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

[ATM] Re: Vignetting at the focuser, Crayford protrusion...

To: atm@atmlist.net
Subject: [ATM] Re: Vignetting at the focuser, Crayford protrusion...
From: Vladimir Sacek <vladis.2@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 07:59:03 -0400
List-Archive: <http://home.simoivanov.com/pipermail/atm>
List-Help: <mailto:atm-request@atmlist.net?subject=help>
List-Id: The Amateur Telescope Makers List <atm.atmlist.net>
List-Post: <mailto:atm@atmlist.net>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.atmlist.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/atm>,<mailto:atm-request@atmlist.net?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.atmlist.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/atm>,<mailto:atm-request@atmlist.net?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: atm-bounces@atmlist.net

Given F#, focuser tube length/i.d. and linear field, vignetting at the
focuser is independent of aperture size. Newt seems to have some glitches
in its "thinking": moving the focuser away from the diagonal obviously
changes nothing in this respect; only change in the drawtube length does.

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

Prev by Author: Re: [ATM] pitch lap question
Next by Author: [ATM] Re:Satisfying "Millies-Lacroix" is neither necessary norsufficient for "diffraction-limited" performance
Prev by thread: [ATM] re: Telescope making supplies
Next by thread: [ATM] re:First Pitch Lap
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread