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

Re: [ATM] New site

Ken Hunter wrote:

>It's the cost of the glass that makes the Houghton not acceptable to most ATM's.<

Not versus Maksutov corrector. Still, Maksutov is more
popular in both ATM and commercial arena. What is it 
about it? Is it that if you make 1mm error in one of the two
radii, you have a disaster? And the same 1mm radius error 
will not produce discernible aberration with the Houghton.
Or because 1mm error in the thickness for given radii makes 
the Maksutov unacceptable, while having no effect with the 
Houghton? Or because it always has more uncorrectable 
residual spherical than either Schmidt of Houghton? Or 
because relatively small lower-order spherical in the 
Houghton can be cancelled with adeqate element spacing, 
while there is no way to do it with the Maksutov? 
Hope this doesn't sound as anti-Maksutov campaign; 
those are simply the facts.

Vlad
_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/