Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
  #1  
Old 17-04-2013, 03:01 PM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Refractors: Achro vs ED, APO and the rest

Imaging types: stop reading now. The visual observers might like to read this link and ponder the implications of the expansion rates of the ED and fluoro glasses being 18X worse...

http://neilenglish.net/why-the-class...stable-images/

Personally, the most memorable telescope I have ever used was an 1880's Cooke refractor, with a superb 4.25" f/16 objective that produced absolutely perfect textbook diffraction images at high power. I've used much bigger scopes since, but the sheer perfection of that Cooke refractor was a real pleasure.

My 102mm f/7 ED refractor is good enough to show nice Airy disks but its nowhere near as good as that old refractor. Now I understand why.

Maybe there is still some point in owning an f/15 Unitron !

Last edited by Wavytone; 17-04-2013 at 03:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17-04-2013, 03:31 PM
MattT's Avatar
MattT
Reflecting on Refracting

MattT is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,216
Hi Wavytone,
Would love to read this but can't get it to open on my apple
On my bucket list is a self build 150mm f12...might bump it up to f15 instead after all whats another 450mm?
Matt
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17-04-2013, 03:33 PM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Huh ?!? I'm using an iMac and the link is to a pretty ordinary page of HTML...

The gist of the article is that the expansion co-efficient of the glass types used in modern f/7 ED and fluoro objectives is about 18X the expansion coefficient of the glass types used in f/15 refractors up to the 1990's. The consequences of thermal in-equilibrium are pretty dire when the thermal expansion easily exceeds the thickness tolerance to achieve the "diffraction limit. The author even considered the differential expansion between the centre and edge of a typical element.

Basically this is one of the reasons why the modern short f/7 ED refractors don't perform anywhere near as well as the old-school f/15 ones do, at the same magnification.

If you're making a 150mm reflector stick to f/12, a Newtonian with small secondary will be superb.

Last edited by Wavytone; 17-04-2013 at 03:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17-04-2013, 04:15 PM
FlashDrive's Avatar
FlashDrive (Poppy)
Senior Citizen

FlashDrive is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bribie Island
Posts: 5,068
That's a great read ...and very informative....( I ' Book Marked ' this for future reading )
Who would have known that the Acromat came out on top.

Hmmmm ....an Istar 150mm Achro' f/12 ~ f/15 sounds real good.

Flash......
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-04-2013, 04:35 PM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Well... a Newtonian of the same focal ratio will beat all of the foregoing - provided you can reach the eyepiece LOL...

Which brings us back full circle to a long f/ratio cassegrain - say f/15 to f/23, which has a small secondary, and puts the eyepiece in a sensible location.

Unlike commercial SCT's, which seem to be the worst of both worlds - a focal ratio too slow to be useful for imaging, vs a focal ratio too short - and a whopping fat secondary too big - no good for lunar & planetary use.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17-04-2013, 05:21 PM
Larryp's Avatar
Larryp (Laurie)
Registered User

Larryp is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,244
I had a 6" f7 Starfire years ago, and my astro society had a 6" f15 achromat. The Starfire crapped all over it.
All sorts of hypothetical reasoning doesn't necessarily equate to reality.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17-04-2013, 05:40 PM
Profiler (Profiler)
Registered User

Profiler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,217
There is a lot of good theory on Neil English's page but there are also some significant and pragmatic realities to consider in actual practice as well as some interesting contradictions. For example, it is not a simple straightforward issue of thinking that a f12-f15 achro is the best way to go as English is infamous for giving the thumbs down to the 6" Istar achro refractor he reviewed. There is great praise for the retro f15 skylight achro he also reviews but evidently he didn't consider it good enough for him to personally keep. Moreover, he gives extremely high praise to the Meade ED127 f9 doublet which is clearly not an achro. There is certainly something unique and enjoyable in long fl achro refractors but when you actually start trying to use them on a regular basis you will quickly find they are not particularly portable/versatile. The best scope is always the one you find yourself using the most - perhaps this is why he didn't keep the f15 refractor.

Last edited by Profiler; 18-04-2013 at 11:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 17-04-2013, 06:22 PM
Nikolas's Avatar
Nikolas (Nik)
Dazed and confused

Nikolas is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,505
That page did my head in, just for once I'd like to see it explained in layman's terms and not jargonese only complete geeks would understand.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 17-04-2013, 06:24 PM
Profiler (Profiler)
Registered User

Profiler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,217
I auditioned for big band theory once but they only wanted young funny looking geeks - not old ones.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17-04-2013, 09:00 PM
anj026's Avatar
anj026
Plyscope

anj026 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 532
For anyone keen to try a 6" f15 refractor, I say go for it. My own one is still my favorite telescope, though I don't use it as much as some of my more convenient ones.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/41-340-0-0-1-0.html
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (DSC01952 (Large).JPG)
54.3 KB106 views
Click for full-size image (DSC01953 - Copy.JPG)
84.4 KB86 views
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 17-04-2013, 11:25 PM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1¼" ñì®våñá

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,845
Every single telescope out there is a compromise, as the benefits of one aspect will impair another. With regards to focal length, it is no secret that a longer focal length will produce a better image, in a refractor it will have less chromatic abberation, less field curvature, the list goes on. But manufacturers for the most part gravitate to shorter focal length refractors because the market dictates that these are more in demand due to being lighter, easier to mount, more transportable etc. Same with the ED glass the article mentions, it might be 18x worse with its thermal expansion number, but it's benefits are much improved CA performance, and most people will take the fringe free views. Having said that there is still a market for these long FL refractors, people seem to be passionate about them
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 18-04-2013, 11:07 AM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikolas View Post
just for once I'd like to see it explained in layman's terms
OK...

For a lens to perform as designed (to the diffraction limit) the thicknesses and spacings of the lens elements are quite critical and must conform to tight tolerances for the lens to resolve fine detail at its best (ie at the diffraction limit).

The author realised that the ED and fluoro glass types used in many modern objectives have very high coefficients of expansion - as much as 18X the coefficients of the glass types used in older achromatic designs.

When a modern lens is at thermal equilibrium - at the temperature where the lens elements were measured (ie when they were made) - all well and good - the thickness of each lens element will be as expected and it will perform as expected.

The first issue that arises is that a lens element may swell or shrink well beyond the thickness tolerance to remain diffraction-limited. Lens manufacturers don't state what nominal temperature the lens was manufactured for, however it is almost certainly somewhere in the range 15-25 degrees C. However, in normal use refractors are exposed to the ambient air which could be anything from -10 to +40 degrees celsius, or a variation of as much as +/- 20 degrees from the ambient temps when it was manufactured. This means that in cold/hot conditions the lens elements will expand or contract accordingly, and this will degrading the sharpness of the image.

The second issue is that each lens element is not uniformly thick - they are either thick in the middle with thin edges (positive element) or thin in the middle with thick edges (negative element). This means that while the lens is cooling or warming, the degree of expansion/contraction is not uniform across the lens and the curvature of the lens surfaces will be deformed noticeably from the original radius of curvature. This also degrades the performance of the lens.

So... if you are wondering why images from your ED refractor in extreme hot/cold don't seem as sharp as they could be, this is one possible reason. The old achromatic refractors don't suffer from these effects as the glass types used have far smaller coefficients of expansion, to the extent their performance is not affected by the typical range of temperatures you might encounter.

This expansion/contraction occurs in all directions - including across the diameter of the lens, as well as its thickness. Given the coefficients of expansion of these ED and fluoro glass types - and the fact that they are soft and brittle compared to crown or flint glass - they may fracture or chip if they are tightly restrained in the lens cell. It is important that they be slightly loose.

Lastly, this also means you should NOT use an ED eyepiece for eyepiece projection of the sun - such as the Vixen LV/LVW, Televue Panoptics, Naglers or Radians. There's a good chance the localised heating and expansion will fracture the ED elements.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 18-04-2013, 11:43 AM
Profiler (Profiler)
Registered User

Profiler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,217
Wavytone

Excellent synopsis!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 18-04-2013, 03:22 PM
chris lewis
Registered User

chris lewis is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: auckland
Posts: 191
After 30 odd years of desiring a classic SYW Yamamoto F/15 108mm / 1500 refractor [same OTA as a Tasco 20TE]. I discovered my local optics dealer had a mint condition one with a pedestal mount in storage. I sold my Skywatcher Equinox ED120 [EON] on a HEQ5 mount with in a week to fund it. The sale price of that combo basically covered the price of the 108mm - which really was a bargain.
The images in the 108mm F/15 are incrementally superior to the ED120. The Synta ED120 really was very good optically - flat image with CA only really apparent in the higher mag range. Yet the long tube F/15 gives more satisfying images - the color is more neutral, the image equally is flat and CA is only really noticeable with higher mags. in the 250x plus range. The key difference I believe is that the long tube achromat is less susceptible to atmospheric conditions. In steady conditions CA is about equal but when the air is unstable the classic refractor holds its image better and ultimately display less CA.
Brightness is perceptibly brighter with the ED120, as to be expected, but when in comes to pure image quality and on axis resolution the long tube F/15 classic refractor wins.
The classic white long tube refractor also looks stunning and really it is a work of optically industrial art.
Even my wife likes it.

Chris
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (DSCF1181 2 karen.jpg)
123.0 KB90 views
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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 05:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement