Jump to content


Photo

Hypo/Dialyte testing discovery

  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#76 Aljr

Aljr

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2010
  • Loc: BRAZIL

Posted 08 December 2012 - 12:45 PM

That sounds great to me!!! :D, but John Wall (re)open the door. Ps.:I am the 50° fifth recreational design:

And by "Joe" he means C2H5O :)

I am 100% behind exploratory, recreational optical design. It's how I stirred the pot and came up with the designs that Mladen brought up here. Ed Jones and Mark Harry are also recreational explorers, as is Peter Wise and 50-odd other names I could drop. I guess that's why I am offended by the term "tired old designs" above. I could say that this "hypo" thing is also just a recycling of "tired old designs", in this case a Petzval lens, albeit with uncorrected Petval field curvature and lateral color. That's the only "AHA I get it!!" moment I get from a "Hypo". But knowing that doesn't trivialize it or render it undesirable to try building - it's a simple way to achieve a large-aperture refractor while only needing to make but one full-aperture refractive element. That's all Mark has presented this to you as, and I'm looking forward to his First Light report. But can we also respect and welcome other designs as well, and not practice what is effectively optical design racism?
Mike



#77 Crayfordjon

Crayfordjon

    Vendor - Zerochromat

  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: UK

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:03 PM

I am afraid that the term "tired old design" has been appended to the Hypochromat, well of course this shews very clearly that once more my thesis has been briefly scanned and all the wrong conclusions perceived, good old knee jerk reaction as usual. Now if you read my thesis carefully and take in all the points laid down you will get a different perspective of what I am trying to say, and with a bit of luck it will be the right one just for once. The term tired old sesign in the case of the Hypo shews I am right here in saying this. So let me remind you once more, the Hypo was discovered by me four years ago when I noticed an anomaly in the image quality which just should not have been there while I was analyzing a retro lens set on the optical bench in my lab. I realised that this would produce a very simple, if imperfect refractor. I noticed subsequently that this anomaly does not appear in any of the optical text books, so I assumed that it was a new discovery. I have repeatedly explained the simple principles of the Hypo on this forum with basic geometrical optical diagrams, and yet the message did not and still has not gone across. There are a small few who took the trouble to understand what I was saying and they understood, but just a very few. Mark is one those few. and Aldevio in Brazil took the design on board with great enthusiasm, and he has now built and researched several versions of his own. I just mention these two. It seems to me that on the ATM forum most have entrenched ideas based on those designs that have been with us since the German physicists made all those discoveries back in the 19th century, and of course you cannot discover any more, because it has all been done and dusted, a prejudice cast in tungsten carbide. The old reaction to Marks research is that it has all been done before by Petzval, the fact that Mark has come up with an achromatic version of a Hypo does not seem to get across. Even the Hypo has been described as a Petzval deriviative, which it definately is not as it bears only a vague morphological resemblence and no more. When I joined CNR ATM forum I was nticipating lively and imformed discusions abouit new ideas, but so far in all thast time, only a very small handful have done this, 99% of the time it has been carping destructive critisism all the way.

#78 DAVIDG

DAVIDG

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4797
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Hockessin, De

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:13 PM

I think the push back might be that the spot diagrams are not very good. Experimentation is great when you don't know the out come or your testing a theory. It is what I do for a living. In this case the spot diagram is clearly predicting the out come and the theory behind the raytracing math is solid. One stirs the pot around here when a design is posted that shows excellent results via raytracing. In this thread alone there have been a number of new designs discussed. Why have they been built or being built? Because the spot diagram showed the excellent results that could be achieved.
- Dave

PS Mark might want add a splash of hydrogen to that C2H5O 'Joe' to flavor it up so it more like CH3-CH2-OH. That additional 'H' makes a big difference in the taste, trust me !

#79 Aljr

Aljr

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2010
  • Loc: BRAZIL

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:42 PM

All humans now know that the earth is round / spherical, but many humans can not do an experiment to prove. And many researchers believe in the "perfect theory". the "perfect theory" explains everything. I disagree.
If there were a "perfect theory", missions to Mars should be canceled. If there were "perfect theory", would not have discovered a huge oil reserve here on the coast of Brazil.

#80 DAVIDG

DAVIDG

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4797
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Hockessin, De

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

What new theory are you trying to prove with a Hypo Dialyte ? The math discriping the interaction of light with refractive and reflective surfaces has been well established and tested many times. So unless there is a bug in the software of both OSLO, Zemax or any other raytracing program, they predict the results extremely well of any optical design that uses these materials. There are millions of designs to prove this. So why should one throw all that data away and experiment with a design that using these proven tools that shows it not to have very good performance ?

- Dave

#81 Gary Fuchs

Gary Fuchs

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
  • Joined: 22 May 2006
  • Loc: Easton, PA, USA

Posted 08 December 2012 - 04:18 PM

I used to see a lot of newcomer's questions here and elsewhere replied to with "Search the archives, this has been answered before." Lately I think folks are starting to realize that while the answers might be in the archives there's so much there that a search can take a long time unless you know the subject well enough to structure a very specific search phrase--which of course being a newcomer you don't know how to do.

When something is posted here that piques my interest--like the current thread--I want to learn about it because maybe there's some improvement I can make in what I'm doing. Who knows, I might even be able to offer a suggestion.

Now I know of a couple of ways to make and test a convex surface...but one thing that got me interested in this thread was the idea that there might be other easier ways--ways that might not have been either known about or described before, either online or in various books--which might be known to a person with particular professional optical fabrication experience.

The answers to my questions were, with one minor exception, not forthcoming. This isn't the first time the OP has either not described a technique, or given a partial explanation, or just tantalizing glimpses.

This is an amateur forum. Not, at least for the participants as far as I know, a place to self-promote. If you're going to talk about a design or technique then you should be prepared to answer reasonable questions--questions like how do you make and test the glass you're describing as relatively easy to make and test.

If the techniques you're using aren't proprietary and are well known and you don't feel inclined or have the knack to explain what's been said well elsewhere then go ahead and cite references that any of us can lay our hands on.

Now, as far as the Wall Hypo is concerned, there were a lot of pictures posted but almost all were of fairly poor quality and not of astronomical targets and many had obviously been post-processed. So what they show is questionable. To my eye about what you might expect from a cheap pair of binoculars. There was nothing compelling to induce me to build one or even to place any faith in the claims.

Now if it were actually harder to make say a 12-16" mirror for a Newtonian then a refractor that size would be more appealing as an alternative.

It sounded to me like the OP's design had color issues with two of the extra lenses along two axes. If the alignment procedure is easy for that I'd like to have it described--and not just as being easy and simple for anyone who's made two good mirrors.

And hijacking threads...well, there are tangents and then hijacking. Not always easy to say when what occurs but certainly not hard to just say. Before we call any kettles black it might be good to consider history.

I'm all ears for those explanations of tools and techniques. I'm working on a convex surface right now and if there's an easier/simpler/cheaper way to do it than making a test plate and interference testing against that I'd love to hear it.

And if I can easily make a big loose tolerance objective and add some cheap loose tolerance OTS lenses and with a simple alignment technique end up with a 50X/inch color-free refractor with great contrast...wow, count me in as soon as I can lay my hands on that big glass...but, if it's going to end up for sale with crucial specs either secret or patented then go ahead and make it and pay for advertising like any other business...

(Incidentally, we've heard enthusiastic things before; and that attitude is fine...but attitude alone doesn't make something work.
If I were to get the idea that gasoline might make a new kind of very effective fire extinguisher material and head over to the Fire Extinguisher Forum and talk about what a great new idea I had--after all, there's nothing like this in the literature or patented and since water and gasoline are liquids and one ought to work as well as the other--should I expect all sorts of acclaim and support and lively discussion of the relative possible merits of one octane over another or the value of varying amounts of ethanol? Should my feelings be hurt because people point out the obvious? At the very least, if I have in mind to do something special and new with the gasoline to make it better at putting out fires than say water then shouldn't I describe it? Peer review?)

Gary

#82 Aljr

Aljr

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2010
  • Loc: BRAZIL

Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:31 PM

What new theory are you trying to prove with a Hypo Dialyte ? The math discriping the interaction of light with refractive and reflective surfaces has been well established and tested many times. So unless there is a bug in the software of both OSLO, Zemax or any other raytracing program, they predict the results extremely well of any optical design that uses these materials. There are millions of designs to prove this. So why should one throw all that data away and experiment with a design that using these proven tools that shows it not to have very good performance ?

- Dave


Maybe John Wall can never agree with what I say:
The person who will find the bug / get the credit.
The programmer who wrote the program(Oslo, Zemax, DBoptic) might help. Maybe some student who wants to defend his doctoral thesis. John measured the results on your countertop and the program gives another result. In my simulations with DBOptic, I noticed that when we insert in the program DBoptic, a series of lenses to form an equivalent lens(this is similar to a combination of resistors) the program provides a result that agrees / is similar to experiment / practice. I would like to apologize to John Wall for doing your Hypo with a OG lens F/D 17, he recommends f/d 30 or f/d 40. HE NEVER ACCEPTED IT. I then decided to put a series of negative meniscus (common spectacle lens), in front of the OG lens, in order to extend the focal length of the lens at F / D 40. In my mind, every time I put a negative meniscus of -0.25 diopters in front OG lens, the focus of the OG lens would be far / long, so focus lens OG could also be infinite... Anyone can try this in the program. Take a OG lens 150/3000mm, place 8 meniscus of -0.25 diopters, 1700mm after OG lens front, and an achromatic doublet 70/500mm behind( +/- 50mm distance after meniscus). See soluction.jpg and bug.jpg

Attached Files



#83 Aljr

Aljr

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2010
  • Loc: BRAZIL

Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:34 PM

The Bug, this system is Better(only one negative CR39 meniscus lens -2 diopters = -0.25x8). Good Results in practical. See bug.jpg

Attached Files



#84 MKV

MKV

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2573
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2011

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:05 PM

Excsue me, Aljr, how can you have three air spaced elements and only 5 surfaces??? Thanks.

Mladen

#85 Aljr

Aljr

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2010
  • Loc: BRAZIL

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

Surfaces are 7 in total. Is understood: there are three elements. Please, see this new drawing: I went down the "scroll bar" on DBoptics.

By other hand: is important I say: the sketches above are referring to dialyte Petzval. These drawings do not refer to Hypo.

Attached Files



#86 MKV

MKV

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2573
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2011

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:20 PM

Surfaces are 7 in total. Is understood: there are three elements. Please, see this new drawing: I went down the "scroll bar" on DBoptics.

By other hand: is important I say: the sketches above are referring to dialyte Petzval. These drawings do not refer to Hypo.

Thank you, sir, for clarifying this.

Mladen

#87 MKV

MKV

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2573
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2011

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:36 PM

Aljr, are you saying this configuration is corrected?

Regards,
Mladen

#88 Crayfordjon

Crayfordjon

    Vendor - Zerochromat

  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: UK

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:45 AM

Yerse Mike, point taken. The snipe at " shewn" is of course how we spikka da lingo ere in good old Blighty. As to the bad images taken with a hypo, you are right, they are bad, but I have already admitted that, the quality is mainly due to the fact that I am not using an imaging camera, but an ordinary bog standard camera such as a Panasonic Lumix, great for the snap shot general public but not too good on critical focus, next the shots are also taken through double glazing, which dont help much, however the images are to illustrate the lack of " huge amounts of colour" that have been levelled at the system, which of course is untrue, if it were so, I would have abanded the Hypo at birth, and none of you would have heard about it. Now I come to the nub here, you have still not grasped the points I laid down in my original thesis, so I will go over them once more. The Hypo is a visual instrument. The hypo only works at low power as found in binoculars etc, so it belongs in that region of use. The Hypo is incredibly cheap to build. The Hypo can be made by those starting out in ATM or Astronomy. The Hypo when used visually gives bright and very clean images. The Hypo has colour in the system, but it is of a low order and is tolerable to ordinary folk. The Hypo is not the new scope that will sweep the board. Now Mike, it is a matter of choice, as you sniffilly aver that you will never bother to make one, so be it, I am not bovvered one bit, its your choice. Finally we come to my egotistic attitude, sorry about that and you have a right to say so, but in my defence my attitude is due to the obdurate refusal to entertain my point of view, not accept it mind you, and so far the whole idea of the Hypo has been met with derision and hostilty, by the majority of the ATM population here, which says something! believe you me. I will say no more on this topic.

#89 Mark Harry

Mark Harry

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 6162
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:43 AM

This thread has totally fallen thru the floor; nowhere near on topic of an interesting facet of a test I made on longitudinal color. That was totally ignored.
Otherwise fine and good minds here have allowed themselves to be drawn into endless bickering, nitpicking, pontifying, and posturing.
******
It's sometimes a wonder (to myself) -WHY- I even bother to try posting about something interesting that I may have observed, come across, or might be working on....
M.

#90 kfrederick

kfrederick

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:46 AM

Mark there are many who read and get informed from your posts. Think you could use two eyepieces with one lens if the large singlet was slow enough .

#91 ed_turco

ed_turco

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Lincoln, RI

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:18 AM

Mark,

Please please, keep up the posts. Nitpicking sometimes help discover something better.

As to those pictures shown; they were taken through Double Glazing I can only imagine what these systems work outside! Open that window forget the seeing and the heat loss and look through air only. It may be lousy but a lot better than glazing and/or a window screen; (mine has both).

Maybe on a warmer day; but please, take new piccys.

Ed

#92 Mark Harry

Mark Harry

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 6162
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:25 PM

They ain't my pictures!
Actually using this meniscus like a hypo can resolve small overspray specs down to .005-.010" in diameter at about 35 yards- window open, or closed.
It impresses me at the moment that without any baffling that the extraneous light is spoiling the MTF to a degree.
M.

#93 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13745
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:51 PM

Despite the lively banter, I've seen nothing in this discussion that would stop anyone from pursuing this design if they wanted.

#94 Crayfordjon

Crayfordjon

    Vendor - Zerochromat

  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 04:59 AM

Ed. Here are a couple of test pics outside using a six inch standard Hypo. The greenish cast is Cyan, as the 50mm Plossl is coated with "Ruby" coating. Minus red from RBG gives Cyan. Yes it is about time this thread was put back on the rails so here is the kick off.

Attached Files



#95 Crayfordjon

Crayfordjon

    Vendor - Zerochromat

  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:00 AM

Same greyscale

Attached Files



#96 Crayfordjon

Crayfordjon

    Vendor - Zerochromat

  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:03 AM

Any slight fuzz is due to the quality of the Camera, which is cheap and cheerful. :grin:

#97 ed_turco

ed_turco

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Lincoln, RI

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:50 AM

Your pics are most informative. Why not go for a full color shot? Pretty please?


Ed

#98 Crayfordjon

Crayfordjon

    Vendor - Zerochromat

  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:48 AM

The green imageis a full colour shot, the other is greyscale.

#99 Crayfordjon

Crayfordjon

    Vendor - Zerochromat

  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:55 AM

To follow on I have been developing a Hypo style refractor which had no achromatic elements in it at all, the idea behind the concept is to get three monochromatic images: R G B, and then combine them into a colour image free of CA and LCA. Three interference filters were used. The last image is the green one greyscaled.

Attached Files



#100 Crayfordjon

Crayfordjon

    Vendor - Zerochromat

  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:57 AM

The three separate images. First

Attached Files








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics