi-circle rather than a full circle, but that scope was nevertheless an interesting example of a reflector without any central obstruction. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Enviro-mentality disease hits Takahashi, the new scope
On Sunday, 5 July 2015 11:25:32 UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 07:15:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 10:22:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote: In a reflector, a central obstruction isn't absolute necessary either. William Herschel knew that. That's certainly true, but off-axis designs have their own set of headaches, which one might choose to avoid. John Savard There are reflectors without central obstructions which aren't off-axis designs. Decades ago, the ATM column in S&T described a Gregorian reflector where both the primary and the secondary mirrors were cut in half and then moved away sideways from one another by an amount just enough to make that telescope a big binocular Gregorian reflector with no obstruction in the optical path. The entrance apertures of each half of that binocular scope will then of course be a semi-circle rather than a full circle, but that scope was nevertheless an interesting example of a reflector without any central obstruction. I can't believe any non-obstructed reflector system allows you to get off "scott-free" from problems. I remember Orion's oblique unobstructed 6" thinking, "the light is hitting the mirror surface at an angle other than perpendicular or 45 degrees, so what is the penalty?" Of course, they never said. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Harley for the Enviro-Whackos ... | Hägar | Misc | 7 | July 4th 14 08:07 PM |
More Fodder for the Enviro-Whackos | Brad Guth[_3_] | Misc | 0 | July 23rd 13 02:10 AM |
Dangerous Mentality | Yuto Shinagawa | Space Shuttle | 1 | July 12th 05 03:58 PM |
Enviro-looneys versus "Chemcam" | RichA | Amateur Astronomy | 17 | June 17th 05 12:20 PM |
No room for Star Trek mentality that destroys lives | stargazer | Space Shuttle | 4 | October 2nd 03 01:24 AM |