Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > ATM and DIY Projects

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #61  
Old 16-11-2011, 01:06 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by alistairsam View Post
Hi Clive,

Not sure if anyone else has had any success, but Gary in this thread mentions issues with collimation with the RCC1.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=73293
Hi Alistair...
Gary's experience runs counter to my understanding of optics.
Anyway, before posting my thoughts on the subject, I felt I should cover my bases and contact Dave Rowe directly. This is his unedited response:

Quote:
Hello Clive:

Great to hear from you after all these years.

Thomas Baader sent me one of the original correctors and it performed well
and to specification in a small fast Newtonian. Since then I have not had
another opportunity to see or use another corrector. Thomas tells me that
there are many satisfied customers. He's an honest guy, so I believe
that's the truth.

The corrector is no more and no less sensitive to collimation that any
other coma corrector. Good collimation is necessary, of course, and
becomes very important for large fields and fast scopes.

The corrector in question may be incorrectly made, or it may be misused.
It's impossible to tell without studying the actual unit. Certainly it
should not move the focal surface 30 mm closer to the primary. If that's
true then I suspect that the corrector was improperly made. Additional
information could be useful, like an image from the optical system.

I designed the corrector for Thomas out of friendship. I did not and do
not receive remuneration of any form for the design. The long back focus
makes it very useful in situations where off-axis guiding is desired, it
has much better off-axis correction than the 2-element Ross corrector, and
its larger unvignetted field makes it useful for larger format cameras. In
my opinion it's an excellent design that has a solid place in
astrophotography.

My best,

Dave
Perhaps more so on the 'cloudy nights' thread than here, I feel that a few
things were stated that intimate a questioning of Dave's design work, and
so I feel compelled to share a bit of background.
You might get a sense of Dave's credibility in the field of optics if you
explore his history. Dave's first attempt at telescope making was a 12" f4
concentric, flat field anastigmat. In the process Dave was so thorough with
his homework that he discovered an error in the formula accepted as
common knowledge in the public domain used to produce the aspheric on
the schmidt plate.
In my personal correspondence with Dave over the years where we
bounced a few corrector ideas back and forth (Dave being the brains side of
the conversation) I can state emphatically that for any given iteration that
was considered serious, the optical prescription included sensitivity and
tolerances for axial placement, tilt, decenter, ghosting etc) etc) and so I am
struggling to accept the assertion that the RCC1 is inherently flawed or
that MPCC design is functionally better. I would bet London to a brick
that this is not the case.

Suffice it to say, anyone who dismisses the quality of Dave's work (in a
public forum) should really have their ducks in a row first.

A few thoughts on the corrector:
The MPCC is a simple Ross type, implicit in that design of course is that you
need an over-corrected primary to compensate for the spherical aberration
introduced by the corrector. The RCC1 on the other hand has three lens
elements, which provide sufficient degrees of freedom to correct all the
field aberrations. It is functionally equivalent to the old Wynne style
corrector but without the slight magnification inherent in the original design.
The RCC1 is obviously a much better corrector than the MPCC (on paper at
least).

Now getting back to Gary's real-world experience with the RCC1...
My first clue is the 30mm error in the focal position. This tells me that
the corrector is operating way outside of its design parameters. If there
is a manufacturing fault, ie) something goofy going on with the lens
assembly, under those circumstances you might expect to see the
corrector changing the imaging scale and a dramatic loss of colour
correction. The other possible issue is the spacing between the lens
assembly and the image plane is incorrect.
In any event, the best (and fairest) way to resolve this would be for Gary
to contact Thomas Baader directly and give him the opportunity to address
each possibility in a process of elimination.

I have absolutely no doubt that he would do what it takes to get to the bottom of this.

regards,
~c
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 16-11-2011, 01:15 PM
bmitchell82's Avatar
bmitchell82 (Brendan)
Newtonian power! Love it!

bmitchell82 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Mandurah
Posts: 2,597
Thats brillant info Clive, I may have to investigate it a little bit more!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 16-11-2011, 01:30 PM
Moon's Avatar
Moon (James)
This sentence is false

Moon is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
I feel that a few
things were stated that intimate a questioning of Dave's design work
Clive
I can't see anything here that questions Dave design work.
James
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 16-11-2011, 02:01 PM
alistairsam's Avatar
alistairsam
Registered User

alistairsam is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Box Hill North, Vic
Posts: 1,832
Thanks for the info Clive.

While there is nothing questioning Dave's work directly, I guess the indirect effect of weaning one away from the RCC1 based on the review is kind of questioning the design.
I guess it all depends on one's perspective.
Real world experiences and reviews have a stronger influence on decisions than the manufacturers datasheet.
I will try and look up other user reviews.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 16-11-2011, 02:06 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moon View Post
Clive
I can't see anything here that questions Dave design work.
James
Quote:
At this point I am unable to recommend the Rowe Coma corrector. It is incredibly (excessively?) sensitive to collimation.
Quote:
Imaging with cheap newts
seems very problematical, and I guess you get what you pay for.....
Quote:
I haven't posted copies of images since there is nothing to really show off..... Buyer beware.
Quote:
Return the Rowe coma corrector. I have one and it does not perform to
specifications
Quote:
A sign of their problems is that they are regularly coming up for sale
secondhand. I just wasted $200.....

Buyer beware.
Hi James, it might be argued that the criticism is not aimed at Dave Rowe
directly, but it seems to me to be quite plain, all be it implicit.
Note that the criticism is directed at the Rowe corrector, and yet in the
same thread we see an advocation of the MPCC produced by the same manufacturer (presumably under the same roof)
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 16-11-2011, 02:12 PM
Moon's Avatar
Moon (James)
This sentence is false

Moon is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Hi James, it might be argued that the criticism is not directed at Dave Rowe
directly, but it seems to me to be quite plain, all be it implicit.
Note that the criticism is directed at the Rowe corrector, and yet in the
same thread we see an advocation of the MPCC produced by the same manufacturer (presumably under the same roof)
I don't see those comments here - perhaps you are confusing this thread with a different thread or someone deleted them? I think it would be best if you take that discussion elsewhere.
James
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 16-11-2011, 02:22 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moon View Post
I don't see those comments here - perhaps you are confusing this thread with a different thread or someone deleted them? I think it would be best if you take that discussion elsewhere.
James
Quote:
Originally Posted by alistairsam
Hi Clive,

Not sure if anyone else has had any success, but Gary in this thread mentions issues with collimation with the RCC1.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=73293
Perhaps you missed this bit?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 16-11-2011, 02:28 PM
Moon's Avatar
Moon (James)
This sentence is false

Moon is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,147
Clive,

I'm suggesting to you the best place to comment on that thread is over there, not here.
James
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 18-11-2011, 05:14 PM
alistairsam's Avatar
alistairsam
Registered User

alistairsam is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Box Hill North, Vic
Posts: 1,832
this might be familiar to a few, I found some interesting design principles here. A lot of math and some may not be necessary, but he's analyzed a lot of real world relevant elements in telescope design.

http://bossanova9.org/astro/
never knew about "string" telescopes
http://dbpeckham.com/Telescope/String/StringScope.htm
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 18-11-2011, 05:45 PM
bmitchell82's Avatar
bmitchell82 (Brendan)
Newtonian power! Love it!

bmitchell82 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Mandurah
Posts: 2,597
Thats structural engineering 101! resolution of forces using a bit of pythagoras and vector geometry.! use it quite alot actually in my line of work
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
12" f4, ota

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 05:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement