This Presentation Made with

OpenOffice.org

Impress

Newtonian

Telescope Design
With a “focus” on optics

Michael Abrams
Hidden Hollow 2012

Newtonian

Telescope Design
With a “focus” on optics

Michael Abrams
No Copyrights or pending patents on any of my photos, words, or ideas in this slide show All in the public domain

This slide show can be found on www.scribd.com And a video that goes with this slide show can be found on www.youtube.com Do a search for “Hidden Hollow 2012”

My Credentials

12” f/5 Newtonian Telescope
Aug 2007

Springfield, VT The 72nd Stellafane Convention

At the award ceremony a judge joked that Stellafane would have to open a “patent and copyright office”

Four innovative components were noted that night

This talk will include....

Optics, primary mirrors, secondary mirrors and mirror testing What it takes to avoid optical distortion Various Newtonian telescope components and their effect on optical distortion

Or more specifically

The Potential for Optical Distortion can occur with ....

Atmospheric seeing The inherent properties of parabolic mirrors – especially at low f/ratios Mirror collimation The primary mirror figure – the quality of the mirror How the mirror is supported Thermal differences between mirror and the environment Secondary mirror supports – the spiders Tube or truss structure bending

DISCLAIMER - CAUTION

Some things I say may possibly be inaccurate This may be an overly long talk – feel free to come and go

DISCLAIMER - CAUTION

Designing is risky business. You never really know what you have until you have lived with it Every new feature you make is a compromise, sometimes better, sometimes not as good as you thought

DISCLAIMER - CAUTION

Although all my photos are in the public domain, I do freely borrow from the internet and who knows what rights may be attached to them. For example, the caution sign below.

Credit where credit is due
Telescope makers everywhere ATM Gurus Stellafane The software programers

Hidden Hollow 2005 and all Telescope Makers

Tom Whiting with 30” f/4.5 Ti Dobs

Made by Bill Mitchell

Don Himes' 8” f/6.3 Dobs

Terry Hubbert was at HH06 with the Salad Bowl

John Dobson
Unconventional cosmology
I'm allergic to the Big Bang....[it's] fudge without walnuts Universe is apparitional The dream is in the dreamer

Spartan telescope building
12” telescope mirrors made from porthole glass We make simple scopes for the people to use Let other clubs do research with fancy telescopes

The designer part of me was attracted to

the fancy telescopes...
The Ultra-Light Minimalist Dobs

Greg Babcock 24” f/4 105 lbs

Allan Scott Deep Space 3 12” f/5 39 lbs.

As you can see my telescope is very much like...

The Ultra-Light Minimalist Dobs

Bruce Sayre

12.5” f/4 Binocular Telescope 22” f/5 Binocular Telescope
380 lbs (with 100lbs of c'wts)

Mel Bartel
Promoted the use of wire spiders Aligning Newtonian Optics Richest Field Telescopes Telescope Vibration Ultra-Light and Minimalist Dobs Rating Mirrors

20 inch f/4.8 Trilateral Mount

Fork mount
8” f/7on a horseshoe equatorial mount

Largest Influence on me

ATM #1 Guru
Nils Olof Carlin of Ystad, Sweden

Uses PLOP to show potential mirror distortion from strap sling mirror support Three part cable sling primary mirror support Primary mirror collimation from the front Hacksaw blade spider and secondary holder Clearly states collimation tolerances Tells how to make Cheshire with built in collimation tolerance gauge

Nils Olof Carlin with 13.1" f/4.5 Dob

I copied from him shamelessly
3 of 4 of my Stellafane Innovative Components can be attributed to him

It was Stellafane's clear plans that allowed me to build a mirror tester

Figure XP
By Dave Rowe and James Lerch

PLOP Cell Designer

Finite element analysis by

David Lewis, Toshimi Taki and Thomas Boutell

NEWT for Windows
By David A.Keller

When it comes to telescope optics it helps to understand
Astronomical Seeing Diffraction of Light Airy Disk

Astronomical Seeing
The distortion of image quality due to atmospheric turbulence

An animated image of the Moon's surface showing the effects of Earth's atmosphere on the view. ( Wikipedia )

Seeing
Here's a good way to measure your “seeing”...
Point the telescope to Alcor & Mizar With a higher power eyepiece focus on Mizar in the center of your FOV

You will probably see two shimmering star blobs. Since Mizar is a double star separated by 15” (arcseconds) you can estimate the size of these blobs in arcseconds. Use this number as an “measure” of your seeing. I use this drawing to help.

6” Seeing

But no matter how good your Seeing is and how good your optics are the stars will never become the point images that you might expect. They will become disks or dots of a certain size and no smaller. On my 12” telescope the smallest disk I could ever expect is about one arcseconds in diameter.

This disk is called the Airy Disk
It is one example of the phenomena known as diffraction resulting from the wave nature of light.

Examples of Diffraction
The bending of light

The Diffractive Nature of Light
These images represents Young's double slit experiment Light from one slit interfering with light from the other slit

The Airy Disk is similar and can be generated from light passing through a pin hole – light interfering with itself

The (angular) Diameter of the Airy Disk
Has nothing to do with f/ratio or focal length Wavelenght of Light

Mirror Diameter 6 inches

400 nm

550 nm

750 nm

12 inches

1.0”

20 inches
nm = nanometers (or 10-9 m)

So knowing all this...

How close can two binary stars be that I could ever possibly split with my 12” telescope?
If all the optics and seeing is perfect, then about half diameter of the Airy Disk

1.0 arc secs

0.5 arcsecs
It turns out that the angular resolution for all optics

(telescopes, mircroscopes, cameras, etc.)

is the same as half the diameter of the Airy Disk

The larger the mirror the more resolution you have

Splitting Binary Stars

Mirror Diameter
6 inches

Minimum Star Separation
(arcseconds)

1.0”

12 inches

0.50”

1”

20 inches

0.30”

The larger the mirror the more resolution you have

Splitting Binary Stars

However, the larger mirrors generally have smaller f/ratios which are plagued by coma (inherent optical distortion) The smaller f/ratio mirrors are not considered good star splitters. More on this later...
1”

What is Diffraction Limited Optics? A Diffraction Limited telescope has optics where it is possible to split a binary star separated by as little as half the diameter of its airy disk With a Diffraction Limited mirror the precision of the mirror can be increased but the optical quality can not With a Diffraction Limited mirror the optical quality of the mirror is limited by the diffractive, wave nature of light

Buying a Parabolic Mirror
Diffraction Limited Mirrors The confusion of mirror specifications The Mirror Figure The Strehl Ratio

The first thing I did when making my telescope is to buy a mirror
Because the entire design would be based on the size, weight and focal length of the mirror....

But buying and testing the mirror was the most difficult part of the whole project....

For one thing there were a lot of mirror vendors

There seemed to be no correlation between price of the mirror and the stated quality of the mirror.

Prices for 12” & 12.5” Mirrors

Increasing Quality

There was uncertainty in what mirror quality was really needed....
Diffraction Limited at a Higher Standard

Rayleigh Criteria*

¼λ
1/14 0.82

1/10 λ
1/28 0.95

P-V Wavefront Error RMS Wavefront Error Strehl Ratio

λ

λ

* Or Rayleigh Limit – The traditional standard A mirror made to the Rayleigh Criteria is usually considered a Diffraction Limited mirror

The two most respected names in mirror optics had the lowest claims for mirror quality.

¼

P-V Wavefront Error is their standard

....the traditional knife-edge Foucault Test only measures the mirror cross-section and thus

“consistently overstates the quality of a mirror” Mirrors need to be measured with interferometers which measures the entire mirror surface

There was little consistency in the terminology used to describe the quality of a mirror
(all the following describe the same mirror!)

¼ Wave ¼ Lambda ¼ Λ ¼ Wavefront error ¼ P-V wavefront error ¼ Peak to valley wavefront error ¼ Peak to valley on the wavefront ¼ Peak to valley error 130 nm Wavefront error 1/15 RMS 1/15 RMS Wavefront error .067 RMS Smoothness 37nm RMS

1/8 Λ Measured on the surface 1/8 Peak to valley on the surface 1/8 Peak to valley surface error 1/8 Surface error 1/8th Wave surface error 65 nm Wave surface error 1/30 RMS Surface 1/30 RMS Surface Smoothness .033 Wave surface RMS 18nm RMS Surface Error 0.82 Strehl Ratio

Consequently specifications were
(more often than not)

ambiguous to me

The Mirror Figure

Curve generated with data from a Foucault (Knife Edge) Tester and entered into data reduction software

The Mirror Figure

Created from Dave Rowe's data reduction software Figure XP

So the chaos with all these terms...

¼ Wave ¼ Lambda ¼ Λ ¼ Wavefront error ¼ P-V wavefront error ¼ Peak to valley wavefront error ¼ Peak to valley on the wavefront ¼ Peak to valley error 130 nm Wavefront error 1/15 RMS 1/15 RMS Wavefront error .067 RMS Smoothness 37nm RMS

1/8 Λ Measured on the surface 1/8 Peak to valley on the surface 1/8 Peak to valley surface error 1/8 Surface error 1/8th Wave surface error 65 nm Wave surface error 1/30 RMS Surface 1/30 RMS Surface Smoothness .033 Wave surface RMS 18nm RMS Surface Error 0.82 Strehl Ratio

could be clarified to...
Wavefront Error Mirror Surface Error
(always one half Wavefront Error)

P-V

¼ Wave ¼ Lambda ¼ Λ ¼ Wavefront error ¼ P-V wavefront error ¼ Peak to valley wavefront error ¼ Peak to valley on the wavefront 130 nm Wavefront error

1/8 Λ Measured on the surface 1/8 Peak to valley on the surface 1/8 Peak to valley surface error 1/8 Surface error 1/8 Wave surface error 65 nm Surface error

RMS

1/15 RMS 1/15 RMS Wavefront error .067 RMS Smoothness 37nm RMS 0.82 Strehl Ratio

1/30 RMS Surface 1/30 RMS Surface smoothness .033 Wave surface RMS 18nm RMS Surface error

Strehl Ratio

All of these specs could be applied to the same mirror

Strehl Ratio

is the ratio of

the light intensity in the Airy Disk to the light intensity in the theoretically maximum Airy Disk

Airy Disk

Theoretically Maximum Airy Disk
84% light in disk 7% light in first ring 3% in the second ring And so on...

Strehl Ratio
Is generally determined from the RMS

This is a good approximation between Strehl Ratio and RMS
(with RMS in wavefront error)

Strehl Ratio

Table from www.rfroyce.com

If money were no object I probably would have bought an OMI mirror
(from Obsession Telescopes)

12.5” f/5 mirror $1650* Mirrors are tested with an interferometer and are fully documented but after you buy
0.964 Strehl Ratio

* March 2008

Or maybe this Nova Mirror

12.5” f/5 mirror $950* Each mirror is fully documented before you buy
but with
(the lesser)

Foucault Test

0.986 Strehl Ratio mirror

* March 2008

eBay HubbleOptics 12.5” f/5 Mirrors
0.996 Strehl $380

But I threw my dart at an

Antares Sky Instrument 12” f/5 $495
#12F5Q

Talking with Scott at Anttler Optic...

He frequently has the Sky Instrument Mirrors refigured for his High Performance Newtonian (about once a week) and no mirror has never come in under spec (1/6th wavefront error) Typical P-V values on mirrors before refiguring are 1/7th to 1/12th wave Antares won't tell him who makes the mirrors. He suspects they are from the orient.

Testing the Mirror
Mirror Optics The Shadowgram Foucault Tester The Mirror Figure

How to get the mirror figure from a Foucault Tester
(pronounced foo-coh)

But first a little review of parabolic mirror optics...

The Focal Plane
Andy's Helical Focuser

Paper taped over the end of my focuser and aimed at a full moon

Moon illuminated through the paper with the paper at the focal plane

When you are at the movie theater where is the focal plane?

The distance from the focal plane to the mirror is the focal length

d

d

Focal Length

The distance from the focal plane to the mirror is the focal length

1/2°

d

Focal Length

What portion of the focal plane do you see through the eyepiece?

It depends on the Field Stop of the eyepiece

This 38mm 2” eyepiece has the largest Field of View (FOV) of all my eyepieces because it has the largest diameter Field stop

2”

If you look into the focuser end of the eyepiece you can see the Field Stop Removing the focuser end clearly shows the Field Stop

1.80”

This Field Stop has an inside diameter of 1.80”

1.80”

So when you look into this 38mm eyepiece you see everything on the focal plane within a 1.80” diameter circle

1.80 inch diameter

If the eyepiece had a 1.00” Field Stop diameter, then you would see everything on the focal plane within a 1.00” diameter circle

1.00 inch diameter

Light from a star is all parallel

The parabolic mirror will focus the light of a star to a point on the focal plane

This means the same as that
Light cone for one star

Focal plane

Focal Length

90°

The secondary mirror deflects the tip of the light cone But I usually won't show the secondary mirror

Light cone for one star

Focal plane

Focal Length

The light from two stars will have two light cones

Infinite number of light cones paint the focal plane

Focal Length

The Moon on the focal plane with Focal length = 60”
1/2 °

ϑ = 1/2°

0.50”

Focal Length

FL = 60”

d = 2 * FL * tan ( ϑ / 2 )

Focal Ratio =

Focal Length Mirror Diameter

f/4
Focal Plane
Focal Length

Focal Ratio =

Focal Length Mirror Diameter

f/4 f/6

Focal Ratio =

Focal Length Mirror Diameter

f/4 is “fast”

f/4 f/4

f/6 f/8

The larger the f ratio the more the mirror is spherical and the less it is parabolic

All these telescopes have the same Focal length = 60”

6” f/10 slow
Crafted by Chuck Fellows Mirror by Mark Harry

12” f/5 fast
Michael Abrams

20” f/3 very fast
Mirror by Gordon Waite Coating by Jeff Decker Crafted by Rob Teeter

The size of the moon at the focal plane is the same for all these telescopes 6” f/10 12” f/5 20” f/3

All mirrors with the same focal length use the same – identical parabolic shape
But some mirrors use less of it...

6” f/10

FL = 60”

All mirrors with the same focal length use the same – identical parabolic shape

12” f/5

FL = 60”

All mirrors with the same focal length use the same – identical parabolic shape
and some mirrors use more of it...

20” f/3

FL = 60”

The Shadowgram

But first - the Law of Reflection ...a demonstration

At this position the image is the same size as the lamp

The lamp and image are at the same distance from the mirror = 2x the mirror focal length

This is how you get your focal length for your mirror The length of your telescope depends on this number

Law of Reflection

ROC = Radius of Curvature = 2 times the focal length

The lamp and cardboard at same distance from mirror

This distance is 2 x FL from the mirror

Shifting the angle that the mirror is reflecting

Moving the cardboard to the left

The cardboard cuts the image in half

Shifting the mirror angle....

A slit of light appears behind the cardboard

Sliding the cardboard back and forth will change the slit width

What do you see when you look into the slit of light?

The Shadowgram

My Stellafane Inspired

Foucault Tester
(pronounced foo-coh)

Front View

Razor Blade Knife-edge The Knife Blue LED Light Source

Stage Dial Indicator
($14 @ HarborFreight)

Magic Sliders Base

Head & Stage

Tester without telescope

Tester with Camera

Video Segment 01 The Foucault Tester

Adjustment Knob

The Shadowgram changes by moving the in Knife Position of the Foucault Tester forward and back

Source: Dejan Vucinic

For my mirror you could see this much change with 3/16” movement of the Knife-edge
(a spherical mirror has no transitional movement)

Astigmatism

Dog Biscuit

HubbleOptics

Surface Roughness

Bullseye

Surface Roughness
Source:mostly Mike Lockwood

My Mirror

My Mirror
with defects

This image suggest an astigmatism

To determine the Mirror Figure The Couder Mask is attached to the mirror
(pronounced Koo-day)

This is a 6 Zone Mask

Moving the knife position

At this Knife position Zone 3 is equally illuminated on both sides The Dial Indicator Reading is then written down for Zone 3

My first set of dial indicator readings
(after a practice run)

The readings were done four times for each test. Note the consistency in the readings. It took one to two hours to do the entire set of 20 indicator readings.

Test 01 5 Zones

Results of my first test using Figure XP

Above results created by entering the dial indicator readings

Test 01 5 Zones

Test 02 6 Zones

Mirror Rotated 90 degrees
Test 03 6 Zones

Test 06 5 Zones

Two days later while reading the results of the Mirror Testing Round Robin
(the testing of three mirrors by 20 people)

I stumbled upon this....

The test mirrors were handled while wearing.... rubber gloves to minimize heat transfer.
Wm. D. Hanagan, Jr., PhD.

Test 07 6 Zones

Test 03

Repeating Test 03

Test 07 6 Zones

Test 06 5 Zones

Test 07 6 Zones

But there is still a bit of a problem....

Test 06 5 Zones

When I combine two figures 90 degrees apart, I get a (a very good mirror, but it is not a 0.99 strehl )

P-V wavefront error of 1/10th wave

....the traditional knife-edge Foucault Test only measures the mirror cross-section and thus

“consistently overstates the quality of a mirror”

Selecting the Secondary Mirror Size
Vignetting NEWT for Windows

NEWT for Windows
By Dale A. Keller

NEWT for Windows All Newtonian telescopes have
(pron. Vin-YET-ing)

Vignetting

or loss of illumination at the edge of the field of view
Acceptable vignetting is.... 70% illumination at the edge of your field of view 100% illumination at the center 1/2° of your FOV (be able to see the full moon without vignetting)

Increasing secondary mirror size reduces vignetting, but decreases the amount of light reaching your mirror Newt ray traces the light cones and does the calculations that attacks this problem

Vignetting - % Illumination on the Focal Plane
0.20° Secondary Mirror Minor % Axis Obstruction

%
Illumination

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 1.875” Max ID

2.10”

3.06%

2” Focuser

1.50” Field Stop

32mm Eyepiece

Vignetting - % Illumination on the Focal Plane

0.66°

%
Illumination

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 1.875” Max ID

Secondary Mirror Minor % Axis Obstruction

2.50” 2.10”

4.34% 3.06%

2” Focuser

1.50” Field Stop

32mm Eyepiece

Vignetting - % Illumination on the Focal Plane

0.94°
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 1.875” Max ID

Secondary Mirror Minor % Axis Obstruction
2.75” 2.50” 2.10” 5.35% 4.34% 3.06%

%
Illumination

2” Focuser

1.50” Field Stop

5% Mirror Obstruction is possible loss of contrast

32mm Eyepiece

Telescope Design
The Deflection of the Truss or Tube Collimation Error

I've seen no other telescope that uses copper tubing, so...

Why Copper?
Readily available Bendable All those cool fittings and it solders together quickly and easily Eliminates many complex connections of a truss telescope

90° Elbow 45° Elbow Tee

But before I decided to use copper tubing I needed to calculate if it would be rigid enough... The mirror, secondary and eyepiece needed to be rigid relative to each other... or the optics would go out of alignment or the optics would not be collimated

δ

Any bar will deflect when held horizontal

And my design (or any other design) would deflect as well....

No cantilever remains horizontal

δ

They all deflect

Allowable telescope deflection
is that where the telescope does not go out of collimation (optic alignment) as the telescope goes from vertical to horizontal or when you start using a heavier eyepiece... A Newtonian telescope is said to be collimated when the... Focuser axis points to the mirror center & Mirror axis points to the focuser center

What is Collimation Error ?
Collimation Error
is the distance between the focuser axis and the mirror axis at the focal plane
Perfect Collimation

Collimation Error

Collimation Error

The moon projected onto the focal plane by the parabolic mirror

What is Collimation Error ?
The Newtonian mirror has a parabolic cross section The parabola has an axis When this axis point directly to the center of the focuser, the mirror is collimated

What is allowable collimation error ???

...first you need to understand coma
There is no better shape than the parabolic reflecting mirror for focusing light. However, it has an inherent flaw that distorts the focused light that does not hit the center of the focal plane. The further from the center of the focal plane the more the Airy Disk becomes large and elongated.

Coma is enemy number one for Newtonian reflectors...

Simulated star images at high magnification

Nils Olof Carlin

The Sweet Spot is the area at the center of the focal plane where coma has limited effect
Where the Strehl Ratio is not reduced less than 0.2 or where it could be said that this portion of the focal plane is “diffraction limited”

Sweet Spot Diameter

Simulated star images at high magnification

The size of Sweet Spot
on the focal plane depends on the f/ratio The smaller the f/ratio the smaller the Sweet Spot
It does not depend on mirror diameter or focal length
focal plane radius from center of focal plane
2 mm 4mm 6mm 8mm 10mm

focal ratio
f/10

0

sweet spot

C L
f/5

f/3

The larger the mirror the more resolution you have Minimum Star Separation
(arcsec)

Splitting Binary Stars

Mirror Diameter
6 inches

1.0”

12 inches

0.50”

1”

20 inches

0.30”

The size of Sweet Spot on the focal plane depends on the f/ratio The smaller the f/ratio the smaller the Sweet Spot
It does not depend on mirror diameter or focal length
mirror dia. f/ratio f/10 6”
radius from center of focal plane
0 2 mm 4mm 6mm 8mm 10mm

sweet spot

C L
f/5 12”

f/3

20”

Back to what I was talking about....

Allowable telescope deflection And what is the allowable collimation error.

Allowable Collimation Error
Large Fast Dobs Most Newtonians Nils Olof Carlin Planetary Scopes 1/2 Sweet Spot Diameter 1/4 Sweet Spot Diameter 1/6 Sweet Spot Diameter

¼ S'Spot Φ

Focal Ratio f/4 f/5 f/6 f/8

Diameter of Sweet Spot
(mm) (inch)

1.4 2.8 4.8 11.0

.055 .110 .189 .433

Allowable Collimation Error
Large Fast Dobs Most Newtonians Nils Olof Carlin Planetary Scopes 1/2 Sweet Spot Diameter 1/4 Sweet Spot Diameter 1/6 Sweet Spot Diameter

.028”

Focal Ratio f/4 f/5 f/6 f/8

Diameter of Sweet Spot
(mm) (inch)

Allowable Collimation Error
(inch)

1.4 2.8 4.8 11.0

.055 .110 .189 .433

.028 .028 .047 .072

Not Collimated

Collimation Error

Blue Circle is the Sweet Spot where the mirror axis hits the focal plane
(0.110” Ø)

2” Dia Focuser

Red Dot (at center of focuser) is the Allowable Collimation Error
(0.028” radius)

Collimated

It is collimated when the Sweet Spot circles the Allowable Collimation Error

2” Dia Focuser

And it is my judgment to make the... maximum allowable telescope deflection allowable collimation error

=

Focal Allowable Ratio Deflection
(inch)

Large Fast Dobs Most Newtonians Planetary Scopes

f/4 f/5 f/6 f/8

.028 .028 .047 .072

Telescope Deflection
Materials
Steel CFRP
(Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer)

Truss

Sonotube

Titanium Aluminum Copper Cardboard

String Scope

Structure type
Sonotube Truss CFRP Tube String Scope

Single Tube

Strength of Materials
(part one)

The heavier the weight at the end of a bar before it breaks, the stronger it is
Yield Strength (psi) Ultimate Strength (psi)

Strength =

Weight Cross Sectional Area

Strength of Materials
(part two)

δ

1

E
where E = Modulus of Elasticity (psi)

δ
Stretch

1

E
δ= FL AE

Cantilever

δ=

FL 3IE

Truss

δ=

2 F L3 c2 A E

How many of you have ever seen a telescope made with CRFP?
(Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer)

Two winning telescopes at Stellafane 2007 were made with CFRP

Ross Sackett's 18” f/4 1st Place Mechanical 1st Place Craftsmanship

Jay M. Scheuerle 6" f/5 4th Place (Tie) Mechanical Arrow shaft trusses

What is the calculated deflection of my telescope?
Allowable deflection is .028”

What if you could make my telescope out of other materials?

Of course those tube fittings only come in copper...

Compare Telescope Types
Maximum Deflection .028”

Telescope Types Compared
Maximum Deflection .028”

Greg Babcock's 18” f/4.5 1” x .055” wall Al tubing

Telescope Types Compared
Maximum Deflection .028”

Bill Mitchell's 30” f/4.5 1” x .028” wall Ti tubing

Telescope Types Compared
Maximum Deflection .028”

Ross Sackett's 18” f/4

Telescope Types Compared
Maximum Deflection .028”

4 pole 4 pole

3 pole

Some more string telescopes
2 pole

Telescope Design
Spider – Secondary Holder The Mirror Cell PLOP Cell Designer Mirror Cell Adjuster Roller Bearings The Friction Clutch

Spider and Secondary Holder

Spider and Secondary Holder

Bicycle Spokes

Wire spider

Mel Bartels on Wire Spiders

extremely strong reduced diffraction thanks to thin cross section eliminated thermal effects
spider vanes cool below air temperature and may capture a boundary layer of air that refracts light

reduced rotational vibration in windy conditions
an issue on larger scopes

lightweight low cost

And my two-cents

Reduce vignetting characteristic of wide vane-type
spider

But most wire spiders (and secondaries) seemed overly complex

But this has a lot of simplicity

And this is a great suggestion...

Nils Olof Carlin

Hacksaw Blade Spider
Alan Scott - Deep Space Scope Only design (that I found) where the secondary mirror adjustment is at the outside of the telescope

Innovative Component Award Adjustable Wire Spider

(3) stainless steel wires 24 gage (.022” dia)

Wing Nuts Fender Washers (large OD) Brass Tubing with screw threads
added after purchasing

Two springs are compressed about 30% Maintain about 2.5 lbs tension in wires

Secondary Mirror
ABS Plastic Tubing 1/8” wall Copper Foil Tape for stained-glass craft Silicone Caulk used a minimal amount 1/8” gap

Video Segment 02 The Wire Spider

The Mirror Cell PLOP Cell Designer

Mirror Bottom Support
Each support point symmetrically spaced and providing equal support of the mirror all on three base points and a series of whiffletrees

A base point

`

(9) Point Support (6) Point Support

Mirror Bottom Support
Each support point symmetrically spaced and providing equal support of the mirror all on three base points and a series of whiffletrees

A base point

(27) Point Support for 30inch Mirror

Mirror Bottom Support

Finite element analysis Will optimize the placement of mirror support points Gives surface deformations (how much the mirror deflects) Automatic Cell Design makes it easy to use

PLOP Cell Designer

Mirror Bottom Support

PLOP Cell Designer
Optimized PLOP Results for my mirror
Number of Support Points 3 6 9 18 P-V Error (nm) 20.4 5.9 6.0 1.6 RMS Error (nm) 4.67 0.96 1.20 0.25

Recommended cell surface error of 3 to 5nm my mirror is 12” diameter, 1.5” thick, pyrex Errors are surface deformation in nanometers

Mirror Bottom Support

PLOP Cell Designer
Optimized PLOP Results for my mirror
Number of Support Points 3 6 9 18 P-V Error (nm) 20.4 5.9 6.0 1.6 RMS Error (nm) 4.67 0.96 1.20 0.25

Recommended cell surface error of 3 to 5nm my mirror is 12” diameter, 1.5” thick, pyrex Errors are surface deformation in nanometers

Mirror Bottom Support

PLOP Cell Designer

A three point mirror cell has surface error of 20nm My mirror has a surface error of 26nm

```

20nm

Mirror Bottom Support

PLOP Cell Designer

Mirror Diameter D

d

(6) support points are equally spaced on a diameter d optimized by PLOP d = 0.60 D

Mirror Edge Supports

Mirror Edge Support

Typical Fixed Edge Supports

These edge supports are not much different than how I supported my mirror to test it

Mirror Edge Support

45° whiffletree support

Roller bearings

Mirror Edge Support

180° Seat Belt Sling

Nils Olof Carlin on

180° Belt Slings

....there are possibly serious but usually ignored potential problems:
1. The sling supports should of course not press against the mirror edge - this means that there must be a small part of the sling that is free between the support posts. Thus, the mirror can swing a little side-to-side causing some possible mis-collimation, but this problem may not be so severe. 2. Another problem is that the commonly used "seatbelt" type of wide sling will not have its forces applied at a well-defined level. If applied at the plane of the center of gravity, the support will be well balanced - I don't believe minor deviations from this ideal is a serious practical problem, either. 3. The third problem is when the sling "grips" the mirror edge (by friction) near the "sides" where it leaves the mirror. pulling the edge forward or back. This can cause noticeable astigmatism even with tiny misalignments, and is, I believe, the most serious of these problems.

PLOP results show that the common 180° belt sling is extremely sensitive to adjustment and .... can have disastrous effects on performance.

Mirror Edge Support

180° Cable Sling

Cable must be on mirror C.O.G

Slings allow the mirror to swing so there are horizontal stops

Mirror Edge Support Nils Olof Carlin's

3 Part Cable Sling

The bottom two slings have 90° mirror contact, the top sling has 180° contact

Innovative Component Award Mirror Cell Adjuster & Cable Sling
One wire rope is wrapped around the mirror twice

( 3/64” dia. x 86” lg )

Cable makes 150° contact with mirror (3) times

`

150°
r

Cable makes 150° contact with mirror (3) times

`

150°

150°

Cable makes 150° contact with mirror (3) times

`

Cable ends are tied to each other with Split Bolt Connectors (Home Depot, electrical dept.)

Cable ends have a tube glued to it

Tension is put into the cable with a special-made device

Three clips hold cable in place

Tubing Goop'ed to mirror keeps mirror from falling forward

Video Segment 03 The Cable Sling

My two cents worth...
(for 12” mirrors and larger)

Caulking the mirror
to the cell is recommended and commonplace... ...but the potential for mirror distortion by caulking the mirror to the cell is great

These are the only forces that you want on a mirror .... perpendicular to the mirror surface

These forces you want to avoid ...parallel to the mirror surface

Gluing the mirror to the supports will induce shear forces on the mirror at different temperatures.

The mirror will bend
Mirror Glued to Supports at temperature

T

at temperature

T = T + ΔT

at temperature

T = T - ΔT

Without edge supports Gluing the mirror to supports will induce shear forces on mirrors

The mirror will bend

What other ways can you support a mirror?
Felt Pads

Roller bearings
on 45° whiffletree supports

Magic Sliders

Rubber Pads

If you do glue down your mirrors
Have a good gap between mirror and support Do not use more caulk than you need to Gap

The Mirror Cell Adjuster

Mirror Cell Adjuster
I would not consider a mirror cell that I can't collimate while looking into the Cheshire or eyepiece... Nils Olof Carlin

Innovative Component Award Mirror Cell Adjuster
Two 12” long Allen Wrenches
(hex keys)

are used to collimate the mirrors You can reach these wrenches while looking into the eyepiece

Elbow modified with bushing

die spring

Socket head cap screw

How the Mirror Adjusters Work

spacer

How the Mirror Adjusters Work

Elbow modified with bushing

How the Mirror Adjusters Work

Allen wrench

How the Mirror Adjusters Work

A 1

How the Mirror Adjusters Work

B

How the Mirror Adjusters Work

At this compression the spring force is 20 lbs

How the Mirror Adjusters Work

Video Segment 04 Mirror Cell Adjuster

The Roller Bearings

After about a year I replaced all my Teflon pads with Roller Bearings
(no longer a Dobs)

And I did that because....
With my large cradle and turntable radius it took too much force to direct the telescope
(in either altitude or azimuth)

1. Which makes Dobson's Hole too large
R

2. There is a spring back effect at the eyepiece when directing you telescope at a celestial object

R

Video Segment 05 Telescope Spring Back

The Friction Clutch

Innovative Component Award Friction Clutch
Magic Slider

Video Segment 06 The Friction Clutch

That's All Folks..........

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful