Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
Alph
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/23/06

Loc: Melmac
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: GlennLeDrew]
      #5603023 - 01/03/13 01:36 PM

Quote:

What do you mean when you say "spread over the full image"?



It means that the diffraction effects spread over the full image. In principle, this is a correct statement. You just can't take it literately without qualifiers. In practice you will not see it, although the MTF graph captures that effect quite well.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DesertRat
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/18/06

Loc: Valley of the Sun
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: Alph]
      #5603282 - 01/03/13 03:59 PM Attachment (22 downloads)

There is no way an obstruction will brighten the sky in practical terms. If that was seen something else was going on.

Below is an annotated MTF labeled with Suiter's terminlogy. Basically what is shows is that a perfect telescope with increasing obstruction continues to have a high resolving power. In fact resolution is slightly enhanced as can be seen in the graph. However contrast suffers for larger structures or lower spatial frequencies. This graph has an annotation for the Dawes criteria which is at approximately 0.98. That is a normalized figure. To convert to arcseconds recall the Dawes criteria being Theta = 4.56/D with D in inches and Theta in arcseconds. You can convert from there. Rayleigh is at 5.45/D. Pardon the imperial units.

A fraction or normalized X-axis is used so the graph applies to any aperture size within reason.

Glenn


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orion61

*****

Reged: 10/20/07

Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ *DELETED* new [Re: GlennLeDrew]
      #5603493 - 01/03/13 06:34 PM

Post deleted by orion61

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
cn register 5
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/26/12

Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: orion61]
      #5603522 - 01/03/13 06:57 PM

If you ask a question that needs a technical answer then you can't complain when you get technical answers.

Chris


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orion61

*****

Reged: 10/20/07

Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: cn register 5]
      #5603609 - 01/03/13 07:51 PM

I dont mind a technical answer,
I just dont like being refernced as stupid for asking it.
or seeing it for the first time.
I merely referenced an article that had other information.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
budman1961
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 02/25/11

Loc: Springfield, MO
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: orion61]
      #5603873 - 01/03/13 11:17 PM

Based on the temperature of all the responses to any new Meade thread, why did you ask the question? Not to call you anything, or infer anything, but it seems to me these Meade threads all end up the same way......

Sorry.....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GlennLeDrew
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: budman1961]
      #5604023 - 01/04/13 02:46 AM

Oops! I had mistakenly posted here a lengthy test result on *spider* diffraction, meant for a thread in the ATM Forum. Silly me...

Edited by GlennLeDrew (01/04/13 06:21 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: orion61]
      #5604158 - 01/04/13 07:05 AM

Quote:

So if the CO makes no difference, why do Compound Camera lenses never have the contrast levels of a similar sized non obstructed one?

I'm just having difficulty grasping the concept, I had read in S&T that the larger secondary has a thicker diffraction ring, that gets spread across the entire image that decreases contrast on a scale determined by the % of the obstruction?

Also why is it always such a big topic over in the Refractor Threads?




Well, Glenn is right. Both answers are a result of scale. The CO affects least images on the scale of the first ring, then creates some loss out to about 3 times the Raleigh limit. This equates to features smaller than Jupiter's belt thickness. So, for finer planetary detail, the contrast response can be less that full aperture.

On larger scales, where cameras presumably operate, diffraction on a fence post, for example, is practically none existent. Once you get beyond 10x the Raleigh criteria, all scopes perform about the same.

The trick to reading the MTF is to realize all of the right half are very small features at or near the Airy disc. Much of the left side are also very small features. If you think about it, diffraction effects of a 1" arc pattern have little effect beyond 3 or 4" arc. Contrast improves beyond this range - on the very far left of the MTF graph (spacial frequencies around 0.3 and less.)

The larger COs in SCTs are really designed for general purpose use and do give very good views. No doubt. And they are optimized, really, for resolution across all frequencies, not just a specific region of the MTF.

The problem they present is on peak intensity of the diffraction image. To maintain 80% (diffraction limited equivalent) peak intensity, the CO must remain pretty small and not divert too much light into the rings (along with any aberrations present.) This also requires a good optical figure. Actually, a perfect scope can have a CO approaching 45% and still maintain peak intensity of about 80% or better. Lessor correction requires a smaller CO to maintain that level of intensity (peak vs rings.) This is where refractors have an advantage, they have no CO and their peak intensity (pretty much) equals their (normally very good) Strehl.

But, again, most of that is occurring on scales where diffraction matters, maybe out to the angular dimension of third ring or so. Beyond that and contrast improves dramatically and and obstructed scopes begin to catch up to unobstructed apertures...and camera lenses.

http://www.telescope-optics.net/telescope_central_obstruction.htm


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: Darren Drake]
      #5604227 - 01/04/13 08:27 AM

Quote:

Looks like it's about a 42% or so obstruction.




Obstruction is calculated by two ways, by area and by diameter. Meade uses 'by area' method. A while back I had come up with following figures for LX800 which should be the same for LX600 given the same OTAs:

10" f/8 ACF:
Obstruction size=4.58" [Derived]
Obstruction by area=20.95%
Obstruction by diameter=45.80%

12" f/8 ACF:
Obstruction size=4.93" [Derived]
Obstruction by area=16.86%
Obstruction by diameter=41.08%

14" f/8 ACF:
Obstruction size=5.1" [Derived]
Obstruction by area=13.28%
Obstruction by diameter=36.43%


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: Darren Drake]
      #5604238 - 01/04/13 08:34 AM

Following is the math behind central obstruction calculations; following example applies to 10" f/8 ACF:

Aperture=10"
Secondary Mirror Obstruction=4.58"
Pi=3.14
Area of entire aperture=3.14*(10/2)^2=78.50
Area of secondary mirror obstruction=3.14*(4.58/2)^2=16.47

Obstruction (by area method)=16.47/78.50=0.21=20.95% (Meade's way of calculating)
[Easy calc: 0.458*0.458=0.21=21%]

Obstruction (by diameter method)=4.58/10.00=0.46=45.80% (Others vendors' way of calculating)
Obstruction (by diameter, alternate method)=SQRT(16.47/78.50)=0.46=45.80% (Others vendors' way of calculating)
[Easy calc: 4.58/10=0.458=45.8%]


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: budman1961]
      #5604550 - 01/04/13 11:04 AM

Good morning, everyone. Let's make an effort to stick to talking about the science of optics in this thread without certain kinds of editorializing that makes us all uncomfortable.

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orion61

*****

Reged: 10/20/07

Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: budman1961]
      #5604590 - 01/04/13 11:23 AM

Quote:

Based on the temperature of all the responses to any new Meade thread, why did you ask the question? Not to call you anything, or infer anything, but it seems to me these Meade threads all end up the same way......




Yeah i see your point, it was just a knee jerk reaction while reading my new S&T and saw the front of one for the first time under the new products out! I was actually looking for a note by someone that had one, to give a "mini review"
In the long run I still think the SCT's and related systems are still the best over all system


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: Joe Cepleur]
      #5604603 - 01/04/13 11:32 AM

Quote:

Something about apparent brightness versus percent central obstruction?




The MTF does not plot brightness, but there is some peak intensity loss spreading the rest of the light into the rings. If you crunch the numbers using some approximations (assuming the same aperture and aberrant Strehl of .95) you get...

http://www.telescope-optics.net/obstruction.htm

CO 46%
EE 42% (Airy disc, max = 84%)
Intensity 62% (Normalized to 1)
Nominal 59% (Working Strehl assuming aberrant Strehl 0.95.)

CO 41%
EE 50%
Intensity 69%
Nominal 66%

CO 36%
EE 57%
Intensity 75%
Nominal 71%

CO 29%
EE 67%
Intensity 84%
Nominal 80%(Essentially the diffraction limit peak intensity.)

CO 0% (Refractor)
EE 84%
Intensity 100%
Nominal 95%

You can see how a smaller CO reduces light loss due to it's diffraction effect and obscuration of the light path. An unobstructed aperture does not have this "problem." However, a little contrast loss is nothing a little more aperture cannot cure.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Cepleur
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/18/10

Loc: Dark North Woods
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: Asbytec]
      #5604701 - 01/04/13 12:37 PM

Quote:

a little contrast loss is nothing a little more aperture cannot cure




That I understand, despite that I'm still learning to understand all the numbers. This is the quirk that makes SCTs great. Sure, there are trade-offs, but look how big the gains are. A relatively inexpensive, portable telescope that performs pretty much like a giant, costly, heavy refractor! Not exactly, but dollar-for-dollar and pound-for-pound plenty good enough. Gotta love 'em!

I read recently that, compared with an unobstructed scope, an 8" C8 has the resolution of an 8-inch, the brightness of a 6.25-inch, and the contrast of (I forget exactly...) a 5.5-inch. That's a fabulous deal for the size, weight, and price!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GlennLeDrew
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: Joe Cepleur]
      #5605912 - 01/05/13 01:40 AM

Earlier in this thread I had given vent to my general frustration regarding the ongoing propagation of myths in the amateur community. My comments were directed at no one in particular, but rather the nebulous, amorphous masses comprised of us all. I have to remind myself than in a community where the participants cannot see nor hear one another, adherence to diplomacy is the watchword. My apologies to any and all who I've offended.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike Harvey
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 03/01/04

Loc: Orlando, FL.
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: GlennLeDrew]
      #5607338 - 01/05/13 09:33 PM

Quote:


Again, I'm astonished at the vast ocean of confusion out there in amateur land, as regards even the fundamentals of contrast transfer in optical instruments. I really wish the community as a whole would finally get these matters straight, and not propagate the same old misinformation generation after generation.




I'm SO GLAD you posted that! There are, indeed, way too many iron-clad "truths" that are no more than uninformed "beliefs"!

Unfortunately, trying to 'set the record straight' on these forums only leads to flame-wars launched by the Luddites who just will not listen to anything that disturbs their firmly-entrenched worldview.

Wouldn't it be great if someone with widespread credibility wrote a book correcting these misconceptions?

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Cepleur
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/18/10

Loc: Dark North Woods
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: Mike Harvey]
      #5607492 - 01/05/13 11:10 PM

Quote:

Quote:


Again, I'm astonished at the vast ocean of confusion out there in amateur land, as regards even the fundamentals of contrast transfer in optical instruments. I really wish the community as a whole would finally get these matters straight, and not propagate the same old misinformation generation after generation.




I'm SO GLAD you posted that! There are, indeed, way too many iron-clad "truths" that are no more than uninformed "beliefs"!

Unfortunately, trying to 'set the record straight' on these forums only leads to flame-wars launched by the Luddites who just will not listen to anything that disturbs their firmly-entrenched worldview.

Wouldn't it be great if someone with widespread credibility wrote a book correcting these misconceptions?

Mike




Does this constitute "highjacking the thread," or may we accept that, in order to discuss the size of the LX600's obstruction, one must be willing to discuss whatever is known about the size of obstructions?! Personally, I consider the philosophy behind a topic to be part of the topic, because one must understand how one understands.

I, too, was shocked upon first seeing the LX600's obstruction, and asked myself the same question, so I was glad to see the question appear in a thread. I see the problem as essentially cultural. Highly technical people with scientific training ask each other questions that include all relevant details, including those likely to be known. They also ask, "How do you know?" questions. People outside of this cultural circle sometimes misconstrue this as arrogance. It would help if people knew each other's styles, and so discussed topics fluidly, independently of personal style. Trouble is, it's not clear how they might come to know what they do not know, so the flame wars will likely continue.

The gap is well illustrated by the comedian's gag (wish I could credit this; anyone recognize it? maybe Eddie Murphy?). It's unprintable in this forum in its original form, so let's hope this variant will suffice: "The tech folk be always measuring their biceps. The Romantics just look at their arms and say, 'Wow! They're big!'"

Personally, I'd love to learn the standard misconceptions and the physics behind them. It would be part and parcel of learning the actual truths, but a more thorough way to learn.

It's late. I'm tired. Sorry if this important point is tending toward a rant.

Maybe there should be a new forum dedicated to myths about telescopes!

Anyway, the thread has helped me. As I see it, contrast is the range between the brightest and dimmest regions of an image. Sure, a scope of the LX600's aperture could be built for higher contrast, but with such large aperture and the efficiency of modern coatings, apparently the LX600 works well enough as is, with wide fields of view and fast exposure times as part of the package.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GlennLeDrew
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: Joe Cepleur]
      #5607666 - 01/06/13 01:17 AM

Joe,
The topic is the large central obstruction and its impact on contrast transfer. Bringing to light the confusion which leads to the very kinds of misinformation brought up during the discussion is most definitely relevant, and not 'hijacking' the thread.

One thing I've long advocated is the treating of contrast at two scales.

Small, where diffraction effects impact the image within the limit of the inner 2-3 rings surrounding the Airy disk for any image point.

Large, where scattering floods all or some portion of the field with veiling glare.

The former is relevant to the observation of fine detail at reasonably high levels of surface brightness, where the eye's resolving power is maximal, or not much reduced. Such targets as the Moon, planets, double stars and compact clusters benefit from minimal degradation introduced by additional diffractive edges within the aperture.

Objects having low to moderate surface brightness are not visibly impacted by diffraction, simply because the eye's resolving power is too low. Galaxies and virtually all nebulae fall into this category; they're called faint fuzzies for a reason.

Another aspect to bear in mind is that the effects of diffraction become visible only when the exit pupil has become sufficiently small. Even for systems having a whopping central obstruction, it requires something like a 1.5mm (perhaps a bit larger) exit pupil to see the Fresnel pattern. At larger exit pupils--certainly by 2mm or so--the image is about as good as unobstructed as regards perceivable detail.

At this and larger exit pupils, veiling glare is the only contrast robber of concern (assuming optical quality is otherwise good.)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: GlennLeDrew]
      #5607696 - 01/06/13 02:07 AM

"Simple minds discuss people. Good minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas."

Indeed.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill Barlow
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/03/07

Loc: Overland Park KS
Re: I cant believe the size of the LX600........ new [Re: mmalik]
      #5608054 - 01/06/13 10:50 AM

I find it interesting from your calculations of the CO by area/diameter in the new Meade f/8 OTA's. It seems that as the aperture gets larger, the CO gets smaller. The M14 f/8 has about the same CO in area and diameter as the C9.25.. The C9.25 is an excellent scope visually, so would the M14 f/8 also be good visually? But maybe the different optical design of the C9.25 primary and secondary mirror f ratios contributes to this?

Bill


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
13 registered and 22 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 3746

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics