#1  
Old 15-04-2018, 10:03 AM
garymck (Gary)
Registered User

garymck is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Geelong
Posts: 788
Interferometry Tests

Haven't seen this link before:
http://fidgor.narod.ru/Observers/test.html

Moscow Astro Society optics lab, apparently very reliable "take no prisoners" tests.

Horrifying results even allowing for the fact that the scope sample may represent unhappy owners...

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 15-04-2018, 12:18 PM
casstony
Registered User

casstony is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warragul, Vic
Posts: 4,493
There's a bit of variety there Gary; which tests in particular do you find horrifying?

Strehl ~ 0.9 is ok in a cheaper instrument. I wouldn't be happy paying Tak prices for 0.9 strehl though.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 15-04-2018, 12:38 PM
garymck (Gary)
Registered User

garymck is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Geelong
Posts: 788
Have a look at the Skywatcher Newt tests, a couple of good ones and a heap of horrifying ones - down to one wave accuracy..... Not sure I'd buy a mass produce scope any more...

The sample may be skewed though, as those who are happy may not bother to have them tested.

How about a TOA 150 that is barely 1/4 wave?

cheers
Gary
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15-04-2018, 12:59 PM
casstony
Registered User

casstony is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warragul, Vic
Posts: 4,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by garymck View Post
Have a look at the Skywatcher Newt tests, a couple of good ones and a heap of horrifying ones - cheers
Gary
I didn't see the categories below the refractors, maybe for the best

It's a little disconcerting that they'd let such poor mirrors go to retail.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 15-04-2018, 01:07 PM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Many interesting things in that lot.

First the Meade/Celestron SCT results consistently in the range strehl 0.7...0.9; makes a mockery of some of the claims over at Cloudynights.

Secondly there’s a TS 130/910 APO at at 0.957 yet another at 0.77... ok it’s only a sample of 2 but consistency could be a problem... good ones and bad ones...

But check out all the maks from Intes/Intes-Micro... all well above 0.9 and one at 0.97.

And lastly the camera lenses ... including an old MTO 10/1000 telephoto (0.4)

Last edited by Wavytone; 15-04-2018 at 01:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15-04-2018, 01:30 PM
Stefan Buda
Registered User

Stefan Buda is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Posts: 823
Interesting.
The only premium astrograph I could find on their list was an ODK16, which was so bad that it was impossible to put a figure on it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 15-04-2018, 02:35 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,980
With the vast array of newtonians in that list, I do wonder how many had poor results purely from the secondary mirror?

You hear a lot about how consistently the 8-12” primaries are these days due to producing tens of thousands of them.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 15-04-2018, 02:57 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
Interesting that the SW ED80's come through pretty well, Strehl 0.97
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 15-04-2018, 03:27 PM
DarkArts
Registered User

DarkArts is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66 View Post
Interesting that the SW ED80's come through pretty well, Strehl 0.97
Yes, I noticed that, too. (... as he looks admiringly at his own gold tube ED80 sitting in the corner ...)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 15-04-2018, 03:37 PM
DarkArts
Registered User

DarkArts is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavytone View Post
First the Meade/Celestron SCT results consistently in the range strehl 0.7...0.9; makes a mockery of some of the claims over at Cloudynights.
That was a tad concerning, and I looked very closely at the Celestrons. On the other hand, my grey tube C14 gives me the best planetary views I've yet seen at the eyepiece. Maybe I have a good example, or maybe I just need to look through a few good scopes for comparison?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 15-04-2018, 03:50 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is online now
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
I have Rubinar10/1000..
After "relaxing" the main mirror, it was much better performer (it suffered from astigmatism, induced by primary mounting ring and silicone rubber). Not sure about numerical improvement, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 15-04-2018, 05:09 PM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Hi Bojan, Many years ago I had an MTO 10/100, very heavy with a two-element Maksutov corrector that must have had the best part of 40mm solid glass up front.

Like yours the primary mirror retaining ring had been screwed up by some Russian gorilla and after releasing that it was optically much improved, but still quite inferior to the little Meade 4” f/10 SCT I had at the time.

When I’m home later this week I’ll try to make a Foucault-gram of the Santel and compare with the interferogram that came with it. It’s strehl is supposed to be 0.965 so will be interesting to see.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 15-04-2018, 08:24 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,388
Santel tests TERRIBLY: http://fidgor.narod.ru/Observers/Test/test_280.html

Really...terrible. Sell yours Wavy...to me
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 15-04-2018, 08:49 PM
billdan's Avatar
billdan (Bill)
Registered User

billdan is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Narangba, SE QLD
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Buda View Post
Interesting.
The only premium astrograph I could find on their list was an ODK16, which was so bad that it was impossible to put a figure on it.
Not surprising when you read some of the horror stories on Cloudy nights about their bad quality control.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16-04-2018, 02:43 PM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Lewis you will have a very long wait

Last edited by Wavytone; 16-04-2018 at 03:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement