Re: coma, coma, coma

Steve Strickland (lensnut@tpoint.net)
Tue, 2 May 1995 03:01:02 -0500

>I've got a question about coma in Newtonian reflectors.
>From what I've read and seen (in my 10in. f4.6) coma is an
>optical problem effecting the edge of the field in fast
>Newtonians. My question is: Is coma inherent in the
>Newtonian relector's design or is it a figuring error in the
>primary mirror? If I were to grind a perfect mirror at any
>f ratio would I still have coma? Does coma tend to occur in
>large, fast Newtonians because their mirrors are harder to
>figure than long focal length mirrors?
>
>Just curious (and hoping to someday regrind my 10" to get
>rid of that nasty coma!)

Coma is a geometric defect of the paraboloid. Please consider: light rays striking a paraboloid centrally and on-axis see a perfectly symetrical figure and form an essentially perfect diffraction spot. Rays that come in off-axis see a non symetrical figure and form a distorted diffraction spot. The optical axis of a paraboloid is unique while a sphere has many optical axes.

This is the essential reason behind the search for an all-spherical optical system. Not because spheroids are easier to fabricate than paraboloids, but because they appear symetrical to a much larger number (but not all) of incoming light rays. The Maksutov and Houghtons as well as the FKO family of refractor doublets plus the Christen triplet are all well developed attempts to achieve off-axis symetry.

This is a very meaningful question you pose, one that goes right to the heart of optical design over the last 50 years.

--
Steve Strickland
Lensnut@tpoint.net