A decade or so ago, I bought a brand-new Personal Solar Telescope from Hands On Optics. It was great! Not only could you see sunspots safely, but you could also make out prominences around the circumference of the sun, and if sky conditions were OK, you could make out plages, striations, and all sorts of other features on the Sun’s surface. If you were patient, you could tune the filters so that with the Doppler effect and the fact that many of the filaments and prominences are moving very quickly, you could make them appear and disappear as you changed the H-alpha frequency ever so slightly to one end of the spectrum to the other.
However, as the years went on, the Sun’s image got harder and harder to see. Finally I couldn’t see anything at all. And the Sun got quiet, so my PST just sat in its case, unused, for over a year. I was hoping it wasn’t my eyes!
I later found some information at Starry Nights on fixing the problem: one of the several filters (a ‘blocking’ or ‘ITF’ filter) not far in front of the eyepiece tends to get oxidized, and hence, opaque. I ordered a replacement from Meier at about $80, but was frankly rather apprehensive about figuring out how to do the actual deed. (Unfortunately they are now out of stock: https://maierphotonics.com/656bandpassfilter-1.aspx )
I finally found some threads on Starry Nights that explained more clearly what one was supposed to do ( https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/530890-newbie-trouble-with-coronado-pst/page-4 ) and with a pair of taped-up channel lock pliers and an old 3/4″ chisel that I ground down so that it would turn the threads on the retaining ring, I was able to remove the old filter and put in the new one. Here is a photo of the old filter (to the right, yellowish – blue) and the new one, which is so reflective you can see my red-and-blue cell phone with a fuzzy shiny Apple logo in the middle.
This afternoon, since for a change it wasn’t raining, I got to take it out and use it.
Two days ago, Joe Spencer had first light with the 6″ f/8 Dobsonian he built in the DC-area amateur telescope workshop. He worked hard on this project over more than a year, including grinding, polishing and figuring his mirror, and it seems to work very well.
At long last, we have finally got the venerable, massive Ealing telescope mount at Hopewell Observatory working again, after nearly 9 months, with a totally different, modern, electronic stepper motor drive based on Arduino.
My first post to the OnStep group ( https://onstep.groups.io/g/main/message/37699 ) was on October 21, 2021, over eight months ago. In it, I wrote that I had decided to give up trying to fix the electro-mechanical synchronous drive and clutches on our Ealing-Byers mount at Hopewell Observatory, and asked the folks on the OnStep message boards for help in choosing the best OnStep combination to drive such a mount.
Since then, it’s been a very long and steep learning curve. We only fried a couple of little slip-stick drivers and maybe one MaxESP board. We got LOTS of help from the OnStep list (not that the posters all agreed with each other on everything)! We ran into a lot of mysteries, especially when we found, repeatedly, that configurations that worked just fine on our workbench wouldn’t work at all when the components were put into the mount!
But now it works.
Let me thank again in particular:
* Prasad Agrahar for giving me the OnStep idea in the first place by showing me a conversion he had done;
* Alan Tarica, a fellow ATMer, for cheerfully partnering and persevering with me in working on this project for the past 8 months in many, many ways;
* Ken Hunter for providing tons of basic and advanced advice and a lot of hardware, all for free;
* Robert Benward for extremely helpful advice and drawings;
* George Cushing for providing some of the original boards we used;
* Khalid Bahayeldin for lots and lots of OnStep design features;
* Howard Dutton for designing, implementing, and supporting this whole project in the first place; and
* Arlen Raasch for bringing his wealth of trouble-shooting experience and a lot of nice equipment up to Hopewell, spending full days up there, and saving our asses in figuring out the final mysteries. Among other things, he kluged (by the way, “kluge” is German for “clever”, not clumsy) a level shifter to make it so that the 3.3 volt signals from our MaxESP3 board would actually and reliably communicate with the higher-voltage external DM542T stepper drivers that controlled the very-high-torque NEMA23 steppers, rewiring some of the jumpers on our already-modified MaxESP boards, and making the wiring look professional, and other stuff as well, thus essentially pushing us over the finish line.
* All of the Hopewell members for supporting this project
* Bill Rohrer and Michael Chesnes who physically helped out with soldering and wiring work at the observatory.
I plan to write up a coherent narrative with a list of lessons learned, and perhaps I can help make some of the step-by-step directions in the OnStep wiki a bit clearer to the uninitiated. Obviously I’ll need to write a user guide for this mount for the other Hopewell members.
If Alan and I had gone straight to our final configuration, this project would have been quite a bit cheaper. In addition to what’s inside the mount and control box at the observatory, we now have on hand something like this list of surplus items:
* four MaxESP boards in various stages of construction and functionality;
* a dozen or more different slip stick stepper drivers we aren’t using;
* four or more external stepper drivers, mostly TB6600;
* five or more stepper motors of different sizes;
* a hand-held digital oscilloscope;
* lots and lots of wires of many types;
* lots of metal and plastic project boxes of various sizes;
* lots of tiny motherboards; and
* lots and lots of sets of various mechanical electrical connectors (many were used, later cut off, and then ended up in the trash).
Yes, one does need spares, and yes, lots of this stuff has multiple uses, but this has not been a ‘green’ project. On the third hand, it has been extremely interesting and fun to learn all these new skills.
The final substantive changes that got the Ealing mount up and running were made during the Fourth of July fireworks down in the valleys on each side of the ridge that our observatory sits on. What were the changes? (1) switching the black and white leads from the mains power leads (they original, scavenged, cord had the white lead as Hot!) and (2) reversing the Declination motor direction. It also helped that I was not zoned-out and punchy from lack of sleep, as we had been when Arlen and I had last worked on it.
On July 4th, it at long last worked properly!
This Ealing mount’s original, labeled, built-in manual RA and DEC setting circles make it quite easy to put the scope into Home position before you turn on the power. One just loosens the clutches and moves the axes to 6:00 hours exactly in Right Ascension and 90 degrees exactly in Declination. From there, I found the OnStep system behaves very nicely. It accurately slewed to a number of bright, obvious targets of various sorts on both sides of the meridian. However, when I tried to get it to aim that night at M13, it refused, sending an error message that it was too close to the zenith for safety. And it was (altitude 87 degrees)! Very impressive – a safety feature I hadn’t even known about!
None of the objects that I slewed to was far from the center of the field of view, even when the scope slewed across the meridian. I was using an old, 2-inch diameter 50 mm Kellner eyepiece on an f/12 six-inch aperture D&G refractor.
I found that the Android app to be **much** better for initial setup than the SHC. Arlen, Alan and I all found that setting the correct latitude, longitude, UTC offset and so on from the SHC was a real brain-twister because of its unfortunately not-very-friendly user interface. Using the OnStep app on a cheap, old Android tablet made the whole initialization process very much easier and faster, especially after I let the tablet discover what time it really was from my iPhone’s wireless HotSpot.
However, I found that the hand paddle is much better for fine-tuning of pointing and so on, because the bright display on an Android, no matter how dim one makes it, will destroy one’s night vision, and one cannot reliably feel where the directional buttons are on a flat screen while staring through an eyepiece. Obviously, one can feel the buttons on the SHC quite well, maybe even with gloves. A joy stick would be even better…
Alan and I and the other Hopewell members still have many more OnStep features to learn.
However: if I had known this project would take over eight months of hard work, I think I might have tried fiddling with the original Ealing clutches some more.
Oh well, we have a mount that has much more capabilities than it ever had, and Alan and I have learned quite a bit of electronics! I’m proud of what we did!
A 3-minute video of the results of our first-time installation of something called an OnStep conversion. We are replacing the telescope drive of a venerable but beautifully machined telescope mount, located at a small group-owned observatory called Hopewell, atop a ridge called Bull Run Mountain*.
It’s alive!
Sorry, it’s not the greatest or clearest video. Also, I mistakenly state at about 0:25 in the video that the right ascension axis was turning at 12 RPM, but it’s not: I should have said 5 RPM, or one revolution in 12 seconds.
You can hear some stuttering of one of the motors. You are right, that is not a good sound. We were able to get it to stop and start making that noise and motion by adjusting the precise positioning of some of the gears. It will take some time and experimentation to get that perfect.
Later on (not captured in this video), when I was trying to slew in the declination axis at the highest speed possible, the stepper motor once again screamed and halted. I’m hopeful that all of those problems can be fixed by doing one or more of these things:
1) adjusting the fit of all those gears;
(2) changing certain parameters of microstepping and current to the stepper motors in software; and/or
(3) increasing the voltage to the board from 18 VDC to 24 VDC.
I’ll need to test things out on my desk at home, using the same OnStep board, but without the gears and timing belt. (That stuff was a royal PITA to remove screw back into place, and none of us have any desire to take them back out again!) I have some identical extra stepper motors that I can test out, with gloved hands, to see if it is possible to stop the motors from turning. Right now, I still don’t think they are putting out the amount of torque needed.
================================
*Yes, that famous Bull Run of Civil War fame is not far away. However, our observatory is named after a different geological feature, namely the Hopewell Gap that cuts through the hard rock of Bull Run Mountain right about where where the creek called Little Bull Run begins.
If you are reading this, you probably know that serious amateur, and all professional, astronomical telescopes (except for Dobs) are generally driven by ‘clock drives’ so that the object one is viewing or photographing stays properly centered as the earth rotates imperceptibly beneath us. The original Ealing motor drive at Hopewell, while turning excellent Ed Byers gears, had been an intermittent problem ever since it was delivered to the University of Marylandabout 50 years ago. It was in fact not operational when they sold it to us for a pittance about 30 years ago. (If you go to the University of Maryland Observatory site I linked to, the scope we have now is the one in the center of the 1970s – era photo labeled ‘Figure 4’.)
Bob Bolster, one of the founding members of Hopewell observatory, disassembled the drive, modified it considerably, and got it working again, several years before I joined the group. The scope worked, off and on, with a very complex clutch system for ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ movement of the scope, for most of the rest of the last 25 or so years, except for occasional motor burnouts and clutch replacements. Also unfortunately, the optics on the original 12″ Ritchey-Chretien telescope, were not very good, so we removed them, had them in an attic for many years, re-tested them, and finally sold the glass and the holders, for a pittance, to someone in Italy who wanted to try to re-figure them.
This was originally a ‘push-to’ telescope, meaning that one loosened up two Byers clutches (one for each axis), located the desired target in the sky, tightened the two clutches, did some fine tuning with an electric hand paddle to center the target more precisely, and then allowed the telescope drive to then keep the object in the center of the eyepiece or camera field of view as long as one wanted. It originally came with metal setting circles (basically, finely-made protractors that showed where the scope is pointing vis-a-vis the polar and declination axes), which made finding targets possible, though not trivial!
About 15 years ago, Bolster (with some help from me) installed Digital Setting Circles, which used a rotary encoder on each axis, along with a small hand-held computer and screen display, to allow one to select a given target; the DSC hand paddle’s display then would indicate how far one should rotate the scope along those axes to find the desired celestial object; when it was in the field of your widest eyepiece, one used the hand paddle to center it more precisely.
Converting this scope to an OnStep drive will, I hope, make this a Go-To scope in which one can command the telescope to aim at whatever target one desires.
Unfortunately, right now, the fastest it seems to rotate in Declination, with no load whatsoever (all scopes have been removed, so no balance or inertia problems) is about one degree per second. So doing a 180-degree turn in a North-South direction would take a full three minutes. A 30-degree turn would take 30 seconds. Can we make this a bit faster? I hope so.
I wasn’t able to really slew in right ascension (East-West) because the counterweight box, even though empty, seems to require too much torque to rotate right now.
Bolster passed away a few years ago, and this summer, the moment I had been dreading finally arrived: the drive on the Ealing died again, and his amazing skills and tenacity in fixing such problems was gone with him. What’s more, in his final years, his incurable, chronic idiopathic neuropathy made it literally impossible for him to speak, and even typing email responses to the rest of us took a very long time. So most of his wealth of knowledge and experience died with him.
As indicated in my earlier posts (here, here, here, and here), with help from others, I was able to take the two motor setups for the two axes out from the mount and get them working again on my workbench in their original format. I was even able to order and install material for the clutches. However, I discovered that one needed to adjust the clutches very, very precisely, or else they wouldn’t work at all.
I couldn’t figure out how to do that.
And nobody else who belongs to our observatory volunteered to help out, except for removing the scopes and drives from their former positions inside the mount.
So I decided to convert to a totally different type of telescope drive, one inspired by the Arduino boards and 3-D printers. A group of really smart and resourceful hobbyists (engineers?) designed a system around the Arduino environment that uses inexpensive off-the-shelf printed circuits and complex sub-boards and components, used originally mostly in the 3-D printers that have become so popular, to drive at telescope just the way astronomers want them to be driven.
Apparently, there have been many, many OnStep successes, but what we are doing may be the largest and most massive mount to date that has done such a conversion.
I was warned that the entire process would take some months. Those warnings were correct. But that’s OK. I’m retired, I have time, and I have access to tools and people who are interested in helping. What’s more, I have learned a whole lot about modern electronics, and my soldering skills are much better than they ever were.
I’d again like to thank Alan Tarica (who’s physically helped a **tremendous** amount), Prasad Agrahar (who first showed me the OnStep conversions he had done on a much smaller equatorial mount), Howard Dutton (who first conceived and implemented OnStep), Ken Hunter (who made and **donated** to us a complete, functional OnStep board together with all sorts of accessories and walked me by phone and video through many of my fumbling first steps), Khalid Bahayeldin, George Cushing, and many others.
I have made a lot of progress over this winter break in converting the 50-year-old Ealing telescope mount at the Hopewell Observatory, as you can see in this video.
We are swapping out an electro-mechanical “dumb” drive that failed, in favor of a modern, solid-state one built in the Arduino environment. If it all works out as planned, this mount will be able to slew to any target and keep the target steady enough for astrophotograpy. I hope.
With a project like this, with delicate electronics that can easily get fried, I believe that having spare parts on hand is a good idea. The main board is pretty cheap: under $100, completely assembled, and the motors were about $30 each. We have spare stepper motors, spare stepper drivers, and a total of three main MaxESP OnStep boards.
Except that two of them (the ones we purchased from George C) don’t work at all, and I don’t know why. The one that Ken Hunter built and **donated** to us works just fine, after I did the required tweaking of various settings inside the Smart Hand Controller or SHC and inside a CONFIG.H file in the Arduino programming environment. And added the gears and belt.
I see almost no serious differences between George’s boards and Ken’s board. I am confident the problem is not my wiring or soldering, and it’s not the fact that George’s boards have RJ45 jacks, but what it is, I have no idea.
This is my second build of the connections between the stepper motor and the worm gear.
Without the help of Ken H, Howard Dutton, another Ken, Alan Tarica, Prasad Agrahar, and Khaled Bahayeldin, I never would have gotten this far. I am very appreciative of the amount of work that went into programming all of the many parts of the OnStep project as a whole. However, I found the OnStep Wiki rather confusing for beginners, and I hope to help them make it clearer in the future.
You can probably see that there is a good bit of wobble in the gears that involve the belts. That is probably because I failed to get the gears perfectly flush against the lathe chuck when I was enlarging their central holes from 5 mm to 1/4 inch despite using a dial indicator with a magnetic base to center it. I think I will need to order a new set of gears that have a 1/4″ axle hole already made at the factory. I don’t think I can do any better than I did, and that wasn’t good enough.
The reason for having the gears and belts is something to do with microstepping on the stepper motors that I really don’t understand. OnStep experts told me that the OnStep board, drivers, and steppers simply cannot handle gears that are 1 : 20 : 359. So we added a 3:1 toothed-gear-and-belt system so that the ratios are now 3 : 1 : 20 : 359. That set of ratios seems to make the steppers happy. (These motors have 200 steps per rotation, and are being currently driven at a rate of 1/16 of a step.) They don’t scream and stall any more, but the wobbly gears will probably translate into periodic error that one can see in the eyepiece or on long exposures with some kind of camera.
My next step is to take this entire apparatus up to the Hopewell Observatory itself and see what happens when I install them in the Right Ascension and Declination drives.
Then, we need to repair the electrical supply for the roll-off roof.
Then we have to put the telescopes back onto the mount.
Then, and only then, can we try having a “First Light” with the new motor pushing a very nice Ed Byers drive in an big, old, and very well-built university-grade telescope mount.
Here is a photo of the inside of the declination axis of the Ealing mount at Hopewell Observatory.
The gears you see were made about 50 years ago by the Ed Byers company, who continue to produce some of the finest gears anywhere. The periodic error on this mount is very, very low, which is a Good Thing, and why we want to keep it and just upgrade the old drive. As you can see in a previous post, the old system had a finicky clutch drive that had caused a lot of problems, but worked very well indeed when it worked properly.
I am working to replace it with a more modern, reliable and user-friendly, namely an OnStep ‘build’.
The friendly and helpful folks at the OnStep project were asking for a picture showing how the existing Byers drive was put together. I hope these four photos help.
In the first photo, notice the greasy worm gear at the bottom left. It was removed from the mount, along with the old motors, and is sitting on my desk (with the old grease cleaned off), directly coupled to the stepper motor, which connects to one of the OnStep boards (in the wood-and-black aluminum box). In the second photo,
The black anodized bracket in the second photo holds the motor and the worm gear rigidly together. The bracket bolts into a place in the mount (not shown). It took a bit of work to get the stepper motor and the worm gear lined up within a couple of thousandths of an inch, but it’s done. Prasad turned me onto those cool little universal joints that permit one to connect items that don’t match perfectly.
20 turns of the worm gear, times 359 teeth on the big gear, means that it takes 7,180 turns of the stepper motor to make one full revolution of this declination axis or of the right ascension axis, which is identically mounted. (Not that you would want to go about spinning your telescope very far on either axis!)
So 19.97 turns of either motor make the scope travel 1 degree (7180 divided by 360).
And since our stepper motors make 200 steps in one revolution of the worm gear, it takes about 3994 motor steps to make the scope turn by that one degree (the last result, times 200).
Or if you are micro-stepping by, say, the rate of one sixteenth of a step, then by my calculations it will take 63,911 microsteps to turn by that degree (the last result, times 16). And that seems to be outside the range of permissible microsteps for these stepper motors, perhaps causing them to scream in protest. (I swear, that’s what it sounds like!)
From left to right: A spare OnStep board inside its wood-and-aluminum project box; the NEMA23 stepper motor on its bracket; a universal joint; a big bearing; the first worm gear (now cleaned off)
It appears that Khaled and Prasad might be correct: I might need to add a toothed gears and a belt to this arrangement to reduce that last number (63,911) by some factor. For very little money I just ordered a pair of such things, designed for 3-D printers and other computer-controlled machines. It will have 60 teeth on the motor and 20 teeth on the worm gear, and then the above would instead have only 21,304 microsteps to turn one degree. (No wonder they protest!) Once again I’ll have to disassemble the motor and drive bracket and do a bit of machining. A drill press and a punch will be fine.
The last two photos give some more detail on how the old drive system worked.
Close up of worm gear driving a toothed gear wheel that drives another worm gear that drives the right ascension axis
One of the original drive motor and clutch assemblies in place, inside the mount. All those gears have now been removed.
More progress with the 22-inch wide, 4-inch thick mystery glass.
It took four of us old farts- Jim Kaiser, Alan Tarica, Tom Crone, and me – to extract the mirror from its case (which was located under a very heavy Draper-style grinding and polishing machine) roll it onto a little stand we fabricated on a decent gym scale I borrowed from my gym ( http://www.True180.fitness ) and weigh it.
We were very careful when moving that heavy mirror. Nobody got hurt in any way. When putting the mirror back into its sturdy wood carrying box, we used ancient Egyptian technology of little rollers, and it worked like a charm.
The bathroom scale we had used earlier, up at Hopewell was very, very wrong. We found that the weight of the glass was really 212 pounds (about 96 kilograms, or 96,000 grams), not 130 pounds. Its volume was 20,722 cc, so its density is roughly 4.6. Will have to see what types of glass have roughly that density and an index of refraction of about 1.72 to 1.76.
I heard from one veteran telescope maker:
“I’ve been in the Tucson astronomy club for many decades and also in the optics industry there. Most all institutions that had connections to astronomy or optics in the 60s got portions of several semi loads of “glass bank glass”, glasses that at one point in the past were considered strategic materials for certain optical designs/systems. There was a wide variety of materials, but almost all was identified in some way. We’re there any markings ar data scribed in the glass? The largest I saw was about 15”, so yours might be a different source.
“A co-worker of mine has identified several mystery glasses from an accurate determination of density. Seems like you should be able to get better results w/a more accurate scale. Also many glass types made decades ago are obsolete – my friend has some older glass catalogs that might help you determine what it might be with more accurate numbers.”
So these were cast-offs from the Military Industrial Complex, basically: pieces of glass that the military decided it no longer needed for projects that had either been completed or abandoned, and that they didn’t feel like storing any more. So they gave them away to groups like National Capital Astronomers and Hopewell Observatory.
The only markings on the glass are the following: a heavily inscribed (by hand) apparent date of 2-8-56, which probably means either February 8 of 1956 or the 2nd of August 1956. Judging by the handwriting style of the numerals, it was probably Feb. 8 of 1956 (US style). Under that are the numerals 0225, which we have no idea about. In pencil, someone with US-style handwriting wrote what looks like “Low #” in cursive. Again, we have no idea what that means.
About a week week ago, the right ascension (or RA) drive on a vintage mount at the Hopewell Observatory stopped working. Instead of its usual hum, it began making scraping noises, and then ground to a halt. (This drive is the one that allows one to track the stars perfectly as the earth slowly rotates.)
Another member and I carefully removed the drive mechanism, and I took it home. At first, I thought it was the motor itself, but after examining it carefully, I noticed that some clutch pads inside the gearbox had come unglued, causing the clutch plates to be cockeyed. The motor itself worked just fine when disconnected from the gear box.
I recalled that the pads and the clutch had been very problematic, and that our resident but now-deceased electro-mechanical-optical wizard Bob Bolster had had to modify the gearbox quite a bit. I carefully disassembled the gearbox and used acetone to remove all the old glue that he had used to glue the pads on. After doing some research to find some equivalent pad material, I yesterday ordered some new gasket material with adhesive backing from McMaster-Carr. Lo and behold, I received it TODAY! Wow!
I cut out new pads, re-assembled everything, and the gears and worm drive work just fine. Not only that: there were no screws or nuts left over!
In addition, I now see how we can replace the extremely complicated partially-analog clutch-and-drive mechanism, in both RA and in Declination with a much simpler stepper-motor system using something called OnStep.
Here is a photo of the some of the innards of the scope:
A bit complicated, no?
In the next photo, my pencil is pointing to the clutch pads inside the gear box that had come loose, causing the clutch plates to become cockeyed, jamming the gears. The clutch is so that the observer can ever-so-slightly tweak the telescope forward or backwards in RA, in order to center the target. There is another gearbox for the declination, but it’s still working OK, so we left it alone.
The synchronous gear-motor in the background. My pencil is pointing to the problem.
Of course, we still have to re-install the gearbox back in the scope.
Bob Bolster, mentioned above, was one of the founding members of the Hopewell Observatory. He was an absolute wizard at fixing things and keeping this telescope mount going, but he is no longer alive. I was afraid that I would not be able to fix this problem, but it looks like I’ve been successful.
I append an image of a very beautifully-refurbished Ealing telescope and mount – similar to the one owned by Hopewell – that belongs to the Austin Astronomical Society. Ours is so much more beat up than this one that it’s embarrassing! Plus, both we and the University of Maryland were unable to get the telescope itself, which is a Ritchey-Chretien design, ever to work properly. So we sold the mirror and cell to a collector in Italy for a pittance, and installed four other, smaller scopes on the mount instead.
Tonight we were finally able to hold a telescope making workshop again, for the first time since March 13, 2020, according to our log-in sheet.
We had five people, and we looked at several mirrors.
The first one was a plate glass, 10″, f/5.5 Coulter mirror that Kevin Hartnett had obtained and wanted me to strip the old aluminum coating from and then silver it and overcoat it. I thought the coating looked rather good, especially given its age, and wanted to put it on the testing stand to see how the figure looked. All of us thought the geometric figure of the mirror looked pretty good, and the ronchi lines looked nice and smooth. Alin Tolea said he saw a narrow turned down edge region perhaps 1/4″. Kevin thought it performed well, and I can see why.
I hope my silvering job turns out at least as good as its current aluminization.
Here are a few frames from my video of the Ronchi images (100 lines per inch):
The second one was a 17.5″ f/4.5 pyrex mirror, also originally made by Coulter and then refigured by somebody called Optical Western Labs (?) in California. The owner, We did not like this mirror at all. We thought the Ronchi lines were not smooth; there is a raised area in the center; and it even shows some signs of astigmatism. Here are a couple of frames the video I took of its Ronchi measurements:
The third mirror was an 8″, under-f/4 plate glass mirror that the owner reported performed very poorly. Once we put it on the stand, we saw why: it had never been parabolized! The Ronchi lines were almost perfectly straight! You only want straight Ronchi lines if your goal is to have a spherical (as opposed to parabolic, ellipsoidal, or hyperbolic) mirror. That’s why all its images were blurry. Nagesh Kanvindeh immediately decided to start trying to parabolize it, and we happened to have a synthetic pitch lap of 8″ diameter that had been last used to finish an f/4 mirror, so he got started right away.
By the way, our new hours are 5:00 pm to 8:30 pm, Tuesdays and Fridays.
Many years ago, the late Bob Bolster, a founding member of Hopewell Observatory and an amazing amateur telescope maker, got hold of a large piece of glass, perhaps World War Two military surplus left over from the old Bureau of Standards.
I have no idea what it is made out of. If Bob had any clue about its composition, he didn’t tell anyone.
Its diameter is 22 inches, and its thickness is about 3.25″. It has a yellowish tint, and it is very, very heavy.
If you didn’t know, telescope lenses (just like binocular or camera lenses) are made from a wide variety of ingredients, carefully selected to refract the various colors of light just so. Almost all glass contains quartz (SiO2), but they can also contain limestone (CaCO3), Boric oxide (B2O3), phosphates, fluorides, lead oxide, and even rare earth elements like lanthanum or thorium. This linkwill tell you more than you need to know.
If you are making lenses for a large refracting telescope, you need to have two very different types of glass, and you need to know their indices of refraction very precisely, so that you can calculate the the exact curvatures needed so that the color distortions produced by one lens will be mostly canceled out by the other piece(s) of glass. This is not simple! The largest working refractor today is the Yerkes, with a diameter of 40 inches (~1 meter). By comparison, the largest reflecting telescope made with a single piece of glass today is the Subaru on Mauna Kea, with a diameter of 8.2 meters (323 inches).
For a reflecting telescope, one generally doesn’t care very much what the exact composition of the glass might be, as long as it doesn’t expand and contract too much when the temperature rises or falls.
We weren’t quite sure what to do with this heavy disk, but we figured that before either grinding it into a mirror or selling it, we should try to figure out what type of glass it might be.
Several companies that produce optical glass publish catalogs that list all sorts of data, including density and indices of refraction and dispersion.
Some of us Hopewell members used a bathroom scale and tape measures to measure the density. We found that it weighed about 130 pounds. The diameter is 22 inches (55.9 cm) and the thickness is 3 and a quarter inches (8.26 cm). Using the formula for a cylinder, namely V = pi*r2*h, the volume is about 1235 cubic inches or 20,722 cubic centimeters. Using a bathroom scale, we got its weight to be about 130 lbs, or 59 kg (both +/- 1 or 2). It is possible that the scale got confused, since it expects two feet to be placed on it, rather than one large disk of glass.
However, if our measurements are correct, its density is about 2.91 grams per cc, or 1.68 ounces per cubic inches. (We figured that the density might be as low as 2.80 or as high as 3.00 if the scale was a bit off.)
It turns out that there are lots of different types of glass in that range.
Looking through the Schott catalog I saw the following types of glass with densities in that range, but I may have missed a few.
2.86 N-SF5
2.86 M-BAK2
2.89 N-BAF4
2.90 N-SF8
2.90 P-SF8
2.91 N-PSK3
2.92 N-SF15
2.93 P-SF69
2.94 LLF1
2.97 P-SK58A
3.00 N-KZFS5
3.01 P-SK57Q1
By comparison, some of the commonest and cheapest optical glasses are BAK-4 with density 3.05 and BK-7 with density 2.5.
Someone suggested that the glass might contain radioactive thorium. I don’t have a working Geiger counter, but used an iPhone app called GammaPix and it reported no gamma-ray radioactivity at all, and I also found that none of the glasses listed above (as manufactured today by Schott) contain any Uranium, Thorium or Lanthanum (which is used to replace thorium).
So I then rigged up a fixed laser pointer to measure its index of refraction usingSnell’s Law, which says
Here is a schematic of my setup:
The fixed angle a I found to be between 50 and 51 degrees by putting my rig on a large mirror and measuring the angle of reflection with a carpentry tool.
And here is what it looked like in practice:
I slid the jig back and forth until I could make it so that the refracted laser beam just barely hit the bottom edge of the glass blank.
I marked where the laser is impinging upon the glass, and I measured the distance d from that spot to the top edge of the glass.
I divided d by the thickness of the glass, in the same units, and found the arc-tangent of that ratio; that is the measure, b, of the angle of refraction.
One generally uses 1.00 for the index of refraction of air (n1). I am calling n2 the index of refraction of the glass. I had never actually done this experiment before; I had only read about doing it.
As you might expect, with such a crude setup, I got a range of answers for the thickness of the glass, and for the distance d. Even angle a was uncertain: somewhere around 49 or 50 degrees. For the angle of refraction, I got answers somewhere between 25.7 and 26.5 degrees.
All of this gave me an index of refraction for this class as being between 1.723 and 1.760.
This gave me a list of quite a few different glasses in several catalogs (two from Schott and one from Bausch & Lomb).
Unfortunately, there is no glass with a density between 2.80 and 3.00 g/cc that has an index of refraction in that range.
None.
So, either we have a disk of unobtanium, or else we did some measurements incorrectly.
I’m guessing it’s not unobtanium.
I’m also guessing the error is probably in our weighing procedure. The bathroom scale we used is not very accurate and probably got confused because the glass doesn’t have two feet.
A suggestion was made that this might be what Bausch and Lomb called Barium Flint, but that has an index of refraction that’s too low, only 1.605.
Guy's Math & Astro Blog 