Tag Archives: Ronchi

Some Progress – AT LAST! – With Figuring the 16.5″ f/4.5 Thin Mirror That Headlines This Blog

10 Saturday Nov 2018

Posted by in astronomy, Hopewell Observatorry, Optics, Safety, Telescope Making

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

I have been wrestling with this mirror for YEARS. It’s not been easy at all. The blank is only about twice the diameter of an 8″ mirror, but the project is easily 10 times as hard as doing an 8-incher. (Yes, it’s the one in the photo heading this blog!)

Recently I’ve been trying to figure it using a polishing/grinding machine fabricated by the late Bob Bolster (who modeled his after the machine that George Ritchey invented for the celebrated 60″ mirror at Mount Wilson over a century ago). That’s been a learning exercise, as I had to learn by trial and error what the machine can and cannot do, and what strokes produce what effects. The texts and videos I have seen on figuring such a large mirror with a machine have not really been very helpful, so it’s mostly been trial and error.

My best results right now seem to come from using an 8″ pitch tool on a metal backing, with a 15 pound lead weight, employing long, somewhat-oval strokes approximately tangential to the 50% zone. The edge of the tool goes about 5 cm over the edge of the blank.

This little movie shows the best ronchigrams I have ever produced with this mirror, after nearly 6 hours of near-continuous work and testing. Take a look:

And compare that to how it used to look back in September:

 

Also compare that to the theoretically perfect computed ronchigrams from Mel Bartels’ website:

perfect theoretical ronchigrams for guy's 42 cm mirror

Part of the reason this mirror has taken so long is that after grinding and polishing by hand some years ago, I finally did a proper check for strain, and discovered that it had some pretty serious strain. I ended up shipping it out to someone in Taos, New Mexico who annealed it – but that changed the figure of the mirror so much that I had to go back to fine grinding (all the way back to 120 or 220 grit, I think), and then re-polishing, all by hand. I tried to do all of that, and figuring of the mirror, at one of the Delmarva Mirror Making Marathons. It was just too much for my back — along with digging drainage ditches at Hopewell Observatory, I ended up in a serious amount of pain and required serious physical therapy (but fortunately, no crutches), so this project went back into storage for a long, long time.

Recently I’ve tried more work by hand and by machine. Unfortunately, when I do work by hand, it seems that almost no matter how carefully I polish, I cause astigmatism (which I am defining as the mirror simply not being a figure of rotation) which I can see at the testing stand as Ronchi lines that are not symmetrical around a horizontal line of reflection. (If a Ronchi grating produces lines that look a bit line the capital letters N, S, o Z, you have astigmatism quite badly. If astigmatism is there, those dreaded curves show up best when your grating is very close to the center of curvature (or center of confusion) of the central zone.

Using this machine means controlling or guessing at a LOT of variables:

  1. length of the first crank;
  2. length (positive or negative) of the second crank;
  3. position of the slide;
  4. diameter of the pitch lap;
  5. composition of the pitch;
  6. shape into which the pitch lap has been carved;
  7. amount of time that the lap was pressed against the lap;
  8. whether that was a hot press or a warm press or a cold press;
  9. amount of weight pushing down on the lap;
  10. type of polishing agent being used;
  11. thickness or dilution of polishing agent;
  12. temperature and humidity of the room;
  13. whether the settings are all kept the same or are allowed to blend into one another (eg by moving the slide);
  14. time spent on any one setup with the previous eleven or more variables;

Here is a sketch of how this works

bolster's ritchey-like machine

Difficulties in Using the Matching Ronchi Test on a 12″ Cassegrain Mirror

08 Saturday Sep 2018

Posted by in astronomy, flat, Hopewell Observatorry, optical flat, Optics, Telescope Making

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The other regulars and I at the DC ATM group at the CCCC have been trying to test a 12 inch Cassegrain mirror and telescope manufactured nearly 50 years ago by a company called Ealing and currently owned by the Hopewell Observatory, of which I am a member. It hasn’t been easy. I discussed this earlier on Cloudy Nights.

Reports from several people, including Gary Hand and the late Bob Bolster, indicated that the optics on this mirror weren’t good at all. Apparently the folks at the University of Maryland’s observatory were sufficiently unhappy with it that they either sold it or gave it to National Capital Astronomers, a local astronomy club, who in turn gave it or sold it to Hopewell Observatory.

With a plain-vanilla Ronchi test, we could see that the mirror was very smooth and continuous, with no turned edge, astigmatism, or bad zones. With the Foucault/Couder zonal test (aka “Foucault” test) , I got results indicating that it was seriously overcorrected: some sort of hyperboloid, rather than the standard paraboloid characteristic of classical Cassegrain telescopes, which have a parabolic primary mirror and a hyperbolic secondary mirror.

However, I have begun losing my faith in my zonal readings, because they often seem to give results that are way out of whack compared to other testing methods.

So we decided to do some additional tests: the Double-Pass Auto-Collimation (DPACT) test used by Dick Parker, as well as the Matching Ronchi test (MRT).

The DPACT is very fiddly and exacting in its setup. We used (and modified) the setup lent to us by Jim Crowley and illustrated by him at his Astro Bananas website. Our results seem to show that the mirror is in fact NOT parabolic, rather, overcorrected, which confirms my Foucault measurements. If it were a perfect paraboloid, then the ronchi lines would be perfectly straight, but they definitely are NOT: they curve one way when inside the focal point, and curve the other when the tester is outside the focal point.

We also tested the entire setup on a radio tower that was about half a mile (~1km) distant. We found that the images were somewhat blurry no matter what we did.

We also attempted the MRT on the same mirror. However, requires very accurate photography and cutting-and-pasting skills in some sort of graphics programs. What you are inspecting is the curvature of the Ronchi lines. Here is the result that Alan T and I got last night:

matching ronchi for 12 inch cass

In black is the ideal ronchigram for this mirror, according to Mel Bartels’ website. The colored picture is the one we made with either my cell phone or the device I finished making earlier this week, shown in my previous post. Here are the two images, separated rather than superimposed:

IMG_1337

ideal ronchigram 12 inch cass ealing

The mirror’s focal length is 47.5″ and the grating has 100 lines per inch, shown somewhat outside of the radius of curvature. The little ‘eyelash’ on the lower left is simply a stray wire that was in the way, and doesn’t affect the image at all. The big hole in the middle is there because the mirror is a cassegrain.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t really see any differences between the real mirror and the theoretical mirror. Do you?

Conclusion

So, what does this all mean?

  • One possibility is that the mirror is in fact perfectly parabolic (as apparently shown by the MRT, but contrary to what I found with Foucault and DPACT) but there is something wrong with the convex, hyperbolic secondary.
  • Another possibility is that the mirror is in fact NOT parabolic, but hyperbolic, as shown by both my Foucault measurements and the DPACT (and contrary to the MRT), which would mean that this telescope was in fact closer to a Ritchey-Chretien; however, since it was marketed as a classical Cassegrain, then the (supposedly) hyperbolic secondary was in fact not tuned correctly to the primary.
  • The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.
  • A star test would be the best answer, but that would require being able to see a star. That hasn’t happened in these parts for quite some time. In addition, it would require an eyepiece holder and a mount of some sort. Or else setting up an indoor star…

Latest Ronchi or Knife-Edge Tester for Mirrors and Other Optics Using a WebCam

07 Friday Sep 2018

Posted by in astronomy, Optics, science, Telescope Making

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Here is the latest incarnation of my webcam Ronchi and knife edge (or Foucault) tester. It’s taken quite a few iterations to get here, including removing all the unnecessary parts of the webcam. I attach a still photo and a short video. The setup does quite a nice job of allowing everybody to see what is happening. The only problem is setting the gain, focus, exposure, brightness, color balance, contrast, and so on in such a way that what you see on the screen resembles in any way what your eye can see quite easily.

IMG_1335

Quantifying Progress in the Fight Against Turned Down Edge

27 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by in astronomy, Math, Optics, Telescope Making, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

By Guy Brandenburg

3/27/2017

I describe here an attempt to quantify progress (or lack thereof) in the removal of the classic, and dreaded, turned-down edge (TDE) present on a 16.5” Newtonian glass mirror blank that I have been trying to “figure” for some years.  The figuring process means changing a piece of glass that approximates a small section sliced out of a large hollow sphere, into a highly-accurate paraboloid — with the required level of accuracy being measured in nanometers.

 

Many amateur and professional telescope makers have maintained that you can only fix figuring errors if you can measure them. Not being able to get good, repeatable measurements of the TDE on my mirror, I had been sort of floundering, failing to get rid of the TDE even after YEARS of work (off and on; mostly off). So a decision was made to try to quantify things.

 

We recently had some success in matching computer-generated Ronchi images of theoretically-perfect mirrors with photos taken of works in progress, simply by cutting and pasting – which has been recommended by Mel Bartels in particular for quite some time. For the first time, I got the hang of it, and we were able to help a first-timer (Mike L) to figure a 10” plate glass f/5.4 mirror only ¾” thick to just about exactly ¼ lambda, according to our combined, repeated, careful measurements on a mirror that was cooled both by immersion in a room-temperature water bath and by sitting in a closet in the very same testing room for an entire weekend.

 

Prior to this experiment, I had been taking short videos of the entire mirror, moving the ronchi grating back and forth across the center of curvature. These videos reveal and record a lot of qualitative information about the mirror, including vocal commentary, but I found it impossible to transfer the images to my laptop for closer analysis until I got home, across town, which meant that the turn-around time after testing a mirror was much too long to be of any use. I had tried quite a large number of various strokes suggested by others, by our reading various ATM manuals, and by just thinking; but the very serious TDE on this (for me, relatively ambitious) project never seemed to get any better.

 

I simply gave up on imaging via video clips, since they were too hard to manipulate or measure on my phone, and which required too much bandwidth to send to my laptop until I got home. This time, I took Ronchi still-images on my cell phone, between 0.2 and 0.5 inches outside of the center of curvature.

guys 16 perfect

(My experience has been generally easier to discern defects in a Ronchigram when the lines curve outwards at the top and bottom, which would mean the test grating is  OUTSIDE the COC of a partly-parabolized mirror, as you see on the left in the black-and-white image above. However, when the lines curve inwards at the top and bottom, like the images in the center and to the right, then many serious defects remain hidden. quantify TDE

Procedure:

A standard 100 LPI grating from Willmann-Bell and a yellow LED were used, on an XYZ stage partly fabricated by me and placed exactly twice the focal length from the primary. Images were taken with an iPhone 6, shooting images zoomed in as much as possible. An attempt was made to have matching ronchigrams, i.e., with the same number of vertical lines showing.

 

(This was a weak point of the experiment. For one, it’s hard to hold cell phone steady enough, and an observer will notice that the images do NOT have exactly the same number of lines. That’s because I did not have a printout of the previous image right in front of me to make comparisons to. All that needs to be fixed in subsequent iterations. Also, other imaging devices need to be tried, as well.)

 

I was in fact able to email individual photograph frames to my laptop at the lab. After downloading the clearest images to my laptop, I used plain old MS Windows Paint to shrink and crop the useful portion of the picture, and then pasted the result into a Geometry software (Geometer.s Sketchpad, or GSP) that I was already familiar with. GSP was then used to draw a circle around the circumference of the image of the nearly-perfectly-circular glass disk, adjusting this as well as possible. This process automatically generated the center of the disk. Using that center, a second, and smaller, circle was drawn whose circumference was placed at the location along the ronchi lines where they appeared to begin to turn outwards. GSP was then  to measure directly the radii of the two circles and to compute their ratio.

 

A final ratio of 0.7, just to pick a number that is easy to compute, means that just about half of the area of the mirror is covered by a wide rolled-down edge, since the ratio of areas is equal to the square of the ratio of the respective radii, and 0.7 squared is 0.49, or 49%.

 

In the diagram above, the images go in chronological order but COUNTER-clockwise, from upper left (labeled #1), which was made in mid- or early March, through the next three images, all taken on March 22. In between each image, various strokes were employed in figuring sessions for anywhere between 15-20 minutes to attempt to fix the TDE. All the figuring sessions involved sub-diameter laps anywhere from 8 to 12 inches in diameter that had been warm-pressed upon the mirror. The strokes were both forward and back and incorporated enough of a ‘W’ stroke to cover the entire mirror, using cerium oxide on either tempered burgundy or Acculap pitch, depending. The edge of the tool was allowed to go up to the edge of the mirror, +/- maybe 5 mm. The goal was simply to wear down the glass in the center until it caught up with the amount that the edge had been worn down. None of the laps seemed to have full contact with the mirror out to the very edge; thus the end of the stroke was NOT at the edge of the mirror.

 

You will notice that these ratios, circled in green, seem to increase monotonically from 69% to 80%, which is gratifying: if this real, then the fraction of the mirror that is NOT covered by TDE has gone from about 47% to about 67%, as you can see here. (Note: in figure #1, the large circle was denoted circle AB, and the smaller circle was denoted circle CD. I know that points A and C are not identical, but they are rather close; that error will be fixed in subsequent iterations.)

However: the key question is: IS THIS REAL? Or am I merely fooling myself?

I don’t know yet.

I certainly hope it is real.

But it needs to be checked with subsequent investigation.

My attempt at limiting my own subjectivity or wishful thinking was to try to draw the circles at the place where the more-or-less vertical lines began turning outwards. Hopefully that location really corresponded to the place where the turned/rolled edge began. However, it is entirely possible that the precise apparent location of the beginning of the TDE very much depends on exactly how many lines appear in the Ronchigram, thus, precisely how far from the COC the grating is located.

Unfortunately, often times I have to dismantle the entire apparatus, because we have to close up shop for the night, or somebody else needs to use the tester on another mirror. Thus, it is nearly impossible to ensure that the measurement apparatus remains undisturbed.

My next steps, I think, are these:

  1. Have a separate, and very simple ronchi apparatus that just consists of a grating and a light.
  2. Have previous images right in front of me as I prepare to take the next Ronchigrams, so that I can match the number of lines visible.
  3. Perhaps I should take a series of said standardized ronchigrams both inside and outside of COC with, say, 5 lines visible. I should also take some ronchigrams that might accentuate and expose any possible astigmatism; that is, very close to the COC. Any Ronchi lines that resemble the letters S, Z, J, U, or N would be very bad news.
  4. Attempt to attach a cheap video camera with built-in LED, Ronchi grating, and a suitable lens to make steadier images free from hand wobbles.

I would like to thank Isaac and Elias Applebaum for their diligent and noted explorations in solving a similar question relating to fixing or preventing TDE. That STEM project won them a number of well-deserved awards.

 

 

Trying to Test a 50-year-old Cassegran Telescope

07 Thursday Sep 2017

Posted by in astronomy, flat, Hopewell Observatorry, Math, science, Telescope Making

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We at the Hopewell Observatory have had a classical 12″ Cassegrain optical tube and optics that were manufactured about 50 years ago.; They were originally mounted on an Ealing mount for the University of Maryland, but UMd at some point discarded it, and the whole setup eventually made its way to us (long before my time with the observatory).

 

The optics were seen by my predecessors as being very disappointing. At one point, a cardboard mask was made to reduce the optics to about a 10″ diameter, but that apparently didn’t help much. The OTA was replaced with an orange-tube Celestron 14″ Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope on the same extremely-beefy Ealing mount, and it all works reasonably well.

 

Recently, I was asked to check out the optics on this original classical Cassegrain telescope, which is supposed to have a parabolic primary and a hyperbolic secondary. I did Ronchi testing, Couder-Foucault zonal testing, and double-pass autocollimation testing, and I found that the primary is way over-corrected, veering into hyperbolic territory. In fact, Figure XP claims that the conic section of best fit has a Schwartzschild constant of about -1.1, but if it is supposed to be parabolic, then it has a wavefront error of about 5/9, which is not good at all.

Here are the results of the testing, if you care to look. The first graph was produced by a program called FigureXP from my six sets of readings:

figure xp on the 12 inch cass

my graph of 12 inch cass readings

I have not yet tested the secondary or been successful at running a test of the whole telescope with an artificial star. For the indoor star test, it appears that it only comes to a focus maybe a meter or two behind the primary! Unfortunately, the Chevy Chase Community Center where we have our workshop closes up tight by 10 pm on weekdays and the staff starts reminding us of that at about 9:15 pm. Setting up the entire indoor star-testing rig, which involves both red and green lasers bouncing off known optical flat mirrors seven times across a 60-foot-long room in order to get sufficient separation for a valid star test, and moving two very heavy tables into said room, and then putting it all away when we are done, because all sorts of other activities take place in that room. So we ran out of time on Tuesday the 5th.

A couple of people (including Michael Chesnes and Dave Groski) have suggested that this might not be a ‘classical Cassegrain’ – which is a telescope that has a concave, parabolic primary mirror and a convex, hyperbolic secondary. Instead, it might be intended to be a Ritchey-Chretien, which has both mirrors hyperbolic. We have not tried removing the secondary yet, and testing it involves finding a known spherical mirror and cutting a hole in its center, and aligning both mirrors so that the hyperboloid and the sphere have the exact same center. (You may recall that hyperboloids have two focal points, much like ellipses do.)

Here is a diagram and explanation of that test, by Vladimir Sacek at http://www.telescope-optics.net/hindle_sphere_test.htm

hindle sphere test

FIGURE 56: The Hindle sphere test setup: light source is at the far focus (FF) of the convex surface of the radius of curvature RC and eccentricity ε, and Hindle sphere center of curvature coincides with its near focus (NF). Far focus is at a distance A=RC/(1-ε) from convex surface, and the radius of curvature (RS) of the Hindle sphere is a sum of the mirror separation and near focus (NF) distance (absolute values), with the latter given by B=RC/(1+ε). Thus, the mirrorseparation equals RS-B. The only requirement for the sphere radius of curvature RS is to be sufficiently smaller than the sum of near and far focus distance to make the final focus accessible. Needed minimum sphere diameter is larger than the effective test surface diameter by a factor of RS/B. Clearly, Hindle test is limited to surfaces with usable far focus, which eliminates sphere (ε=0, near and far focus coinciding), prolate ellipsoids (1>ε>0, near and far foci on the same, concave side of the surface), paraboloid (ε=1, far focus at infinity) and hyperboloids close enough to a paraboloid to result in an impractically distant far focus.

We discovered that the telescope had a very interesting DC motor – cum – potentiometer assembly to help in moving the secondary mirror in and out, for focusing and such. We know that it’s a 12-volt DC motor, but have not yet had luck tracking down any specifications on that motor from the company that is the legatee of the original manufacturer.

Here are some images of that part:

Puzzlement when Trying to Figure a Convex Surface Through the Back

14 Saturday Nov 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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.

On Making an Artificial Star for an Indoor Star Tester

04 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in History, Telescope Making

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I help run the amateur telescope-making workshop at the Chevy Chase Community Center in Washington, DC, sponsored and under the auspices of the National Capital Astronomers. Both the NCA and its ATM group have been on-going since the 1930’s, well before I was born. In our ATM group, have the somewhat esoteric thrill of manufacturing incredibly accurate scientific devices (telescopes), from scratch, with not much more than our bare hands and a few tools. And then we go and use them to observe the incredible universe we come from.

Since these telescope mirrors are required to be insanely accurate, we need extremely high-precision ways of testing them. However, we don’t have the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to purchase something like a professional Zygo Interferometer, so we use much cheaper ways of testing our mirror surfaces.

Some of those methods are associated with the names Foucault, Couder, Bath, Ronchi, Ross, Everest, and Mobsby, or are described with words like “knife-edge”, “double-pass” and “wire”. They all require some relatively simple apparatus and skill and practice in measurement and observation.

We are of the opinion that no one single test should be trusted: it’s easy to make some sort of error. (I’ve made plenty.) You may perhaps recall the disaster that happened when the Hubble Space Telescope mirror passed one test with flying colors, and other tests that weren’t so good were ignored. When the HST finally flew in orbit, it was discovered that the mirror was seriously messed up: the test that was trusted was flawed, so the mirror was also flawed.

We don’t want to do that. So, at a minimum, we do the Ronchi and Foucault/Couder knife-edge tests before we say that a mirror is ready to coat.

But the ultimate test of an entire telescope is the star test.

In principle, all you need for that is a steady star, your telescope, a short-focal-length eyepiece, and a copy of Richard Suiter’s book on star-testing optical telescopes.

Unfortunately, around here, it’s often cloudy at night, and if it’s clear, it might be windy, and around the CCCC building there are lots of lights — all of which make star-testing a scope on the two evenings a week that we are open, virtually impossible. We aren’t open in the daytime, and even if we were, I don’t see any ceramic insulators on any telephone poles that are both small enough and far enough away to use as artificial stars in the manner that Suiter describes. (There are a few radio towers visible, but I doubt that their owners would let us climb up one of them and hang up a Christmas tree ornament near the top!)

So, that means we need to make an artificial star.

I’ve been reading a few websites written by folks who have done just that, and it seems to be a bit easier than I thought. The key is to get a source of light that acts like a star at astronomical distances — but close enough that we can fit it inside the basement of the CCCC, probably not in the woodshop where we make the scopes, but more likely out in the hallway or in the large activity room next door, both of which are about 40 or 50 feet long.

So here are my preliminary calculations.

First off, it appears that the resolving power of a telescope equals the wavelength being used, divided by the diameter of the objective lens or mirror, both expressed in the same units. The result is in radians, which you can then turn into degrees, arc-minutes, arc-seconds, or whatever you like, but it’s perhaps easier to leave in radians. In any case, the larger the diameter, the tinier the angle that your telescope can resolve if it’s working properly.

I am going to use a 16-inch mirror diameter, or about 0.4 meters, as an example, and I will use green light at about 560 nanometers (560 x 10^-9 m) because that’s pretty close to the green mercury line we have in our monochromatic light box. I then get that the resolution is 1.4×10^-6 radians.

resolution of lens or mirror

(We can convert that into arc-seconds by multiply that by 180 degrees per PI radians  and by 60 arc-minutes per degree  and by 60 arc-seconds per arc-minute; we then get about 0.289 arc-seconds. If we were to use an 8-inch mirror, the resolution would be half as good, meaning the object would need to be twice as big to be resolved, or about 0.578 arc-seconds.)

resolution in arc seconds

I read that one can make an artificial star by using an ordinary eyepiece and a small illuminated hole that is put some distance away from the eyepiece. The entire setup is aimed at the telescope, and then you have an artificial star. Here is the general idea:

artificial star setup

Supposedly, the equations go as follows, with all of the dimensions in the same units. I think I will use millimeters.

Star Size of artificial rigWe want to make it so that the size of the artificial star will be small enough to be below the limit of resolution of any telescope we are making. I am pretty sure that we can set things up so that there is 40 feet (13 meters) between our telescope rig and the table or tripod on which we sill set up this artificial star.

I also know that I can find an eyepiece with a focal length of 12 mm that I’m willing to use for this purpose, and I also purchased some tiny little holes from “Hubble Optics” that are of the following sizes: 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 microns, or millionths of a meter. Those holes are TINY!!! So that takes care of H and F. I still need to figure out what SS should be.

A few lines ago, I found that for a 16-inch telescope, I need a resolution of about 1.4×10^-6 radians. The nice thing about radians is that if you want to find the length of the arc at a certain radius, you don’t need to do any conversions at all: the length of the arc is simply the angle (expressed in radians) times the length of the radius, as shown here:

angle arc radius

c=theta times Radius

So if our artificial star is going to be 13 meters away, and we know that the largest angle allowed is roughly 1.4×10^-6 radians, I just multiply and I get 1.82×10^-5 meters, or 1.82 x 10^-2 millimeters, or 18.2 microns.

Which means that I already have holes that are NOT small enough: the 150-micron holes are about 10 times too big at a distance of 13 meters, so my premature rejoicing of a few minutes ago, was, in fact, wrong.  So, when I make the artificial star gizmo, I’ll need to figure out how to make the ‘star size’ to be roughly one-tenth the size of the holes in the Hubble Optics micro-hole flashlight.

Or, if I rearrange the equation with the L, H, F and SS, I get that L = H * F / SS. The only unknown is L, the distance between the hole and the eyepiece/lens. For H, I have several choices (50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 microns), SS is now known to be 18 microns or so (36 if I want to test an 8-incher), and I plan on using a 12.5 mm eyepiece. If I plug in the 150 micron hole, then I get that L needs to be about 104 millimeters, or only about 4 inches. Note that the longer L is, the smaller the artificial star becomes. Also, if I replace the 12.5 mm eyepiece with a shorter one, then the artificial star will become smaller; similarly, the smaller the Hubble Optics hole, the smaller the artificial star. This all sounds quite doable indeed.