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 >> Reflectors

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
careysub
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors
      #5619831 - 01/12/13 09:26 PM

(I posted a version of this at the end of a long ATM forum thread, but is not really ATM material.)

There is work being done now on carbon fiber/epoxy mirrors that are showing promising results:
http://www.compositemirrors.com/pub/spie/ULTRAOptics.pdf

What they are doing is (in effect) using a glass "inverse mirror" mirror as a mold, applying a layer of commercial pre-impregnated CF fabric/epoxy that is cured at 121 C under 15-30 psi. The composite mirror surface is generated by direct contact with the mold. The CF mirror surface thus produced is then glued to a composite "egg crate" cellular back for support before releasing from the mold.

They perfected their techniques with 16" F/4 mirrors, consistently getting 1/8 or so wavefront error mirrors, and are working on scaling up to a 1 meter mirror for a real telescope to be built.

Interesting side-note, the 16" mirror mold was made by Royce, their first system was a 6" made by Pegasus.

The avoid print through they first coat the mold with a very thin layer of epoxy, cure that, then apply the prepreg fabric.

One interesting thing about this is the total mirror fabrication time should be much shorter, maybe one mirror a day per mold.

Another is that a very fast mirror should be as easy to make as a slow one.

If this technology could be converted into a cost-effective consumer level process, then light 18-20 inch mirrors that are F/3-F/4 might be feasible at lower prices (I am assuming that a producer would aim at a higher end price point than the GSO 16" F/4.5).

A mirror producer might arrange for the production of an Astrotech type inexpensive coma corrector that is optimized for a particular fast focal ratio (say, F/3.5 instead of the current F/4.5) to make a complete inexpensive solution for an ultra-fast cheap big dob.

One thing to look at is the possibility of making a mold from a regular mirror, basically doing the same molding trick twice. The mold would be backed by some sturdy solid fairly cheap casting material. Using a high temperature epoxy/cure cycle for the mold optical surface, and lower temperature one for the mirror should work I think.

A consumer implementation would need to come up with an inexpensive and effective backing material. The egg-crate CF backing shown in the article looks expensive to make, extremely light though it no doubt is. Maybe a Starstone foamed mirror blank would make a good backing? I think a block of end-grain balsa looks pretty good.

[About the idea of using a solid block of end-grain balsa. A block large enough for a 20 inch full thickness mirror would cost $50 and weigh 7 lb, making the entire mirror maybe 8 lb or so. Shaping the sagitta should be quick and easy using a prepared sanding table.]

Edited by careysub (01/13/13 12:45 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MessiToM
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 12/21/09

Loc: Huntingdon PA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5620035 - 01/12/13 11:51 PM

And I thought carbon fiber toilets were cool.......this is much cooler

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sunktank
member


Reged: 10/30/11

Loc: Switzerland
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: MessiToM]
      #5622715 - 01/14/13 01:42 PM

Thanks, that's a really interesting link, as are the other papers published on their website.

Interesting to note that they got NSF funding to conduct their research and already have CF mirrors in use on the International Space Station to name just one.

CF mirrors are not pie in the sky, they are already "eye in (and on) the sky"!

I look forward to reading about the first amateur efforts in this area. Nothing they mention in their technical papers seems insurmountable to a determined amateur.

This French fellow made a balsa-core CF 16" travel newt that weighs 15.4kg (<34 lb) including (glass) mirror.

http://www.astrosurf.com/magnitude78/T400/fabrication.html

(site in French but lots of design and construction pics)

I wonder just how light these things can be made. But then, I live in a 4th floor apartment with no elevator, so I'm biased...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nirvanix
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 06/07/07

Loc: Saskatoon, SK
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: sunktank]
      #5622773 - 01/14/13 02:20 PM

Amazing future for telescopes. Take a 1m CF/composite dob camping with you, set it up in between burger flips.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sunktank
member


Reged: 10/30/11

Loc: Switzerland
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: nirvanix]
      #5622811 - 01/14/13 02:49 PM

Further to my link above about the 16" dob, it's worth noting that of the 34lb mass, nearly 23lb are for the glass mirror.

Combining Careysub's estimate above of 8lb for a 20" CF mirror, we're looking at a potential "kerb weight" of well under 20lbs for a 16" dob. Compositemirrors got it down to 8kg (17.6 lb), pictured top of page 5 of the linked PDF above. That's single-hand portable. Just amazing.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tezster
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 07/14/09

Loc: Missisauga, Canada
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: sunktank]
      #5622934 - 01/14/13 03:54 PM

It would be interesting to see how a traditional truss-dob would look with this type of mirror. Specifically, I'm curious to see how high the rocker box altitude bearings would need to be, as I imagine the balance point would be shifted significantly towards the UTA, considering the weight of the mirror.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sunktank
member


Reged: 10/30/11

Loc: Switzerland
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: tezster]
      #5623006 - 01/14/13 04:26 PM

Therein lies a problem...with mass comes stability. I suspect a gust of wind would cause a traditional design truss dob this light to tremble like a leaf.

Keep the traditional design and use sandbags/water bladders inside the rocker box? Might not be so great from a thermal standpoint...how fast would a CF mirror cool to ambient anyway?

Edited by sunktank (01/14/13 04:29 PM)


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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: sunktank]
      #5623067 - 01/14/13 04:55 PM

Quote:

Therein lies a problem...with mass comes stability. I suspect a gust of wind would cause a traditional design truss dob this light to tremble like a leaf.




A new risk for a big dob, having the wind blow it away!

Quote:


Keep the traditional design and use sandbags/water bladders inside the rocker box?




New engineering approaches would be needed for sure.

I am inclined to think of that the natural pattern here is a genuine Serrurier double truss/strut design, with a high balance point. The Kriege pattern simply does not work with an ultralight mirror, however fast. Base engineering becomes critical. Tall hollow core supports for the bearings. Water bladders in the base are a good idea.

Quote:

Might not be so great from a thermal standpoint...how fast would a CF mirror cool to ambient anyway?




It might make cooling a problem of the past.

The balsa core I propose is an excellent insulator, and has very little thermal mass anyway, whereas the CF mirror surface is quite thin and has fairly good conductivity through its thickness - 20 or 30 times that of the balsa. Very little heat would be shed from the surface, and since the thermal conductivity of the CF is ten times higher still laterally, it should remain at a nearly uniform temperature everywhere.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jb32828
sage
*****

Reged: 08/01/10

Loc: Orlando, FL USA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5623144 - 01/14/13 05:51 PM

Eventually we are gonna be able to 3D print these things and send em off the the coater. Pretty cool tech.

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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: sunktank]
      #5623264 - 01/14/13 07:22 PM

Quote:

Further to my link above about the 16" dob, it's worth noting that of the 34lb mass, nearly 23lb are for the glass mirror.

Combining Careysub's estimate above of 8lb for a 20" CF mirror, we're looking at a potential "kerb weight" of well under 20lbs for a 16" dob. Compositemirrors got it down to 8kg (17.6 lb), pictured top of page 5 of the linked PDF above. That's single-hand portable. Just amazing.




Also note that my mirror weight estimate is predicated on the assumption that we are making a full thickness mirror. If I plug the physical data for end-grain balsa into PLOP and run it for an 18 inch F/4 mirror (3 inches thick) I find nearly perfect support (6.3 nM, roughly 0.98 Strehl) with a 3-point "cell", i.e. no cell other than 3 support points. Not needing a cell cuts weight and complexity further.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
pbsastro
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 03/21/07

Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: Jb32828]
      #5623279 - 01/14/13 07:30 PM

Reduced mirror weight could bring gravity center issue and wind stability issue.
However I think it will be partially compensated with dobs moving from F/5 to F/3. Shorter dob means much less wing effect and means much less binary from focuser end.

Edited by pbsastro (01/14/13 07:31 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Darenwh
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 05/11/06

Loc: Covington, GA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: pbsastro]
      #5623346 - 01/14/13 08:22 PM

Don't forget EQ mounting would be quit easy and the weight of the mount would add stability. Make it a casegrain so focus is behind the scope to avoid heat plumes from the body and you are set.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Thomas Karpf
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 02/09/09

Loc: Newington, CT
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: sunktank]
      #5623968 - 01/15/13 08:21 AM

Quote:


Keep the traditional design and use sandbags/water bladders inside the rocker box?




I'm not sure I would want the balance to shift as sand shifted.

On the other hand, perhaps wood slabs with lead 'sticks' inserted into holes drilled into the wood, and then sealed with putty would work well. If the slabs slid into brackets attached to the inside of the mirror box, there should be essentially no shift as the altitude of the scope changed.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nirvanix
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 06/07/07

Loc: Saskatoon, SK
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: sunktank]
      #5624305 - 01/15/13 12:27 PM

Quote:

Therein lies a problem...with mass comes stability. I suspect a gust of wind would cause a traditional design truss dob this light to tremble like a leaf.





Just need to set up a wind break. Likely this will be a standard thing to do with this type of scope.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sunktank
member


Reged: 10/30/11

Loc: Switzerland
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: Thomas Karpf]
      #5626438 - 01/16/13 03:53 PM

Quote:

Quote:


Keep the traditional design and use sandbags/water bladders inside the rocker box?




I'm not sure I would want the balance to shift as sand shifted.

On the other hand, perhaps wood slabs with lead 'sticks' inserted into holes drilled into the wood, and then sealed with putty would work well. If the slabs slid into brackets attached to the inside of the mirror box, there should be essentially no shift as the altitude of the scope changed.




Or just a couple of bricks velcroed to the bottom of the box for that matter.

But my thinking is to have a large aperture hand-transportable scope; lugging lead weights around would defeat the purpose. Whereas water or sand could be obtainable at the observing site, and disposed of immediately after the observing session. Bladders with "bulkheads"(separated compartments) would prevent the sand or water shifting. In oil tanker ships the oil is separated into compartments so that when the ship rolls on the swell, the liquid inside doesn't slosh around and compound the roll. Same idea.

Come to think of it, why not make all the structural elements (rockerbox, UTA, trusses) hollow sealed CF units? - light, transportable, snaps together. Fill it with water at the observing site for added mass and stability, empty it out when done. If you wanted to get really clever you could design it in such way that the water leaks out at a precise rate that alters the balance and pointing of the scope...at sidereal rate...

I think Careysub could be right, perhaps it's time to look to innovative designs that take into account a much less massive bottom end...

Edited by sunktank (01/16/13 04:10 PM)


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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: sunktank]
      #5627167 - 01/16/13 10:37 PM

Quote:

..I look forward to reading about the first amateur efforts in this area. Nothing they mention in their technical papers seems insurmountable to a determined amateur.
...




I've done a bit of browsing on-line now about "optical surface transfer" technology, and other work done with composite mirrors in the past - and while it is good to know that solutions have been found to all of the problems with doing this, without some advice from the experts who have solved them it looks like a steep hill to climb.

There are two key problems that have to be solved - avoiding "print-through", and getting a clean release from the mold.

Composite Mirrors has solved the first by introducing a controlled thin resin layer (50 microns or so) between the prepreg and the mold. I don't know how they do it, but developing a pre-coating technique seems achievable.

The solution to the second is proprietary and it is not obvious how they do it. Epoxy resins generally stick to stuff, including glass, something fierce.

One possibility that occurs to me is deposition of an extreme thin film of silicone oil on the surface, basically what we do with aluminum to finish a mirror. If this is the case, then a vacuum chamber is needed good enough to evaporate a suitable oil.

Another interesting approach (not Composite Mirrors's) is if you are casting a mold from a mirror (to avoid having to make an optical quality convex surface from scratch) is to use a rigid silicone resin to the cast. This would create a non-stick surface to mold against, and also solve the problem of releasing the mold-to-be from the original mirror.

But rigid silicone resins are little known (and even less available) outside of industry, silicone oils are maybe a bit more accessible. Finding the right products to do this is a challenge.

Think about the problems people have have had with finding an ideal replacement for the original Ebony Star. That is trivial next to finding the right release agents and resins to do this.

Still, the fact that these mirrors are in mass production should provide encouragement to see if they can be brought to the amateur astronomy community.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5627227 - 01/16/13 11:24 PM

What's doesn't gel here for me is that resin is one hardness and CF entirely something else altogether. At the wavefront level this mismatch of hardness would yield a lumpy inconsistent value. Glass - any glass - is far more homogenous than epoxy and carbon fibers. It sounds ghastly quite frankly. You can't grind soft resin and brittle carbon and expect an even surface smoothness.

Pete

Edited by azure1961p (01/16/13 11:25 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Howie Glatter
Vendor


Reged: 07/04/06

Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5627545 - 01/17/13 07:34 AM

"You can't grind soft resin and brittle carbon and expect an even surface smoothness. "

The optical surface on these composite mirrors is neither ground nor polished. It is cast in place against a convex glass form.
I understand your concern though, because the inhomogeneities of the structure exist at a much larger scale than wavelengths of light.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5627595 - 01/17/13 08:27 AM

Quote:

What's doesn't gel here for me is that resin is one hardness and CF entirely something else altogether. At the wavefront level this mismatch of hardness would yield a lumpy inconsistent value. Glass - any glass - is far more homogenous than epoxy and carbon fibers. It sounds ghastly quite frankly. You can't grind soft resin and brittle carbon and expect an even surface smoothness.

Pete




Pete:

That is a concern of mine as well. Carbon fibers have Coefficients of the Thermal Expansion (CTE) but the polymers used for matrix have very high CTEs. Exactly how that plays out on the micro/nanoscale in the mirror as the temperature changes is not so clear.

One thing I did notice in a casual read of the paper:

"Several plate-type mirrors were produced in order to qualify CFRP mirror substrates, this was largely an
exercise in fiber and matrix selection and down selection for the ideal mirror substrate material. Because plate mirrors have shown extreme sensitivity across relatively small temperature bands they are not ideally suited for telescope applications without some tunability of the surface to counteract the thermal deformations."

Jon


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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5628246 - 01/17/13 02:59 PM

Quote:

That is a concern of mine as well. Carbon fibers have Coefficients of the Thermal Expansion (CTE) but the polymers used for matrix have very high CTEs. Exactly how that plays out on the micro/nanoscale in the mirror as the temperature changes is not so clear.

One thing I did notice in a casual read of the paper:

"Several plate-type mirrors were produced in order to qualify CFRP mirror substrates, this was largely an
exercise in fiber and matrix selection and down selection for the ideal mirror substrate material. Because plate mirrors have shown extreme sensitivity across relatively small temperature bands they are not ideally suited for telescope applications without some tunability of the surface to counteract the thermal deformations."




One thing to bear in mind is that the mirror undergoes a 100 C temperature change from the time it cures, to the time it cools. If it has a good optical surface at 130 C, and a good one near 30 C, what kind of extreme sensitivity would they be talking about? A change in surface quality should be very bad, but a change in focal length perhaps not so much. (They probably use a special dimensionally stable curing resin, but that doesn't help with the CTE).

It is possible that this type of mirror might need to be thermostatically controlled for best performance. Although the usual solution to mirror thermal issues is to cool it to ambient ASAP, the fact that primary mirror heaters are available (e.g. Kendrick) suggests that continually thermal layer scrubbing might make a "warm" mirror okay. Actually controlling the temperature shouldn't be too hard. The CF composite has a thermal conductivity similar to steel, the mirror surface plate is thin (1-2 mm) and if backed by a good insulator a heating web behind the mirror surface should maintain an even temperature quite well.

Finding exactly the right materials to make these seems pretty important.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5628292 - 01/17/13 03:21 PM

Quote:


One thing to bear in mind is that the mirror undergoes a 100 C temperature change from the time it cures, to the time it cools. If it has a good optical surface at 130 C, and a good one near 30 C, what kind of extreme sensitivity would they be talking about?




Given the fact that they say that the "plate mirrors" were not of optical interest, my guess is that it is over a much narrower range than 30C to 130C.

I am more curious about what differentiates a "plate" mirror from the mirrors they actually tested. I don't know if plate means flat or monolithic.

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mark cowan
Vendor (Veritas Optics)
*****

Reged: 06/03/05

Loc: salem, OR
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5628409 - 01/17/13 04:23 PM

Well, they're probably talking about substrate, and the need to make the forms out of something that doesn't shift thermally while curing is going on.

Best,
Mark


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JM La Galette
member


Reged: 11/24/07

Loc: France
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: mark cowan]
      #5669199 - 02/08/13 02:39 PM

Interesting guys, perhaps to be tried by a motivated amateur...

JMarc


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GeneT
Ely Kid
*****

Reged: 11/07/08

Loc: South Texas
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5669595 - 02/08/13 06:43 PM

I found this to be very interesting. I have wondered for a long time when technology and new materials might provide a break through for mirrors and optics. Still--is this possibility too good to be true?

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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: GeneT]
      #5669858 - 02/08/13 10:05 PM

Quote:

I found this to be very interesting. I have wondered for a long time when technology and new materials might provide a break through for mirrors and optics. Still--is this possibility too good to be true?




You can read the material on their website, and there is some coverage providing a few additional insights in optics publications on the web.

One of the key aspects of any breakthrough is simply knowing it can be done. Reminds me of the observation that once something is seen in a big scope, it can be seen in smaller ones.

Unless Composite Mirrors wants to set up its own amateur mirror business, I think the most attractive approach for amateurs is doing a double optical surface transfer - once from an existing mirror to make a mold, then making mirrors from that mold. That way an expensive proven excellent mirror could be replicated without the difficulty of grinding a reverse mirror.

I suspect the trick of getting the composite mirror to release is to deposit a very thin film of silicone as a release agent on the glass inverse mold (or the polymer mold) surface. You will need a chamber to do this for sure to the conditions are clean and steady. However, unlike depositing aluminum with requires a good vacuum (10^-4 torr or better) there are lots of silicone compounds in common use that boil at 200 C or below (some close to room temperature).

Rather than getting hold of pure silicones, or industrial ingredients, I wonder whether identifying a suitable commercial product (like a silicone lubricant) that contains a desirable silicone and distilling it out of the product directly would work. Cyclomethicones for example evaporate at room temperature with vapor pressures around 1 mm, and boil at 200C, and are used in cosmetics.

Experimentation will be required to develop an amateur process.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JM La Galette
member


Reged: 11/24/07

Loc: France
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5670122 - 02/09/13 03:59 AM

Why then not use a demoulding agent commnly used in composite industry? No need for a chamber. Just need to apply this as uniform as possible. I need to check the thickness once applied but this is pretty thin.

For example this:

http://www.henkelna.com/industrial/brands-1556.htm?nodeid=8797571973262

JMarc


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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: JM La Galette]
      #5670969 - 02/09/13 04:10 PM

Quote:

Why then not use a demoulding agent commnly used in composite industry? No need for a chamber. Just need to apply this as uniform as possible. I need to check the thickness once applied but this is pretty thin.

For example this:

http://www.henkelna.com/industrial/brands-1556.htm?nodeid=8797571973262

JMarc




Because you are transferring optical surfaces that must be preserved. It has to optically perfect, the same tolerances that apply to mirror coating with aluminum.

Dust may not be a serious problem (creating a little roughness) but the layer has to be optically even and I expect vapor deposition in the absence of air currents will be necessary to achieve this.

It may be possible to deposit the even release film using a liquid process analogous to silvering - which coats evenly because the precipitation rate is even and chemically controlled. But silicone can't be created in situ through aqueous chemical reaction, and would have to be deposited from solution or suspension somehow.

And with mirror->mold->mirror scheme you are doing the optical surface transfer twice, imperfections will be cumulative.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FlorinAndrei
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/28/10

Loc: California
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5671024 - 02/09/13 04:51 PM

There's also the question whether what works well for a professional telescope, installed at a fixed location, in a controlled environment, would also work well for a portable amateur instrument that will be used in a wide variety of locations, environments and temperatures.

Playing devil's advocate:

1. Thermal expansion issues, due to the composite nature of the substrate. Also, composites are typically good insulators, therefore it may actually be harder to achieve thermal equilibrium.

2. Stability issues of the whole telescope, due to the lack of a large stabilizing mass at the bottom.

3. Durability issues, given that the composite material may or may not "flow" in time, and lose its initial perfect shape. Also, glass is chemically stable over very long periods of time, the composite may or may not be quite so stable (e.g. outgassing under the aluminum layer).

4. What happens to the composite if you leave the scope outside, in the summer, under the desert sun, and everything in the main box gets cooked? Will it continue to hold the precise shape at lambda/4 or better?

5. Mechanical shocks. Glass either breaks or doesn't; as long as it doesn't break, it holds its shape with great precision, no matter how much it's knocked and rattled. Would the same remain true for composites, all the way down to 100 nanometers or less?


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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: FlorinAndrei]
      #5671330 - 02/09/13 07:54 PM

I can make some comments about this from the available information.

Quote:

There's also the question whether what works well for a professional telescope, installed at a fixed location, in a controlled environment, would also work well for a portable amateur instrument that will be used in a wide variety of locations, environments and temperatures.

Playing devil's advocate:

1. Thermal expansion issues, due to the composite nature of the substrate. Also, composites are typically good insulators, therefore it may actually be harder to achieve thermal equilibrium.




The production process used by Composite Mirrors involves prepreg CF/epoxy that is cured at 120C with the optical mold and then cools to room temperature. This is a 100C temperature change where the optical surface is apparently preserved. This suggest some robustness with regard to temperature.

CF/epoxy has about the same thermal expansion as Pyrex (very little) - one of its attractive properties for mirrors.

CF is an excellent thermal conductor, less so when combined with resin, but it is transverse conductivity is still nearly as good as stainless steel. Across the layers the conductivity is about the same as soda-lime glass, but composite mirror itself is quite thin.

Quote:



2. Stability issues of the whole telescope, due to the lack of a large stabilizing mass at the bottom.





An appropriate design - that treats the very light mirror as an asset and not a problem is needed, yes. Simply using designs developed for bottom heavy scopes won't work very well.

I have read that one mid-century telescope building manual (early edition of Texereau maybe?) thought a telescope that we now see in 100 lb Dob form must necessarily weigh in at 2000 lb or so.

Very light mirrors would look like nothing but a blessing on GEM mounts I would think.

Quote:


3. Durability issues, given that the composite material may or may not "flow" in time, and lose its initial perfect shape. Also, glass is chemically stable over very long periods of time, the composite may or may not be quite so stable (e.g. outgassing under the aluminum layer).





It has to have backing to give it stiffness (and making a light-weight one that is economical is an issue to be addressed).

Flowing even at the 100 nm level seems very, very unlikely - this isn't a bulk polymer but very high modulus carbon fiber cloth laminated with multiple orientations which never bears any load other than its own very low weight, and does so with the support of its backing material.

Chemical stability is a real issue. It seems much less likely that a CF mirror would remain ready for use a century after fabrication like glass mirrors can.

One major problem is that CF and aluminum are incompatible materials if in physical contact. A very thin layer of epoxy, if unbroken, would protect it, but if there is electrical contact (not even physical contact) then electrochemical erosion of the aluminum would occur. Composite Mirrors found a thin epoxy surface film was necessary anyway to prevent print-through (a problem with other earlier CF mirror attempts). But it is imperative that this layer be preserved.

Also whether conventional coating processes would work is an open question. CM apparently uses a modified process.

Quote:


4. What happens to the composite if you leave the scope outside, in the summer, under the desert sun, and everything in the main box gets cooked? Will it continue to hold the precise shape at lambda/4 or better?





Maybe not. It would partly depend on the backing.

As I mentioned the CM production process has the material initially at high temperature, but that was under controlled conditions and before coating. This is an extreme case of the thermal issues mentioned earlier.

Quote:


5. Mechanical shocks. Glass either breaks or doesn't; as long as it doesn't break, it holds its shape with great precision, no matter how much it's knocked and rattled. Would the same remain true for composites, all the way down to 100 nanometers or less?




Mechanical shocks do not generally strike the mirror surface but would be absorbed by the sides or back - i.e. by the mirror support backing. Resistance will depend on how that is implemented - light weight materials though contain a lot of air, transmit shocks poorly, and don't acquire a lot of kinetic energy if you drop it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JM La Galette
member


Reged: 11/24/07

Loc: France
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5671829 - 02/10/13 05:22 AM

Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why then not use a demoulding agent commnly used in composite industry? No need for a chamber. Just need to apply this as uniform as possible. I need to check the thickness once applied but this is pretty thin.

For example this:

http://www.henkelna.com/industrial/brands-1556.htm?nodeid=8797571973262

JMarc


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because you are transferring optical surfaces that must be preserved. It has to optically perfect, the same tolerances that apply to mirror coating with aluminum.




Careysub, I'm pretty sure coating of demolding agent at that level exists, I need to check. I've in the past also looked at what exist in the patent world and this is also interetsing, a lot to learn.

I personnally think building a composite mirror is an attempt I'll try in the future. But this needs to be carefully prepared, every step is important as you mentionned.

JMarc


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FlorinAndrei
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/28/10

Loc: California
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5672800 - 02/10/13 06:16 PM

Quote:

An appropriate design - that treats the very light mirror as an asset and not a problem is needed, yes. Simply using designs developed for bottom heavy scopes won't work very well.

I have read that one mid-century telescope building manual (early edition of Texereau maybe?) thought a telescope that we now see in 100 lb Dob form must necessarily weigh in at 2000 lb or so.

Very light mirrors would look like nothing but a blessing on GEM mounts I would think.




I think this is the major point of interest for this design. An RC or DK astrograph, made entirely from composites, including the mirrors, that would stay on a GEM all the time, protected under a dome (no temperature extremes to warp the optics), with an understanding that the relatively cheap optics (much cheaper than conventional glass optics) would have to be replaced every decade or two, and having huge amounts of aperture due to the lightweight design - well, that sounds pretty interesting.


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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: JM La Galette]
      #5672831 - 02/10/13 06:35 PM

Thanks, I haven't tried doing a patent search on this yet. Let me know what you find - personal mail if you don't want to post.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JM La Galette
member


Reged: 11/24/07

Loc: France
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: careysub]
      #5674217 - 02/11/13 03:17 PM

OK, let me a few days and I'll send you an e-mail.
JMarc


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

Reged: 10/17/09

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: JM La Galette]
      #5674725 - 02/11/13 08:05 PM

I will be stopping by Composite Mirrors Associates this week to bring a mirror to them for recoating - they do amateur glass mirror recoating as a service and it's local so no worries about shipping.

Going to ask them if I can see some of their scopes they've made - will report back later!


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

Reged: 09/15/10

Loc: Long Island, NY
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: Datapanic]
      #5674863 - 02/11/13 09:55 PM

Cool, let us know!

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

Reged: 10/17/09

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: UmaDog]
      #5676797 - 02/12/13 11:24 PM

Today, I brought in my '72 Cave 8" f/4.4 mirror to Composite Mirror Associates (CMA) for the recoating process. I selected CMA because it's local to me and consequently, no risk of damage by shipping. If they do good by this mirror, then I'll bring in some more mirrors that need it - my '75 Cave 8" f/7, the Horsetrail Cave 12.5" f/7.5 and an RV-6 mirror.

I only got to enter the receptionist area. The first thing I saw were a bunch of composite mirrors hanging on the opposite wall - all over 12" in diameter. The second thing I noticed was the 16" Cassegrain prototype on a modern computerized mount in front of the receptionist desk. The receptionist came out in about a minute and I introduced myself and shortly afterwards, Bob Romeo, the CEO of CMA came out! He inspected the Cave mirror and secondary and told me it would be about a week for them to be recoated, I replied that is fine because I have the entire scope in pieces and need to order new stainless fasteners and paint parts and that'll take much longer than a week. Bob is a really bright guy. He's been in the optical profession for quite a while and I think went to the University of Chicago as well as the University of Arizona.

I asked if composite mirrors was his idea, he told me that it was originally developed at JPL and he took the idea and ran with it many years ago. CMA has been around for 20 years. I asked him about thermal equilibrium and he said that these mirrors don't experience thermal adjustment problems like traditional mirrors. He even mentioned that tests using propane torches on the surface of the mirrors did not adversely affect surface integrity for more than a minute - temperature accumulations are not an issue.

I asked him about going commercial, and he said there are plans for that eventually.

When I go back in a week or two to pick up my mirror and bring in some others for recoating, I hope to take a look at the 1-meter Cassegrain prototype. It was on loan to the University of Arizona and to be returned later this week.

CMA seems to be on top of the technology, building the next generation of optics and utilizing Adaptive Optics as well.

This technology is definitely leading edge and hopefully will fall in to the commercial scope world soon.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JM La Galette
member


Reged: 11/24/07

Loc: France
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: Datapanic]
      #5677930 - 02/13/13 04:07 PM

Interesting, thanks.
JMarc


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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: Datapanic]
      #5679478 - 02/14/13 01:28 PM

That is exciting.

Maybe some time soon they will open up pre-orders.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: sunktank]
      #5679544 - 02/14/13 01:52 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Keep the traditional design and use sandbags/water bladders inside the rocker box?




I'm not sure I would want the balance to shift as sand shifted.

On the other hand, perhaps wood slabs with lead 'sticks' inserted into holes drilled into the wood, and then sealed with putty would work well. If the slabs slid into brackets attached to the inside of the mirror box, there should be essentially no shift as the altitude of the scope changed.




Or just a couple of bricks velcroed to the bottom of the box for that matter.

But my thinking is to have a large aperture hand-transportable scope; lugging lead weights around would defeat the purpose. Whereas water or sand could be obtainable at the observing site, and disposed of immediately after the observing session. Bladders with "bulkheads"(separated compartments) would prevent the sand or water shifting. In oil tanker ships the oil is separated into compartments so that when the ship rolls on the swell, the liquid inside doesn't slosh around and compound the roll. Same idea.

Come to think of it, why not make all the structural elements (rockerbox, UTA, trusses) hollow sealed CF units? - light, transportable, snaps together. Fill it with water at the observing site for added mass and stability, empty it out when done. If you wanted to get really clever you could design it in such way that the water leaks out at a precise rate that alters the balance and pointing of the scope...at sidereal rate...

I think Careysub could be right, perhaps it's time to look to innovative designs that take into account a much less massive bottom end...




only problem is if the hole gets blocked, and the water inside freezes......water expands when it freezes.....goodbye mount....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
PEterW
professor emeritus


Reged: 01/02/06

Loc: SW London, UK
Re: The Future Today Part II: CF Mirrors new [Re: csrlice12]
      #5689014 - 02/19/13 02:36 PM

Sounds like just a case of scaling up the production to get prices down.... Recoating would be interesting, but a decent protective coating would negate this. Cheap, BIG mirrors would really be a game changer and turn the market upside down! For low power views we don't need super fine accuracy either. It would be a shame if this technology stays too costly.

PeterW


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


Extra information
4 registered and 18 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  ausastronomer, Phillip Creed, JayinUT, okieav8r 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 2733

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics