gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Well, OK, after years of drooling over Optical Craftsmen scopes as a kid, and owning one, I now can report the following data. I had three OC mirrors: one was really badly astigmatic, a 4.25" F/10. Another is excellent, rivals my 4" apo, 4.25" f/10. And the third--well you can see the Foucault in the pic below. It was badly annealed. We had some hope that the rilles were in the coatings but after the coatings were stripped they were still very much, totally, 100% there.
So my advice is: if you're offered an Optical Craftsmen telescope throw it on a Foucault and star test it first. The biggest rille did show on an out of focus star test. Don't pay much money for OC optics: Let's say that 2/3 is bad luck, and say 1/4 OC mirrors are in fact this bad. That's still a big chance of a defective mirror. I think these guys must have only spot checked their product line: hard to see how this mirror made it out the door.
Anyhow I've got an OMI mirror on the way, by coincidence the every-more-rare f/6 ten inch came up as I was doing this project, so I will get out of this with a very nice telescope at reasonable cost.
And I have to eat my hat: Rod said he'd seen a few "soft" OCs compared to Caves and I have to believe that Cave had better qc/qa than OC at this point. When OC was on its game it was very very good. But this kind of thing is nonsense, shame on Dick Nelson:
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
tim53
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/17/04
Posts: 1459
Loc: Highland Park, CA
|
|
Greg:
Does this mirror have that pebbly-textured back that was typical of OC mirrors? I wonder where Dick Nelson got his blanks, as I don't think I've seen those mirrors in anything else.
My 8" f/6 OC mirror that's in my Springfield now has an excellent mirror. So they certainly weren't all bad.
I agree, must be the annealing. I can't imagine how you could polish that kind of surface into a mirror! I'd imagine that the mirror is junk, then, as if you refigured it, it would change the stresses and perhaps deform again?
-Tim.
-------------------- "We`re just waiting looking skyward as the days come down.
Someone promised there`d be answers, if we stayed around."
-Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark, "The Romance of the Telescope"
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
Greg: I agree, must be the annealing. I can't imagine how you could polish that kind of surface into a mirror! I'd imagine that the mirror is junk, then, as if you refigured it, it would change the stresses and perhaps deform again?
-Tim.
Well I have purchased a 10" f/6 OMI mirror that's never been used. I think throwing money at the mirror in the original post would be a pure waste of time. One person advises me off list to mask off the *BLEEP* parts and use as is.
My thought: why waste good tape?
If we count your 1 mirror and my 3, that is a 50% s-u-x rate. I just don't see how OC could have let this out the door if they'd had any qc/qa measures in place.
I think IC did make good mirrors. I own one, so do you. But they are a bad "bet". If you come across one in a barn somewhere, try to get it, it might be sweet indeed, but try to get it cheap.
The basic iron that goes with this scope seems OK now that I have a good mirror on the way (may it arrive safely). I'm not really sure I want/need a Newtonian, but for sure it will be easier to resell with a working mirror.
Greg N
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
tim53
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/17/04
Posts: 1459
Loc: Highland Park, CA
|
|
I'll keep watching to see what you decide to do with the scope, then.
You must have bought the OMI mirror on the 'mart? That's what I would have done.
If the problem with the OC mirror was due to poor annealing, it might have been okay going out the door, and might not have turned sour for years after.
-Tim.
-------------------- "We`re just waiting looking skyward as the days come down.
Someone promised there`d be answers, if we stayed around."
-Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark, "The Romance of the Telescope"
|
CHASLX200
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 09/29/07
Posts: 1812
Loc: Tampa area Florida
|
|
I wonder if that is the same 10" F/6 OMI i was gonna buy in FL? The OMI should be super, as all of my OMI's have been great.
Chas
|
deSitter
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 2928
|
|
Jeez that is just horrifying! I've never seen anything like it. I'll bet the glass would shatter like a pinata if struck hard. That's not even a candidate for re-figuring.
-drl
Quote:
Well, OK, after years of drooling over Optical Craftsmen scopes as a kid, and owning one, I now can report the following data. I had three OC mirrors: one was really badly astigmatic, a 4.25" F/10. Another is excellent, rivals my 4" apo, 4.25" f/10. And the third--well you can see the Foucault in the pic below. It was badly annealed. We had some hope that the rilles were in the coatings but after the coatings were stripped they were still very much, totally, 100% there.
So my advice is: if you're offered an Optical Craftsmen telescope throw it on a Foucault and star test it first. The biggest rille did show on an out of focus star test. Don't pay much money for OC optics: Let's say that 2/3 is bad luck, and say 1/4 OC mirrors are in fact this bad. That's still a big chance of a defective mirror. I think these guys must have only spot checked their product line: hard to see how this mirror made it out the door.
Anyhow I've got an OMI mirror on the way, by coincidence the every-more-rare f/6 ten inch came up as I was doing this project, so I will get out of this with a very nice telescope at reasonable cost.
And I have to eat my hat: Rod said he'd seen a few "soft" OCs compared to Caves and I have to believe that Cave had better qc/qa than OC at this point. When OC was on its game it was very very good. But this kind of thing is nonsense, shame on Dick Nelson:
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
I'll keep watching to see what you decide to do with the scope, then.
You must have bought the OMI mirror on the 'mart? That's what I would have done.
If the problem with the OC mirror was due to poor annealing, it might have been okay going out the door, and might not have turned sour for years after.
-Tim.
Yeah I got the OMI mirror on the 'mart. Might even be here thursday. Something weird going on with the 'mart. Herb York is no longer running the operation and a lot of us aren't getting our emails in response to our ads. He had written me and I had written him, but neither of us saw an email from one another till I looked him up by name and telephoned him.
I must say that the word I used that got bleeped is not a profane word. My 1936 Webster's has a number of different entries for cr-p and this dictionary, well reputed as a literary dictionary, did not go into the vulgarisms that would appropriately be bleeped. Cr-p in the sense that I was using it probably dates back to the medieval usages: "residues from rendered fat" and "sediments or dregs of beer or ale." Craps games is common and accepted usage. It also used to mean "the gallows." When we say "pigeon cr-p" we are in fact using a polite euphemism so as to avoid saying pigeon s---.
ANYHOW, I researched that after my elementary school teacher said it was an OK word to use in the class room. Which shocked me. That was longer ago than I care to admit, but you already know that I was drooling over Optical Craftsmen at the age of 10. I think the moderators ought to rethink that one. (I hope I didn't use some stronger term; I think not, I am well trained).
Well: some old optics survive and some do not. I think that people who lay out good money for older optics are well advised to buy from people they know and probably to negotiate terms, such as, $300 if the mirror comes back from coating in good shape, and $150 if the mirror comes back in bad shape. Or its your mirror you get it coated and I'll pay you $450 for it with new coatings--if it's still in good shape.
Anyhow I got a good deal even with the bad mirror and the OMI mirror was very well priced. The OMI mirror has 60.85 inches of focal length versus 61.25 for the Optical Craftsmen it is replacing. So I am going to need to *go lower* and will have to get a low profile focuser.
The flotation mirror cell also has some adjustable bolts with springs on the back and I can use those to push it in at least 1/4, and probably 1/2 inch. So odds are high I can outfit this OTA with a moonlite low profile and everything will come to focus.
The fiberglass tube "as is" was pre-drilled for a two inch focuser but fitted with a 1.25 as the "bargain" model. The spider and secondary are also 2" sized.
I can if I choose mess around with the mount and I can also stick it somewhere against the day when I resell everything, but I have to say that the thought of putting the AP900 on the Optical Craftsmen pier is much more attractive than using the old OC. For one thing I will ahve much better control over the optical tube, and zero backlash.
As currently constituted without coatings the scope has 4% reflectivity and could be used as a moon scope with effectively a two inch aperture for light gathering but ten inch resolution. But I think that the OC mirror is going to hold coffee pots. Until it totally fractures and I throw it out.
regards Greg N
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
Lew Chilton
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 10/20/05
Posts: 1022
Loc: SoCal
|
|
Greg,
I commented on your 10-inch OC mirror on the AM forum, so I won't repeat here. If the Enceladus-like fissures on your mirror were magically removed, the surface actually looks pretty smooth, although the shadows look a little too weak for an f/6, i.e., undercorrected. I don't think the optician would have bothered putting any effort into parabolizing this mirror had he seen these flaws on the foucault tester.
-Lew
-------------------- I don't get no respect, but my scopes do!
----------------------------------------------
1961 Swift 60mm model 839 (2); 2003 TV-102/GM-8; 1959 8" f/6 Treckerscope; 1959 8" f/7.4 Murray Scope; 1959 Fecker Celestar-4; 1978 4" Edmund Astroscan; c. 1986 4-inch Celestron-Vixen SP-C102; c. 1950 20X60 Saturn spotting scope; 1963 7X50 Nippon Kogaku binoculars; Unitron #114 alt-az mount (Swifty-tron)
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
Greg,
I commented on your 10-inch OC mirror on the AM forum, so I won't repeat here. If the Enceladus-like fissures on your mirror were magically removed, the surface actually looks pretty smooth, although the shadows look a little too weak for an f/6, i.e., undercorrected. I don't think the optician would have bothered putting any effort into parabolizing this mirror had he seen these flaws on the foucault tester.
-Lew
Well I'm wondering whether this thing was ever ON a Foucault tester but I see your point. I have been told that I could just tape up the mirror. If I were in dire straits I would do that. But the OMI mirror was just sitting there....
My 1977 OC 4.25 inch is a very good mirror so I won't say they wuz all bad at that shop. But I do think that if you're buying an OC that sort of appears at random (as this one did) there is some need for caution.
It sort of reminds me of the story: two economists are walking together and one spies a $20 bill. "Leave it there, says one to the other. "If it was real it would already have been picked up." (a joke about the efficient market hypothesis).
I'm have willing to believe that all the good remaining OC optics are in the hands of people who've scooped them up...better odds with a new reputable dealer.
thanks for taking the time to post your comments,
Greg N
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
rmollise
Post Laureate
   
Reged: 07/06/07
Posts: 4598
|
|
Well, yeah, Greg...I hate to say "I told you so," but shenanigans like this were the reason for my original comment that OC warn't no Cave.
I hate to say it because this would have been an impressive telescope otherwise, and maybe still will be with a replacement mirror.
Not the first hideous mirror I've seen in one of their scopes.
-------------------- Uncle Rod
Rod's New Book:
Choosing and Using a New CAT
Available now!
Edited by rmollise (11/03/09 07:40 AM)
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
Jeez that is just horrifying! I've never seen anything like it. I'll bet the glass would shatter like a pinata if struck hard. That's not even a candidate for re-figuring.
-drl
Correct on all counts. The mirror is, however, a candidate for door stop for the door to my screened in porch. I don't know if it is high enough, but I think it will do the trick. No one else I know has seen anything like it either.
If you masked the valleys it might work out to a reasonable 8 or 9 inch mirror: the underlying curve is OK. But I'm taking this mirror out of circulation. Enough of this evil glass.
Greg N
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
Not the first hideous mirror I've seen in one of their scopes.
It would be of interest to me Rod if you could struggle to recollect how many OCs you've seen that were good and how many were even half as bad as this one. I'm trying to get a handle on the statistical probability of getting a good one.
The urge to own OC seems to be evaporating. Nutha' childhood dream up in smoke.
Greg N
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
I wonder if that is the same 10" F/6 OMI i was gonna buy in FL? The OMI should be super, as all of my OMI's have been great.
Chas
Well I don't know why you didn't go for it, but I'm glad I got to it before you, as I have an optics-less setup that will be functional once it gets here. OMI does have a good reputation.
But then again, so did Optical Craftsmen....
I wonder if OC used some kind of proprietary annealing process which allowed half of their mirrors to self destruct after Dick Nelson passed on.
I actually went to OC's shop in Northridge in 1965 to pick out my 4.25. I thought I was in heaven.
Greg N
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
Well, yeah, Greg...I hate to say "I told you so," but shenanigans like this were the reason for my original comment that OC warn't no Cave. 
I hate to say it because this would have been an impressive telescope otherwise, and maybe still will be with a replacement mirror.
Not the first hideous mirror I've seen in one of their scopes.
I forgot to add: the crunching sound you here in the background is me chewing on my hat. At least in the future we've got this thread here so any time the subject of OC comes up in this forum or elsewhere people can point to some of the OC perils.
Greg N
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
deSitter
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 2928
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jeez that is just horrifying! I've never seen anything like it. I'll bet the glass would shatter like a pinata if struck hard. That's not even a candidate for re-figuring.
-drl
Correct on all counts. The mirror is, however, a candidate for door stop for the door to my screened in porch. I don't know if it is high enough, but I think it will do the trick. No one else I know has seen anything like it either.
If you masked the valleys it might work out to a reasonable 8 or 9 inch mirror: the underlying curve is OK. But I'm taking this mirror out of circulation. Enough of this evil glass.
Greg N
Would make a good hors d'oeuvres tray. The olives will all roll to the middle, unless they get stuck in a rut 
Consider this an opportunity to install a conical mirror! 
-drl
|
rmollise
Post Laureate
   
Reged: 07/06/07
Posts: 4598
|
|
Quote:
It would be of interest to me Rod if you could struggle to recollect how many OCs you've seen that were good and how many were even half as bad as this one. I'm trying to get a handle on the statistical probability of getting a good one.
The urge to own OC seems to be evaporating. Nutha' childhood dream up in smoke.
Greg N
I'd hate to hazard a guess, since we are talking about "over the last 40 years." Frankly, in my recollection, about 50 - 50...but the number I've used over the last four decades is still too small to be very significant statistically, I reckon.
-------------------- Uncle Rod
Rod's New Book:
Choosing and Using a New CAT
Available now!
|
tim53
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/17/04
Posts: 1459
Loc: Highland Park, CA
|
|
Greg:
We'd all love to see pics of the scope! ...because if you're replacing the mirror with an OMI, your "dream" (likely based on drooling over catalog photos, like I did) can still come true!
-Tim.
-------------------- "We`re just waiting looking skyward as the days come down.
Someone promised there`d be answers, if we stayed around."
-Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark, "The Romance of the Telescope"
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
Greg:
We'd all love to see pics of the scope! ...because if you're replacing the mirror with an OMI, your "dream" (likely based on drooling over catalog photos, like I did) can still come true!
-Tim.
Well in due time. I want to take some pics of the scope as is and as refurbished. I think the creamy Optical Craftsman fiberglass OTA will look very nice on top of an AP mount. That's where I'm headed directionally. I may keep the original EQ mount "for the day I resell everything together" or see if there are any offers now.
I think that even if I break up the EQ part from the rest of the configuration, that once I have an adapter on the OC pier that will hold the AP900, that there are enough aperture starved AP mount/refractor owners out there who would pop for the pier/tube combo and use their own AP. Or maybe I could sell it complete with QMD and get the AP go-to. I'd have to have some significant extra bux though, and everything directionally says that isn't going to happen.
I think DRL was saying that I should get a conical mirror. I have given some thought to that but it seems to me to add unnecessary complexity. First off, the conical mirror is $850, the one I just bought was $400. Second, and this equally important, the conical mirror weighs 30% less. Y'all saying of course that's the point. Well that's the point for a Dob person. From my point of view, the heavier the behind of this scope, the higher it rides in the saddle, and the more zenith clearance I have at the bottom. So I am not anxious to lighten the rear load.
Then y'all say well you can add back some mass. Which I can. But if I add back mass it too will have thermal properties. You either want the mass or you don't. What I think I'd like to do is experiment with some fans designed to break the thermal boundary on the mirror. These would be internally mounted on the mirror cell and would not involve cutting holes. We've talked about them on C14. I would like to get two or three of these fans, which are almost wafer thin, and use this opportunity to play with them as a prototype experiment for the C14. The idea we kicked around on C14 was internal installation of fans designed to break the mirror boundary layer but not mess with external air on the assumption that you lose the advantage of sealed optics protection that way.
Given how well some C14 mirrors are holding out compared to the pinholes on the Optical Craftsman (that pic is posted on Astromart in Equiptment section) I think that the sealed optical design has some merits.
I guess I'll see if I can download the picture from the 'mart and upload it here, but I'll have to resize, what a pain.
regards Greg N
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
This is what a 41 year old mirror looks like when it has not been sealed from the elements. At the top you can plainly see that the rille which is shown vertically in the foucault pic is plainly evident in the erosion pattern of the coatings. It is unclear as to why this should be. In any case the illumination is not 100% behind the full ten inches we did the best we could with the lighting at hand. In high resolution its more impressive but this is good enough. An old timer admitted that this mirror was "getting on the worse side" of the bad mirrors he's seen. In this pic it really looks like a coating issue, so I was quite dismayed when the rilles were so evident without the coating. The no-coating foucault pic looks identical to the with-coating foucault. No point in posting it. This was not a coating issue. But the rille did impact the coating.
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
No point in posting it. This was not a coating issue. But the rille did impact the coating.
And I will say, this is one of the reasons why, if you have an open tube Newt, it's probably good idea to get new coatings every five or ten years!
Greg N
-------------------- "Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|