Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66
Marc,
Understood...
What about doing the same with a cylinder diameter matching the minor axis (as normally the case of secondaries supplied to the amateur)?
You shouldn't have to ""offset and scaled a cylinder manually"" The minor axis defines the cylinder
Can your program over lay the surfaces??
I found a 10% difference in effective area - some light loss due to undersize at some points and some light loss due to oversize at other points.
I did this work back in 1976 when designing a 12" f5 - I just wish I could find my notes/ drawings of the time.
|
I see. I'll try what you said, match the diameter of the cylinder to the minor axis of the cone slice.
PS: Here's the new volumes sliced as per your suggestion. So cylinder diameter is the same as the minor axis of the elliptical slice on the F/5 cone. The cylinder axis matches the cone axis.
Top view show two circles as expected.
Side view shows the cone/cylinder slice offset. The volumes are coaxial.
Front view shows the same offset.
Last view is an orthographic projection normal to the slices so you can see the true difference of the surfaces.
There's not much difference. That's why I thought if you offset the cylinder then you can get a better coverage.