Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Why not flock reflector spider vanes?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
187 replies to this topic

#176 Mirzam

Mirzam

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,801
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2008

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:40 AM

The painted metal vanes do not emit "heat" unless there is a colder entity available to drive this transfer of energy. Typically this entity is the cold sky background and the telescope tube itself, which can also radiate and become chilled due to exposure to the sky (hence the formation of dew on the tube). However, exposure to the sky background can be minimized by using an extended tube (dew shield) and the tube itself should always be insulated internally to avoid cold-induced tube currents. One can use bare aluminum tubing instead of steel to gain a lower emissivity, although I think that steel works fine as long as it is insulated. Similarly, a polished aluminum spider vane would have lower emissivity (about .04) versus bare steel (highly variable emissivities the best option being polished stainless around .075; see link).

Emissivities of materials

JimC

#177 Fred76

Fred76

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2008

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:55 AM

Actually I covered the vanes with an insulation emergency blanket, golden side outside. However, I had no opportunity yet to test the change because of bad weather since October...

BarabinoJr, I suspect the increase of contrast you noticed to be caused by the flocking of the inside tube. However flocking the spider vanes is not a good choice. See the first answers of this topic.

#178 kfrederick

kfrederick

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,996
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:55 AM

Be easier to have a unobstructed with APO images like my 17 inch unobstructed Wide Band Chief No color no obstruction no coma .no problem

Attached Thumbnails

  • 6201189-1-DSC08484.JPG


#179 Fred76

Fred76

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2008

Posted 18 November 2013 - 08:06 AM

@kfrederick , you are definitely right, but it won't be easy to convert an existing telescope...

Here is a picture of my "gold plated" spider vanes, though not yet tested due to uninterrupted bad weather - that is why I asked the question...

Posted Image

The secondary mirror can be heated against dew (so the thin cable visible in the vane under the blanket).

I can still remove the blanket if the result is not good.

Fred

#180 BarabinoSr

BarabinoSr

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,961
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2005

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:25 PM

The improvements I made worked for me so how do you know that those efforts were not a good choice ? You're basing that on opinions of others The scope is an f/6 . Have you tried it on your scope or did you not read my entire post ? No I didn't think so. The idea is to reduce internal glare and reflections to the minimum, and flocking the vanes is part of that, as long as there are no other obstructions in the optical path.

#181 Nils Olof Carlin

Nils Olof Carlin

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 2,227
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2004

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:08 PM

Adding flocking material to vanes will increase their thickness some, and thus the spider diffraction - this is not a matter of opinion. So if the spikes you have do not bother you, fine. Whether flocking the vanes materially helps reduce glare is another question, but leaving the vanes shiny (or a thin layer of alu foil) will only make them reflect the dark, flocked interior of the upper tube (if sufficient - a bare ultra-compact ring with minimum baffling is something else).

Nils Olof

#182 Fred76

Fred76

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2008

Posted 18 November 2013 - 02:01 PM

BarabinoJr, sorry.

I tried to flock the spiders vanes using a very mat black paint. This was before I flocked the internal of my Skywatcher 200/1000 tube. I didn't noticed any improvement to the spikes, it was even likely to be worse. Then I rebuilt another tube for my telescope, initially to win weight. I flocked it with a very mat black paint that is very effective (I don't see any reflection even with the flash of my camera...). The spider vanes were still the same and though I noticed a huge improvement in the contrast, thanks to the internal flocking, the spikes were still the same. I am also using a dew shield that is 1.5 x the outer diameter of the tube.

One of the reasons, in addition to what Nils Olof talked about, is that the black paint is very emissive in infra red. It will pump out the heat of the secondary holder and drop the temperature a few degrees below ambiant air. This difference in temperature will generate laminar air veins around the vanes that will refract the light. As a consequence, the vanes will behave as they were thicker and the spikes look bigger and stronger.

To avoid this, one should avoid the vanes to see the dark sky (which has a very cold temperature), and the dew shield is a good companion. But it is not 100% effective. The alternative is to reduce the emissivity of the vanes surface. A shinny surface, like aluminum polished sheet or the silver or gold face of a safety blanket, will do the job. The emissivity of mat black paint is between 0.95 and 0.99, whilst the emissivity of these shinny surfaces ranges between 0.02 (gold blanket side) and 0.10 (aluminum paper).

However, the shinny surface will reflect the light coming from off axis bright stars. I can't check that because of the bad weather here in french Normandy since more than a month. This is why I was asking the question, to see if someone tested this solution and get his/her feedback.

Regards

Fred

#183 Nils Olof Carlin

Nils Olof Carlin

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 2,227
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2004

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:50 PM

Fred,

I flocked it with a very mat black paint that is very effective (I don't see any reflection even with the flash of my camera...).


In my experience, for grazing reflections at low angle, even the most matte of paints on a smooth surface will be highly reflective - as is easily shown. To stop this, an irregular surface before painting helps (crushed walnut shells on glue has been suggested) or the fibres of flocking or velvet. What did you do? In a practical situation, light from an off-axis star may hit the primary, reflected towards the tube wall, and maybe the grazing reflection may hit the secondary and on to the EP.

One of the reasons, in addition to what Nils Olof talked about, is that the black paint is very emissive in infra red.


Seems most materials including white paints, anodized aluminium and the mylar side of a safety blanket are highly emissive/"black" in the wavelength range in question (around 10 micron).
This is why chromed details on a white car gets hotter in the sun than the paint - they are about as reflective of sunlight, but the paint is much more emissive than the chrome in IR and can radiate the excessive heat much better.

Nils Olof

#184 Fred76

Fred76

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2008

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:08 PM

From blanket data-sheets I read and tests made by students, the emissivity of a blanket for Ir is about 0.02-0.05 for the golden side and about the double for the silver side.

See http://www.insul.net/testdata.php for example.

I'm waiting for the clouds and wind to leave our sky to shoot some photos close to a bright star to test...

Concerning the paint I used. First, the material of the tube is aluminum, not finished (therefore already mat). I applied two layers of mat black paint (Rust Oleum mat black). It has a grainy surface but was not mat enough. I then applied two layers of Charcoal black paint (the one used to make a blackboard on a wall). The grain is now very visible and really, it is very black. Here is a picture shot with a flash. On the top, "my mate black", below the original Skywatcher tube :

Posted Image

#185 Nils Olof Carlin

Nils Olof Carlin

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 2,227
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2004

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:19 AM

Fred,

On the top, "my mate black", below the original Skywatcher tube :



Certainly a big improvement over the original (typical for a commercial tube, I guess). But backscatter from light coming down the tube is not the critical thing - the light source ought to have been at the bottom of the tube, thereby simulating a reflection in the primary, scattered forward towards the secondary.

Here is a photo I took long ago, to study the effect of a baffle in a newtonian tube. Not the best quality, but I think it illustrates my point:
I use plywood, painted with moderately matt black. I hold the larger piece horizontally ("tube wall"), next to a mirror. Also, I hold a strip of the same material at right angles, simulating a baffle. The camera is held at a low angle to the tube wall. Most of it appears strongly illuminated by forward scatter from the mirror image of the camera flash, but you see a marked shadow of the baffle, where there is only backscatter (like in your photos!). Obviously, backscatter is negligible.
(The point I wanted to illustrate is that a baffle is brighter than backscatter from the tube wall - it means that you should only baffle the tube to cut forward scatter, if at all. Flocking is probably better!).

Nils Olof

Attached Thumbnails

  • 6203028-PICT1921a.JPG


#186 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,849
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:01 AM

Does emissivity matter so much when the tube is sufficiently long, or augmented with an extension? For then the solid angle of sky 'seen' by the vanes is very much less than that presented by the tube, whose inside surface is much nearer to the air temperature. And so radiative equilibrium must be largely determined by the tube temperature, I should think. To this end, would not some form of tube insulation make sense? One factor in favor of Sonotube. :grin:

#187 Fred76

Fred76

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2008

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:56 AM

The air inside the tube shall be in near equilibrium with ambiant air around the tube. Therefore, insulating the tube is not as good as it looks like.

To avoid reflection, baffling and/or flocking the internals suffers no alternative. But the outer surface of the telescope can be designed to offer the lowest emissivity as possible, hence a very reflective coating (bare polished inox steel) would be the better choice.

Usually you have some clearance between the tube wall and the mirror diameter. So laminar air layers close to the inner wall of the tube are not a big issue (as long as the equilibrium in temperature has been reached). It may be a concern if a baffle is too close to the light path and the air layers are forced to travel inside it.

But the vanes lie inside the light path, you shall minimise the difference in temperature between the vane and the air as close to 0 as possible. Therefore flocking the vanes with a high emissivity material looks contra productive.

However, I tried to simulate the effect of a laminar layer around the vanes with Maskulator (adding 1 mm thick blurred and distorded grey around the vanes). The result is quite strange : the spikes are reduced ! In fact they look smaller and fainter but the energy of the spikes is dispersed all around, and the contrast drops a little bit.

Therefore, flocking the vanes adds some "blur" around the vanes that disperses the spikes. It has an equivalent effect - though lower - than with curved vanes, as long as you don't increase the thickness of the vanes.

Fred

#188 Mirzam

Mirzam

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,801
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2008

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:16 PM

Are you using a fan? If a fan is used to disrupt the boundary layer on the mirror surface it should also do the same for any layers formed on the spider vanes.

JimC


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics