Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 15-10-2019, 07:51 PM
Jethro777 (Jethro)
Registered User

Jethro777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 122
Secondary Mirror recoat (now a discussion about minimum secondary size)

I have a lovely 110mm reflector with a 28/38mm secondary, where the secondary is getting a bit degraded.
Is there a place that can recoat the small secondary for me?
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (IMG_5189.JPG)
78.3 KB39 views

Last edited by Jethro777; 26-10-2019 at 09:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 15-10-2019, 08:17 PM
dannat's Avatar
dannat (Daniel)
daniel

dannat is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Macedon shire, Australia
Posts: 3,380
prob easier buy a cheap one
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 15-10-2019, 08:25 PM
Jethro777 (Jethro)
Registered User

Jethro777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 122
I am thinking the same - but I don't want a cheap one - I want a good one.
Yes, what do you reckon, it needs replacing?
How good do mirrors get as far as reflectivity is concerned? 94%?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15-10-2019, 09:56 PM
Wavytone (Nick)
BigBanger

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,027
Dielectric - 99%
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16-10-2019, 05:48 AM
Jethro777 (Jethro)
Registered User

Jethro777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 122
Where can you get good dielectric secondaries?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16-10-2019, 06:04 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,950
I would wash it first.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16-10-2019, 06:27 AM
Jethro777 (Jethro)
Registered User

Jethro777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 122
Hey Bojan,
I don't think it will go by washing... Did you see the picture? Seems to be a scratched mirror with some side degradation to me. The primary, strangely enough is great.
Was also thinking a GSO which is 93, but hoping for something a bit better. I need a 27x38mm.
I managed to find a nice Intes Micro one, but it's 24mm
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16-10-2019, 06:37 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,950
Still.. try with soaking it with tap water (slow drip), then apply mild dishwashing detergent and after that rinse it with demineralised water..

It may be quite OK (until you find adequate repacement).
Secondary is usually damaged while attemting to colimate with greasy fingers...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 16-10-2019, 06:57 AM
dannat's Avatar
dannat (Daniel)
daniel

dannat is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Macedon shire, Australia
Posts: 3,380
a good one from telescopes-astronomy in sa is about 60-65, average ones 35ish, orion optics uk sell decent ones but with post/exchange rate they are over 100

Last edited by dannat; 16-10-2019 at 09:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 16-10-2019, 08:27 AM
mura_gadi (Steve)
Registered User

mura_gadi is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Canberra
Posts: 14
Hello,

I was going to suggest Orion optics as well, they have a good list of secondary mirrors.

This article on secondary size for planetary and DSO/ visual and astrophotography applications is worth a read as well if your looking to change secondaries anyway.
https://garyseronik.com/sizing-up-th...ian-secondary/



S.

Last edited by mura_gadi; 16-10-2019 at 08:46 AM. Reason: link
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 16-10-2019, 09:47 AM
Saturnine (Jeff)
Registered User

Saturnine is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 932
GSO 28mm Minor Axis Secondaries are available from Andrews Com and Bintel for $29 and $39 respectively or you could try calling Mathew at Telescopes & Astronomy in S.A. or Claude at Astronomy & Electronics, also in S.A. as they list secondaries among their stock, maybe have to order in though !
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16-10-2019, 10:32 AM
Jethro777 (Jethro)
Registered User

Jethro777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 122
Great link there Steve, Gary explains it so so well.
And thanks for the references everyone to where I might hunt one down.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 18-10-2019, 04:14 PM
JohnF (John)
Member

JohnF is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Nimbin NSW Australia
Posts: 82
In another thread I gave a link to a youtube on re-silvering mirrors -- My secondary is also in bad condition.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 25-10-2019, 06:06 PM
Jethro777 (Jethro)
Registered User

Jethro777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 122
I may need some math/logic help here, if someone could help? - The end purpose, is to calculate the minimum secondary size.

Quote:
A good place to start in your quest for the ideal secondary mirror is by figuring the absolute minimum diagonal size that will catch all the converging light rays from the telescope’s primary mirror. To make this simple calculation, you need two numbers: the primary mirror’s focal ratio (f) and the distance from the secondary mirror to the focal plane (L). The focal ratio is simply the telescope’s focal length divided by the diameter of the primary mirror. For example, an 8-inch mirror with a 48-inch focal length would have an f/ratio of 6, or f/6 as it is usually expressed.

To determine L, you need to locate the focal plane. You can find it by removing the eyepiece and projecting an image of the Moon (or a daylight object at infinity) onto a small square of tracing paper taped over the end of the focuser. (A layer of frosted tape will also work for this.) Rack the focuser in and out for best sharpness and measure the distance from the paper to the center of the tube — this is L.
Okay..

So, I'm working this out for a Type 1 (1992) TAL reflector. So, it has a 110mm primary, currently has a 27x38mm secondary, and the official ratio I see around is f/7.3 (but there are two TAL versions - one original - one a later model white one, with a shorter tube which I don't have). (The scope is discussed here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/4...ian-from-1990/ - At the end of the article, Andie Howie describes some of the differences between this and the later version).

I raised the primary mirror in the tube 28mm, and the distance from the primary to the center of the secondary mirror is now 66cm (26"). This allows modern 1.25" eyepieces to be used.

"L"

The focal plane on a TAL is interesting. I need a moon or something, then need to project it onto tracing paper in the eyepiece holder without an eyepiece? I guess I can do that, currently, moonrise is a little late. For arguments sake,m let's imagine it's 13.5cm (5,3") - that's with the focuser about half way, and I can adjust/update the formula once I understand how it works.

How do I put all that together correctly, to find the minimum secondary size?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 26-10-2019, 08:15 AM
RPT (Mark)
Registered User

RPT is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South East Melbourne
Posts: 5
Jethro,

Mel Bartels "Newtonian Telescope Designer" web page may be helpful.

https://www.bbastrodesigns.com/NewtD....html#diagonal

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 26-10-2019, 09:20 AM
Jethro777 (Jethro)
Registered User

Jethro777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 122
What is the focal ratio of my scope?
I have heard it doesn't change - it's fixed - so that would make it f/7.3 - but I have raised the primary mirror 28mm - so does that make it change for the purposes of calculating a secondary mirror size?

I calculated it now - it seems to still be f/7.3
26" to the secondary, then 5.3" from the secondary to the focal plane.
The primary is 4.3".
So, 26"+5.3"=31.3"
So, 31.3 divide by 4.3 = 7.27

After plugging it all in, it seems as though the current mirror (1.1") is too small by far. The recommendation seems to be - (according to bbastrodesigns anyway) 1.83"

I'm comparing that with the page from Gary. He says it's L divided by F.

f = Telescope’s focal length divided by the diameter of the primary mirror) (in my case, 7.3)
L= Distance from the center of the tube to the focal plane (In my case, 5.3")

5.3 divided by 7.3 = .726??

Now even more confused, lol.. C'mon - what have I done wrong?

Last edited by Jethro777; 26-10-2019 at 09:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 26-10-2019, 10:04 AM
Saturnine (Jeff)
Registered User

Saturnine is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 932
Hi Jethro

Use this Newt for the Web calculator to work out your scopes dimensions.

https://stellafane.org/tm/newt-web/newt-web.html

The focal length of your scope doesn't change by moving the mirrors, the focal length is governed by the radius of curvature of the primary mirror which doesn't change unless you regrind the mirror. By moving the primary up the tube , all you are doing is moving the point of focus further outside the tube, as reflected by the secondary.
What also happens then is that not all the light from the primary is being concentrated on to the secondary. Some light will pass it and go straight out the front of the tube so you're effectively losing aperture. Your focuser will need to rack out an extra 28mm for focus to be reached. Doesn't matter if they are the original TAL eyepieces with a 32mm barrel or the standard 31.7mm ( 1.25" ) of most common eyepieces , the focal plane of the scope stays in the same place, it's the eyepieces that have slightly varying focal planes, that's why different eyepieces need to be re-focused slightly. Unless of course you have a par-focal set.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 26-10-2019, 10:58 AM
Jethro777 (Jethro)
Registered User

Jethro777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturnine View Post
Hi Jethro

Use this Newt for the Web calculator to work out your scopes dimensions.

https://stellafane.org/tm/newt-web/newt-web.html

The focal length of your scope doesn't change by moving the mirrors, the focal length is governed by the radius of curvature of the primary mirror which doesn't change unless you regrind the mirror. By moving the primary up the tube , all you are doing is moving the point of focus further outside the tube, as reflected by the secondary.
What also happens then is that not all the light from the primary is being concentrated on to the secondary. Some light will pass it and go straight out the front of the tube so you're effectively losing aperture. Your focuser will need to rack out an extra 28mm for focus to be reached. Doesn't matter if they are the original TAL eyepieces with a 32mm barrel or the standard 31.7mm ( 1.25" ) of most common eyepieces , the focal plane of the scope stays in the same place, it's the eyepieces that have slightly varying focal planes, that's why different eyepieces need to be re-focused slightly. Unless of course you have a par-focal set.
Thanks, that is helpful. So, the f/ratio stays the same.

>By moving the primary up the tube , all you are doing is moving the point of focus further outside the tube, as reflected by the secondary.

So, this is interesting - after moving up the primary mirror - I basically created a "problem" - that now some light reflected by the primary was missing the secondary - to compensate, I need a larger mirror. Is that right?

>Your focuser will need to rack out an extra 28mm for focus to be reached.

Previously, the 1.25" eyepieces could not be focused - only the original 32mm versions. After the mod, most eyepieces can be focused using the standard focuser as is.

What does this mean for my secondary mirror size calculations?

Well, I put the optics data in newt-web (Primary 4.3, Focal Ratio 7.3) and it calculated it as "Diagonal Range = 0.95 - 1.43"

A 1.5" mirror would give me a 35% obstruction, the original mirror (1.1") 26%, and it recommends trying to get 20%.

I was thinking of getting a 1.3" - Would that be advisable in your opinion given my situation?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 26-10-2019, 11:25 AM
RPT (Mark)
Registered User

RPT is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South East Melbourne
Posts: 5
Jethro,

There is a parameter in the calculation called "Max field diameter". The default setting in the calculation is 1.6 inches which is enough to fully illuminate a full frame camera CCD. You can change this setting to match the maximum field lens diameter of the eyepieces you intend to use. If for instance that was 0.75 inches that gives a minimum mirror size of 1 inch.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 26-10-2019, 11:34 AM
Saturnine (Jeff)
Registered User

Saturnine is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 932
Yes you would need a larger secondary mirror but I still don't understand what you are trying to achieve. The Russians when they designed and built these TAL newts knew what they were doing and had the math all worked out for optimum performance.
I had one of these scopes in my possession for a while and it was a damn good scope for its aperture and by shimming the barrel of my 1.25 plossels with some masking tape to fit the focuser drawtube could reach focus with no problem via the travel allowed by the focuser.
If you really want to move the focal plane out as you have done by moving the primary up , then a larger secondary like the 31mm GSO would work fine. The slightly larger obstruction wont make much noticeable difference and the GSO quality is fine but there are other options too.
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 11:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement