• My series on making a Newtonian telescope
  • How Leon Foucault Made Telescopes

Guy's Math & Astro Blog

Guy's Math & Astro Blog

Monthly Archives: November 2015

Another Puzzle: An F/3, very thin Pyrex mirror that seems to have a plastic layer on top of the glass!

18 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by gfbrandenburg in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Got another puzzle for you: an f/3 8″ mirror that appears to have been made by laying a plastic layer on an unfinished thin mirror blank! I’ve never seen anything like it!

Anybody got any ideas?

Some background: Some weeks ago, Al P brought in to the DC-area ATM workshop the optics for a telescope that someone gave him a decade or so earlier. The telescope originally had some sort of thin, full-sized window that we determined was almost perfectly flat, so it had no corrective power that we could determine. He thought that the diagonal mirror had been attached to the window, but the rest of the telescope had long since disappeared. The aluminum layer on the mirror was in fairly decent shape considering how old the mirror was.

The mirror was very thin: 8″ across (20 cm) and only about 1 cm thick, so about 20:1 instead of the 6:1 diameter-to-thickness ration that used to be recommended in the 1930s through 1990s. The back of the mirror blank had circular grooves impressed into it, so many that at first glance it looked like an old-time glass LP record (rather than a vinyl one).

It was also very ‘fast’, with an focal ratio of almost exactly three (3)!

Unfortunately, the mirror was seriously undercorrected, and thus unusable if put into a telescope as is, even though a Ronchi test showed no signs of turned-down edge or of unwanted roughness or weird zones. A numerical Foucault test with Couder-style zones, repeated several times, revealed the lack of correction.

Eventually Al decided to try to refigure the mirror with an ordinary pitch lap, so he removed the aluminum layer with muriatic acid (HCl), and we remade a burgundy pitch lap and tried to get the lap into contact. It seemed to Al that the original bevel had pretty much vanished, so he used a fairly coarse sharpening stone to bring it back. We noticed a funny texture around the end of his bevel but weren’t sure what it was.

When we pressed the mirror against the lap, we immediately discovered that there was a huge amount of bumpiness and jerkiness – something was catching the lap, much like riding a Big Wheel trike on a cobblestone street. Plus, the pitch tended to stick to the mirror and had to be repeatedly removed with fingernails, turpentine, and paint thinner.

We tried rewarming and re-pressing the lap, with no improvement. When we ran our fingers around the edge of the glass, near the bevel, it seemed like there was a raised rim, almost like on a saucer. So Al got out a finer sharpening stone and increased the bevel all the way around, to about 3 or 4 mm wide. Still no improvement in the bumpiness, and the weird texture around the edge of the glass got even worse.

Then we tried removing all traces of upward-facing lip around the edge of the glass by taking a large sort-of-flat piece of 1/4″ glass, sprinkling some 220 grit and water on it, and stroking the mirror, face down, against the grit and piece of glass.

That also did not do anything to improve the bumpiness. Plus, it began to look to us more and more like this mirror had been made in a totally weird manner: a fairly rough piece of glass was hogged out to the correct curvature, then somehow coated with a smooth layer of plastic, then aluminized. If they did any figuring on it, they clearly did not use a pitch lap!

I attach a few photos that are badly out of focus because iphones don’t like to take close ups. The bright bars are LED fluorescent lights in the ceiling; the concentric rings or grooves are on the back of the mirror. Pay attention to the irregularly-shaped non-shiny areas, where we think the original plastic coating came off.

IMG_3679
IMG_3680
IMG_3682

 

I am also going to link to a youtube video that I took through a cheap 60X – 100X LED microscope.

A few more clues: the plastic layer (if that’s what it is) does not seem to be removed with either HCl or turpentine or mineral spirits.

If anybody has any thoughts on this mysterious mirror, Al and I will be all ears.

Meanwhile he plans to create a new tool from dental plaster and porcelain tiles and regrind it to f/5.

 

Puzzlement when Trying to Figure a Convex Surface Through the Back

14 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by gfbrandenburg in astronomy, flat, optical flat, Telescope Making

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ATM, convex, figuring, polarizing filters, Ronchi, strain

Have you ever tried to make a convex optical surface?

If so, you know that it’s much more challenging than a concave one, since the rays of light do not come to a focus at all.

Some of us* at the Amateur Telescope Making workshop here in Washington DC have made several attempts at doing this, pretty much without success. I would like to show you some weird images that we got when we tried to ‘figure’ the convex surface by performing a Ronchi test from the back side, looking through what was supposed to be a flat.

What we find is that even though the glass itself is very clear and free of visible strain when seen by the naked eye or when using crossed polarized filters, it looks like we are looking through an extremely murky and totally un-annealed piece of ancient Venetian glass, causing all sorts of weird striations in what should otherwise be nice, smooth Ronchi lines.

These pictures go in order from outside the radius of curvature to inside the ROC.

IMG_3656 IMG_3660 IMG_3663 IMG_3665 IMG_3667 IMG_3668

You might well think that the glass itself has lots of strain left in it, causing the very weird patterns that you see here. I can prove that this is not the case by showing you a short video that we made with crossed polarizing filters of the 5-inch diameter blank itself and two pieces of plastic (the protective covers for one of the filters). Judge for yourself.

This is not the first time that this strange phenomenon has occurred.

Any suggestions from those with actual experience would be extremely welcome.

===================

* Me, Nagesh K, and Oscar O.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • March 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • September 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014

Categories

  • astronomy
  • astrophysics
  • education
  • flat
  • History
  • Hopewell Observatorry
  • Math
  • monochromatic
  • nature
  • optical flat
  • Optics
  • Safety
  • science
  • teaching
  • Telescope Making
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Guy's Math & Astro Blog
    • Join 48 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Guy's Math & Astro Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...