What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Why couldn't a catadioptric or newtonian optical system be used in binoculars?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WJC" data-source="post: 3160190" data-attributes="member: 25191"><p>This . . . . . . is London. Oops, wrong intro. </p><p></p><p>I see a lot of talk about f/1 mirrors, f/1.5 mirrors, and the like, and I would like to interject a few small chunks of reality.</p><p></p><p>I don’t care who you are, unless you have the budget of the federal government backing you up, your chances of getting it into an instrument that works well is about .001%. I have encountered a number of people, in my last 40 years in telescope making, who have gone weak in the knees over some f/1 mirror acquisition they made from Edmund Scientific, Surplus Shed, eBay, and the like and had big plans as to what they were going to make with it. However, I have yet to see any one of these projects come to fruition! I’ve grown Jaded; don’t give me hopes, dreams, and plans; show me products . . . with photos of a star field.</p><p></p><p>“Regardless how elegant the plan, from time to time you need to look at the RESULTS.”—Winston Churchill </p><p></p><p>Furthermore, I have never heard the starry-eyed discuss the secondary. An f/1 mirror is going to take a secondary of about 70% obstruction! Oops! There went the contrast you wanted. According to Rayleigh, you can’t achieve a diffraction limited system with it having more than an 18% obstruction. When planning a system, you have to plan the WHOLE THING! Elements and aberrations don’t live in a vacuum.</p><p></p><p>And, if you’re making the mirror:</p><p></p><p>* Small f/10 mirrors may be left spherical.</p><p>* f/9 mirrors produce very subtle shadows. Making them is not for the faint of heart or patience.</p><p>* f/7-f/8 mirrors can be made by anyone with patience and common sense.</p><p>* f/6 mirrors are beginning to get tough.</p><p>* f/4-f/5 mirrors separate the men from the boys.</p><p>* Below f/4, problems increase exponentially with EACH new f/ratio.</p><p>* F/1? God is still trying to finish his first!</p><p></p><p>Cheers,</p><p></p><p>Bill</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WJC, post: 3160190, member: 25191"] This . . . . . . is London. Oops, wrong intro. I see a lot of talk about f/1 mirrors, f/1.5 mirrors, and the like, and I would like to interject a few small chunks of reality. I don’t care who you are, unless you have the budget of the federal government backing you up, your chances of getting it into an instrument that works well is about .001%. I have encountered a number of people, in my last 40 years in telescope making, who have gone weak in the knees over some f/1 mirror acquisition they made from Edmund Scientific, Surplus Shed, eBay, and the like and had big plans as to what they were going to make with it. However, I have yet to see any one of these projects come to fruition! I’ve grown Jaded; don’t give me hopes, dreams, and plans; show me products . . . with photos of a star field. “Regardless how elegant the plan, from time to time you need to look at the RESULTS.”—Winston Churchill Furthermore, I have never heard the starry-eyed discuss the secondary. An f/1 mirror is going to take a secondary of about 70% obstruction! Oops! There went the contrast you wanted. According to Rayleigh, you can’t achieve a diffraction limited system with it having more than an 18% obstruction. When planning a system, you have to plan the WHOLE THING! Elements and aberrations don’t live in a vacuum. And, if you’re making the mirror: * Small f/10 mirrors may be left spherical. * f/9 mirrors produce very subtle shadows. Making them is not for the faint of heart or patience. * f/7-f/8 mirrors can be made by anyone with patience and common sense. * f/6 mirrors are beginning to get tough. * f/4-f/5 mirrors separate the men from the boys. * Below f/4, problems increase exponentially with EACH new f/ratio. * F/1? God is still trying to finish his first! Cheers, Bill [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Why couldn't a catadioptric or newtonian optical system be used in binoculars?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top