[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ATM] A Null Test
Richard;
So how does this compare to the Ross Null Test? Advantages? Disadvantages?
Is it more accurate? Does it cover a wider range of conic constants? f#s?
The example prescription given is for conic constant=-1.2 and f/2.5. Do the
lens separations need to be adjusted for each change in cc and/or f#? Since
this has more than 10 surfaces, those of us who use OSLO-LT will have
difficulty.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: atm-bounces@atmlist.net [mailto:atm-bounces@atmlist.net] On Behalf Of
Richard F.L.R. Snashall
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 10:36 PM
To: ATM List
Subject: [ATM] A Null Test
I thought I'd present some early findings...
...
The basic layout of the test is similar to a Ross Null Test in that the
light passes through the three lenses on both the forward and return
directions (See Peter Ceravolo's article.). For these setups, I selected a
500 mm diameter mirror with conic constants of -0.8 to -1.2.
This range of conics constants cover most of several designs:
Ritchey-Chretien (both Cassegrain and Gregorian), Classical Cassegrain, and
Newtonian. The LPX309 planoconvex lens is nearest the source/knife with the
LPK065 planoconcave lens in the middle. An example prescription
is:
Surf Radius Thickness Glass Diameter Conic Note
OBJ 298.476 76.2331 4 0 source
1 Infinity 10.4 BK7 95 0 LPX309
2 -155.62 29.31369 95 0
3 Infinity 3 BK7 94.2 0 LPK065
4 311.2356 35.82609 94.2 0
5 Infinity 14.1 BK7 101.6 0 LPX303
6 -131.75 2035.169 101.6 0
STO Infinity 12.49376 500 0 stop at
mirror edge
8 -2500 -12.49376 MIRROR 500 -1.2 mirror
9 Infinity -2035.169 500 0
10 -131.75 -14.1 BK7 98.14704 0 LPX303
11 Infinity -35.82609 96.33898 0
12 311.2356 -3 BK7 75.90638 0 LPK065
13 Infinity -29.31369 74.31415 0
14 -155.62 -10.4 BK7 59.47545 0 LPX309
15 Infinity -76.2331 56.18785 0
IMA 298.476 4.009802 0 knife
...
_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/