[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: ATM John Sherman's concern with 22" Mirror



Actually, I didn't state the diffraction rings outside  focus are more well defined because the mirror hasn't reached thermal equalibrium.  In my estimation that would be nonsense.  What I said was interpretation of the diffraction rings inside focus was a virtual impossibility until my mirror cools down. Frankly, you'd be lucky to see diffraction rings at all.  However, once it cools off it yields sharply defined diffraction rings.  My ultimate reasons for responding to the original post are as follows:
 
a)  For a long time I was baffled(no pun intended) by the apparent inconsistency of my telescope to perform in the star test and in focus even when the seeing was "good".  As I experiemented and gradually increased the amount of air flow on the optic, it performed better and better to the point where it now performs at a level consistent with the excellent test data derived from the foucault tests.  An otherwise "excellent" mirror like this one could easily have been erroneously declared "bad" by the uninitiated because of it.  Therefore, based on my experience, its possible a large mirror like the one in question could very well be troubled by the thermal problems I experienced.
b)  I've come to strongly believe that thermal issues(especially with large thick mirrors) are an absolute VAMPIRE to these Newtonian's. Furthermore, I think the severity of thermal problems is largely underestimated by the majority of the people that own these large instuments, and for the most part those who attempt to abate the problem are not aggressive enough.
 
Alan Garcia