Let me just list you some places where CaF2 is used first off we got the very famous takahashi I'm sure you heard of them before and how their telescopes are extremely sharp sharper than any reflector second we got canons extra low dispersion lenses which use CaF2 to achieve zero chromatic aberration then we got Nikon NIKKOR Vixen FL Baader Planetarium so saying CaF2 is only used for sensor windows is the dumbest shit ive heard all day long
#Ritchey–Chrétien enjoyers thread
1 messages · Page 46 of 1
whats a takahashi?
Yeah what's a takahashi only the best ever refractor brand ever
CURSE OF RA 𓀀 𓀁 𓀂 𓀃 𓀄 𓀅 𓀆 𓀇 𓀈 𓀉 𓀊 𓀋 𓀌 𓀍 𓀎 𓀏 𓀐 𓀑 𓀒 𓀓 𓀔 𓀕 𓀖 𓀗 𓀘 𓀙 𓀚 𓀛 𓀜 𓀝 𓀞 𓀟 𓀠 𓀡 𓀢 𓀣 𓀤 𓀥 𓀦 𓀧 𓀨 𓀩 𓀪 𓀫 𓀬 𓀭 𓀮 𓀯 𓀰 𓀱 𓀲 𓀳 𓀴 𓀵 𓀶 𓀷 𓀸 𓀹 𓀺 𓀻 𓀼 𓀽 𓀾 𓀿 𓁀 𓁁 𓁂 𓁃 𓁄 𓁅 𓁆 𓁇 𓁈 𓁉 𓁊 𓁋 𓁌 𓁍 𓁎 𓁏 𓁐 𓁑 𓀄 𓀅 𓀆

Well
- Still a combination of different Glas types
- No such thing as Zero chromatic aberration with refractive Elements
- i didn’t say only, I said usually. 🗿
Its reducing it
Not preventing it
Didnt realize you said prevent
He has no clue what he’s talking about
A singlet made with low dispersion glass has unacceptable chromatic aberration on its own - otherwise we'd use singlets
This smells like AI again
reduced by a few micron
Prevent
To prevent means to stop or keep something from happening, or to hold someone back from doing something. It involves taking advance action or precautions to avoid an unwanted outcome
It doesn’t prevent CA.
It reduces it.
Source: my eyeglasses (I would sacrifice children to have custom doublet eyeglasses made for myself)
hey i will say, ed singlets are decent for corrector plates in the focus tube as long as it doesnt change the fl too much
Well its taking advance action to avoid an unwanted outcome
You trying to tell me about optical design while thinking that low dispersion Glass prevents CA is just… 
Yes that's true it's why SCTs and Maks are viable optical designs
To reduce would mean it's fixing already exiting CA
Which it's not
Let me rephrase, it has less Dispersion than normal Glass
Also this Logic can be Applied to you too
To prevent CA there has to be CA

It prevents CA from happening in the first place with some residual remaining which can easily be fixed in a doublet or triplet
@slate falcon actually I wonder...would you be able to design me some doublet eyeglasses lmao
No it doesn’t


wrong reptl
sorry

Low Dispersion Glass is just that. Glass with a lower Dispersion.
It’s just a property of the material.
Here take a look in here see if you can find me an image with ca https://app.astrobin.com/equipment/explorer/telescope/360/takahashi-fc-100df
Takahashi FC-100DF is an equipment item of class Telescope or lens on AstroBin equipment database.
It’s the Geometry working together in lenses along with the different refractive Index and Dispersion coefficient
Its a doublet btw
Found a lot sir
Show
(A lot of Images)
Every Image with coloured Stars
Look for yourself. The colour isn’t equal in every Star
Enlighten me
Imagine i dont have access to the link
all of it is overuse of bxt 
You can see it here
https://app.astrobin.com/equipment/explorer/telescope/360/takahashi-fc-100df?i=jtsy5p
Takahashi FC-100DF is an equipment item of class Telescope or lens on AstroBin equipment database.
Just looks bloated
youch
A little yeah
If you can’t See the CA in those Stars i am really concerned on why youre arguing on this topic 
Its blue and red
I mean in the grand scheme of things it's minor but you can tell that you have chromatic aberration (specifically chromatic astigmatism)
On some Stars it’s purplish and some have Green
Takahashi FC-100DF is an equipment item of class Telescope or lens on AstroBin equipment database.
this is so woronow
Oh yeah
Though the fairest test is with raw data and not processed images
they all use too much bxt 
Since when could blurx fix CA
In fairness ive never had data with CA so cut me some slack
You just treat each image channel separately to remove the aberrations produced in each bandpass
Yes ik that can fix it
But blurx
BlurX is a deconvolution Tool with a Star correction Feature
This Star correction supresses distortions which partly include CA
I would guess it's been trained with data from refractors, though of course there's no technical details provided so who knows
hubbl data

has the RC who must not be named disclosed this?
tbh I kinda don't trust him, he seems to have given conflicting details about BlurX in the past
going back to the original topic

Using Flourite in a corrector doesn’t change that surpressing CA over a really large spectrum SUCKS to do and needs many Elements
Ok fine just use a 3rd mirror
nah 
To correct aberrations
That’s what is being done anyway
But a Big RC corrects aberrations well enough
mr scientology foesnt eant peoplr to know how it works
While being cost effective and easy to collimate compared to a 3 mirror System
What?😭
Yes but you can also use the 3rd mirror to reduce your f stop
I’d like to know which third Mirror you’d be using to do that 
Concave mirror
… the shaping
just putting another Mirror won’t help you
All surfaces need to work in synergy
Can’t just add another mirror
I cant help but feel like someone here is taking the obviously incorrect side of things just to hold an opinion that is different from the rest.

aka
trolling
well tbh, you can add a 3rd mirror, the chance it helps is minimal and it will double your coma
unless you make every mirror work together
Just make a schiefspiegler telescope
Well a shape that perfectly cancels your astigmatism
Literally jwts uses it vera c rubin uses it
And so many more
you would need 3 non parabolic mirrors for that
assuming you are using any standard scope you canmot just add a third mirror
you would have to reshape every mirror in the sustem
blurx guy doesnt want people to know how blurx works and what data he used
kind of makes sense since it's a paid product and all
but I understand what makes it frustrating
If it works, it works
No you just need a mirror that has the opposite aberration to your main system
false :(
if that were true this would be a three mirror astigmat
True the mirror needs to be a rotationally symmetric asphere specifically, a hyperbola or a high-order polynomial asphere.
that would only correct on axis
Also thats not the design
you need each mirror to work in unison to actually correct the field
thats 3 mirrors no?
EWC ONE IF THOSE MITTORS IS MADE TO WORK EITH EACHOER ALONE THEY DONT WORK AS A SCOPE
this has to be ragebait
this has to be
^

Yeah no idea what you're saying
Grab some popcorn brother
that’s Not how that works 
Lots of f-words on one day
And a lot of lost braincells
yooo someone apart from me is posting stupid funny images 
Also this is the definition of the mirrors needing to work in unison
this is probably one of my favorites
It worked for hubble... but I understand the circumstances were different
I already sent the Esprit one to a SQA, Esprit and SCT user I know
failing my eng lit paper two bc of this
Idk to me it just seems like you guys are taking the opposite side just to spite me
needs more recursion
Whats 1-1
try optics and you will immediatly know its notthing like that
it feels like 1-1 = 5 half the time
Whats
istg
Wait until he finds out that light don't behave like a particle
Literally how light behaves idk what to tell you
You‘re so confident on wrong things its honestly admireable
This gotta be rage bate
Right below it too 😭😭😭
Whats this right here
The Ritchey–Chrétien is a perfect example of this. You don't get optimal performance by using a parabolic mirror (which has no spherical aberration) and pairing it with a hyperbolic mirror with the proper foci. You have to induce spherical aberration on the primary and cancel it with the secondary to get optimal performance
That's phase interference. Soundwaves do it too
now add an extra mirror with that design, if you make it correct on axis will it correct off axis or will it make it worse?
I can’t believe UNID is still trying to argue about Optical Design with what comments he gave already 
we are letting him tbh
tbh you can make a sound telescopce
Yeah... it's called parabolic microphone 😂
I have just caught up on the context
What's more surprising is whith who is arguing with. 

pickles did you hear the news that im constrcucting a greggy
grogk
I've seen some comments. Remember yesterday when I asked you how are you gonna test the optics?
oh yeah!
Can you guys real quick explain to me how the corrector plate infront of a SCT works
Hair comb it is
Genuinely curious
it works by making a dish with a weak sorta sine wave look
the centre has to be covered tho
it cant correct the centre of your miror
From my brain dead understanding, it distorts the light so the aberration induced by the spherical mirrors nulls out
ur not far off 
The Schmidt-Plate refracts light through it’s complicated pattern to spread the light Rays out in a way that the spherical aberration of the system is nulled out.
It however fails to correct coma or Field curvature effectively which is why you need a corrector
And how does a coma corrector work
Uses a set of multiple lenses of almost every type to correct coma and very Minor field curvature by pushing it in the opposite direction dependant on the optimised F/Ratio
fuc the loght
professional ones for super fast use a long 3 miniscus lens
And how does astigmatism get corrected
not makinf a bad system
Doesnt answer my question
With a 3rd mirror
Nuh uh
Not the answer i wanted
…also through a corrector designed with lenses or inherently through geometric synergy of the design
Or by reshaping the mirror
Depending on the source of the astigmatism
offsetting those lenses in rotation ruins it
astigmatism caused by the intrinsic design of the system
How do you fix it how does the corrector of it work
No idea that's why I'm asking
Yall are suspiciously avoiding the topic for some reason
you make a lens with the inverse variamt of astogmatism the sustem has
Uhh that's not true
yes?
Okay just making sure thank you for the information
Astigmatism is corrected by introducing an optical element that has the opposite directional focusing error.
The core issue is:
- one direction focuses closer,
- the perpendicular direction focuses farther away.
So the correction adds optical power in one axis but not the other.
In human vision
The usual correction is a cylindrical lens (or toric lens).
Unlike a normal spherical lens, a cylindrical lens bends light in only one direction.
If the eye focuses:
- horizontal rays too strongly,
- vertical rays too weakly,
the corrective lens compensates by adding/subtracting power along a specific axis.
Eyeglass prescriptions therefore include:
- sphere,
- cylinder,
- axis.
Example:
-2.00 sphere, -1.00 cylinder @ 90°
means:
- overall nearsighted correction,
- plus extra correction along one orientation.
In telescopes and optical systems
Correction depends on the source of the astigmatism.
1. Alignment correction
If caused by:
- mirror tilt,
- decentering,
- pinched optics,
then fixing the mechanics removes the astigmatism.
Common fixes:
- loosen mirror clips,
- improve support cell,
- recollimate optics,
- reduce thermal gradients.
This is the most common situation in amateur telescopes.
2. Optical compensation
If the design itself produces off-axis astigmatism, additional optics are added.
Examples:
- toroidal mirrors,
- cylindrical lenses,
- field correctors,
- Schmidt or Maksutov corrector plates,
- coma/astigmatism correctors.
Many wide-field astrographs use dedicated correctors.
3. Adaptive optics
High-end systems can dynamically reshape mirrors.
Used in:
- large observatories,
- laser systems,
- lithography.
Actuators deform the mirror to cancel measured aberrations.
Geometric picture
Astigmatism creates two focal lines instead of one point:
- tangential focus,
- sagittal focus.
Correction works by forcing these two to coincide.
A simple representation:
f_t = f_s
When those become equal again, the image returns to a point focus.
In fast Newtonian telescopes
Important distinction:
- Coma dominates off-axis aberrations from the primary mirror.
- Astigmatism is often dominated by the eyepiece.
Cheap wide-field eyepieces in fast scopes (f/4–f/5) commonly show astigmatism near the field edge.
That’s why premium eyepieces are highly corrected for astigmatism.
Diagnosing telescope astigmatism
True optical astigmatism usually shows:
- elongated stars,
- elongation rotates 90° through focus.
That rotation is the hallmark signature.
😭
I'm surprised he didn't asked me a question at the end
is ot true?
asked u a question
You just said before that one answer that was given to you isn’t the one you wanted
Shiiii... idk, I asked ChatGPT😂
thinking about getting one of them correctors

Ignored it cause it was chatgpt
Rich coming from ya 🗿
I wanted answers from you and you specifically
Not ai
If i wanted it from ai i would've asked myself
and not me? awh :(
im certain you did already
You as in everyone here
It’s no secret what you’re trying to do with your questions and it’s obviously not asking out of interest 
Hey yall told me i was wrong
I'm asking to correct my incorrect information
You are obviously expecting specific answers to eventually prove a point 
@sinful sapphire is this how the conversation between me and Browi looked like? 
i can only really explain with imagery assisted with words icl
YES
What point
na it was smarter than that

Kinda nice to see it from a 3rd person view

remember the star t
It’s kinda like it but at least the two sides knew what they were talking about
where it was back and forth
right about what
Nvrm
Just answer me this is the information you gave me factual or just what you think i want to hear
what i said is the truth
this is how it works
I'm no ai
i don't want to tell you what you want to hear
Alright
but my hair looks awful today!!!
hang on, I think we've achieved peak GHS stretch
only one i remember is "if they would rather die they had better do it and decrease the surplus population"
now not to botch the rest of it
gunna talk about the malthusian theory for 45 mins
🔥🔥🔥
on an inspector calls i think ill cook tho
almost renember the whole final speech
But just remember this. One Eva Smith is gone - but there are
millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths
still left with us, with their lives and fears, their suffering and chance
of happiness, all intertwined with our lives and what we think and
say and do. We don't live alone. We are members of one body. We
are responsible for one another. And I tell you the time will soon
come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be
taught it in fire and blood and anguish. Good night.
best soeech ever 
guys I think we may have peak WIP
chat
room
this feels like it wasnt pushed too hard
and the colors are a lot better
still not perfect, it still wants to be wild, but much closer to what i wanted
Ngl your rgb could use more data
Well actually more luminance too
But certainly more rgb than luminance because the colors from the galaxy are a bit muted which is usually what happens when don't have enough snr in your rgb
While your stars look very colorful which again makes sense because they have higher snr because they aren't extended objects could also be because of your processing but eh you can never have too much snr
bros calling it a skill issue
Ik exactly what you're tryna do stop it
?
Don't no bad sword of the six sages bad
Your tryna make another argument
Don’t give reasons to start one 
Is this a good level of meh?
the what scheme of things?
BigPharma won't stop manufacturing copium pills. Pills that 99% of the frac glazers take in order to believe that they have a good telescope. Only if they knew that any reflector is superior to a frac
overstretched
a little little too much but colors are good
The you scheme of things. You schemer.
Everyone else is answering 😭
Damn... well anyways 
This is the less stretced one. Looks kinda lame ngl😭
I'd do the stars and bg of #1 combined with the M51 of #2
See, that's my thing. In the first image I was more interested in the background rather than the main target. I should try a random relatively empty patch of sky😂
be your own survey and find new targets 
hey if you like background galaxies so much, go for NGC 4535. It has a really interesting and very filled field
I already figured out how to put my own images in stellarium 
neat huh
Oh yeah! Next is figuring out how to make a Hips survey and then I'm set
@frosty shard i just tried a fake star on my primary right
and i could see the parabolic shape like on faucault test
but without a faucualt test
like with my eyes alone
but the whole mirror surface was bright
understretched
Worse
And I haven't even read all of it
im not sure if my brain will recover from this
Lobotomy to forget
literal propaganda
i love that meme i made
replace the rc with the nexus or smt
nobody thinks the nexus sucks its just not necessary
its the coolest thing ever
I don't disagree that is cool. It is cool... when it works properly 😂
im happy i chose the f4 newt over an rc6 based on all the troubles i see here
i already have enough mount issues, dont need scope issues ontop of that
factual
Ngl, that's what keeps me away from RCTs. They are just a pain
They certainly can be very much
Tbh im really hlad to have switched to one as it really elevated my knowledge of how to Go about ap and (even more so) collimation compared to my sct
Looking Back installing the dew heater Ring on it mightve been the most stupid think i did to it, but then i didnt knew that at the time
Truss Tube RCs are the way to go
Though I’m waiting for someone to make an affordable small CDK
Less of a pain
That's as plausible as Starvis2 APS-C 
I think we will land on mars before we get a Starvis3 APS-C 
you never know
the nexus is shit
the paracorr is better
We still haven't even gotten starvis 2 aps-c
Wait I did not know Starvis 3 dropped
@frosty shard I simply have to ask because procesing is always a pain for me. Do you save your time lapse frames as jpg or as a raw file?
do you rc people even post images or just yap about nerd stuff
90% yap 10% images
I capture everything in RAW and use RawTherapee to batch process everything consistently
So like I only process one frame and apply that processing profile to the rest of the frames
do you use davinci resolve for video processing
I'd post images if I had clear skies and didn't have the looming deadline of a PhD thesis
😂
Kdenlive
Though if you're talking about putting together the processed JPEGs, I just use ffmpeg on the command line to do that
interesting
(like for a time lapse)
bc the way ive been doing is raw and then converting to .DNGs bc davinci doesnt like raw dslr images only dng it like working with and work with that
You should use something like Rawtherapee or darktable to batch process the frames
that'll turn them into JPEGs
ah neat. I have been using pixinsight for that... which isnt really a great tool for video editing xD
but would do little to no processing
oh man prepare to get upgraded
The one problem I have with RawTherapee though is that I can't do a proper flat frame correction
apparently RawTherapee assumes that your flat frame is a single exposure that will be blurred
@harsh matrix Look what your boy got
are you texting and driving again?
I am parked
okay okay, it also looks like passenger seat
Absolutely. See? Passenger seat
fancy passenger seat with fake steering wheel 
Fiat and their weird damn designs
terrible huh
https://youtu.be/DGMsSNMJ-xE @tight lodge you may be interested
all about Bath Interferometers: http://gr5.org/bath/
store: https://thegr5store.com/wp/
Index
0:00 Introduction
1:07 Locating Dust
7:56 Cleaning Dust
16:27 Other Tricks
04:21 in video
rotate splitter CW as seen from above, projecting test beam onto paper close to the bath.
spots on front of splitter (side closest to mirror) move not at all or ...
I know about polarization. That's how I cleaned my igrams
aahh
hell yeah
ewwwwwwwww
fiat?
burn it down
whats that
@frosty shard my slightly offset greg design vs parabolic newt at same fl + aperatur
just posted one
whrere
@gloomy hawk
Gang if you want to see photos search through the library there are plenty of photos
@slate falcon intresting comparison, also why im not getting the carbonstarr
not anymore
At least the good news is both of those sources of blur can be completely deconvoluted ie the high frequency data is not lost
astrophotography-FORUM
Laser interferometry.
It helps you measure the wavefront error of a mirror
i know that, but how doesit affect the image
Ok, so the beam splitter is polarizing the light. But because of the chaotic nature of light you still see all random polarization. Now, if you add a polarizing filter past the beam splitter at the return path, you can filter out either the test beam or reference beam. You usually want the reference beam to be filtered out and have only the test beam. That way it gives you much cleaner interferogram
ahh
It's kinda the poor man's way of achieving a coherent laser beam
sick setup, is it all 3d printed?
Yup
i think your mirror has a bit of a turned down edge
Wdym?
This?
That's just the bullseye of the interferogram. Normally when the igram forms, that is centered on the mirror and you have to offset it. In my case I ran out of range on the XYZ platform😂
It has micron precision but not a lot of range 😂
Jesus! Seeing this i had a flashback to my university lab courses... whe used those things for one horrible experiment
What was the experiment?😂
we had to create a laser from a lamp and the screws were not sensitive enough so we spent roughly 6 hours getting the distance right and went home. The supervisor told us that no one has ever gotten the laser to work
Why would he ask you guys to run an experiment that everyone failed because of inadequate hardware?😭
I have no idea...
When I got my platform I put it under a dial indicator to test its precision. I achieved 0.5μm precision with 0 backlash
oh how I wish we had that... but it was a beginner lab course so it wasnt so important
This was the hardest part about my project
@frosty shard you said that the RCTs are purely reflective systems... right?
I have an argument that will blow your mind
Go ahead
What happens when light passes trough air?
by that Logic what happens when light hits glass (besides refraction)
It reflects. But, the fact that the OTA is filled with air that means there's a refractive component.
The fact that refractors have lenses means there’s a reflective component
The air is not a required part of the optical design, or an intended one anyway
Like Hubble doesn’t have air in it now does it 
No, but it does affect the optics. Doesn't air have different refractive index based on temperature?
It does not, it affects the final image however
And yes, because it’s a gas it’s refractive Index is different based on temperature
That's where I wanted to get... what if vel's tilt is not tilt, but temperature gradient in the tube? 
Would never be that consistent
I mentioned it because I experienced it with my 130PDS. So I assume a larger aperture will have a more severe effect 
less usually
more area for stuff to go right
Larger volume of air as well😅
larger area of volume for air to be replaced
wider tube better airfloe
Yeah, a lot more hot air at the top and cool air at the bottom 😂
unless theres like hellishly big baffles in the system
shouldnt be an ossue
like really long focuser baffle
or realy lomg edge baffles
Or no tube to trap air
Everything's refractive index is based on temperature depends on how much temperature some stuff needs little temperature to change and others need large temperatures to change
stop chat gpting knowledge
What bro it's just logic
i mean yes everything has a thermo-optic coefficient influenced RI but the shift is so dramatically small that its nothing useful to contribute to this conversation.
but you still used ai to get the knowledge to argue 
why does my lens have a different refractive index when i make it glowing hot, grr i thought you said its nothing useful!!!!
Yes but Larger temperature changes result in stronger change in the refractive index which i did mention
ai mentioned it 
-# sory im being a guber
These temperature-induced changes are optically irrelevant if these changes are within reasonable limits of the optics' application,
It changes by around 0.0000001 per °C iirc
I mean the formula is dn/dT
maybe it will become relevant when we send things to the "surface" of the sun 
surface in quotes bc its a boll of plasma
sure the refractive index of glass is noticeably different at 1200°C but you wont have anything to look through anymore.
the surface we think off
mfw puddle
Without leaving discord, can you tell me what these variables in the coefficient refer to?
do not disturb over do not time

taking an interesting amount of time with breaks there 
i am so useless arent i 
fiiiireeeeeeeeee i thibk my english exam whent okau
one secomb
Yup depends on the material but thats roughly around the ball park but if one end of your tube is like 40°C for some reason and the other is 10°C that will be pretty noticeable
unid taking two secomb
It wont.
well
based on the RI
thermal instability yes
but the RI change is so microscopically small you wont notice shit
0.00000030 change
I'm getting ready for school
if you dont know the variables in the coefficient thats fine 
wjy doesnt the gradient of abput like 3c from the upper atmos to 10c not effect my refractive index then hmmmmmmmm
what are the barbibables fire
tha wha
woaaa, i am now realising i have that written down in my book

i have the thigy for angle change written in my book
bc useful
in my book i also have a bunch of quotes from macbeth and the ratings i give them
awh
its really a play but the way shakesphere writes his plays ot makes ot really easy to read like a book
same with J.B. Priestly with an inspector calls
its meant to be a play but it works so well as a book
look how beyond that ring it starts to go down agsin
it is nicely parabolised in the centre but it looks like it has a little bit of a turned down edge
not much tho
hey isnt this a way of determining the shape and quality of the mirror and those lines represent internal stress or was that something else?
Not the best foucault test, but maybe you understand it😅
focault tests look pretty, dont know how to read them, but they defo are pretty 
all i know is that the dimple in the middle means its parabolic
Yep... that's about as far as my knowledge goes
The bath test atleast uses some fancy DFT softwares to figure it out for me😂
bath test is so much more readable luckily
do you have the dft
of this
i wanna know close i was
Oh d is for delta T is temperature n is refractive index
It does gang what do you think seeing is caused by or dispersion
Well more seeing than dispersion because dispersion is caused by just high refractive index that's why it's stronger in winter (colder air higher RI) and less in summer (hot air lower RI) and seeing is temperature difference (different RI) coupled with turbulence turbulence alone cannot cause wave front error unless it has a velocity greater than mach 0.3 and temperature difference alone cannot cause wave front error because the temperature difference will alone shift the light statically it wont move it
And the fastest air speed ever recorded on earth barely exceeds mach 0.3
So that's also an unlikely source of wave front error
woaw
you think the thermo-optic coefficient is what causes seeing? 🗿🗿
What no
Well
Technically it does
I mean like if your lens or mirror is hotter than ambient then youll have tube currents so
also no
its not the thermo-optic coefficient thats causing that
its thermal instability
so if you insulate say, a maksutov completely from ambient
thereby stabilising the temperture
and the air currents as a result
you get rid of tube seeing
Well they are both releated on a technicality
correlation isnt causation
They both feature temperature
by that logic i can say cooking a steak is related to mirror thermals since its both temperture related
Amy was talking about atmosphere gang 😭
Well if your mirror is 600°C technically you can cook a steak on it
She was talking about temperture differences in the atmosphere relating to the thermo-optic coefficient
did you just read "atmosphere" and say that
😭
Yeah pretty much
Hey she didn't exactly make it clear okay
it was clear as optical glass
She said 3C upper atmosphere releative to 10C and didn't follow anything after it
One would assume the 10C is talking about lower atmosphere
Not the optics themselves
Also let me clarify what you'll notice is CA
HE DOPES
HE JUS ASK CHAT GPT
It really sounds like your word vomiting chat gpt and trying to convince people your correct when you clearly don't know what your talking abojt
Like uhhh
Idk maybe you should rethink it

Remember, if you do not think, you do not am
why do i dissapear for 3 seconds and he is spouting more bs
@sinful sapphire lens is properly shaped now btw
f30 1.25" singlet
Huh it makes sense think about it a lens relies on specific RI per element to correct for CA and if those RI are no longer what the lens was built for then ot cannot correct the CA and well
it no longer looks like a shmidt plate
Lmao ok
This is just my pure logic I'm not even sure it's correct 😭 i haven't double checked
Not how that works whatever
Then why try to convince people
If you know it may not be correct

Well I'm like 80% sure it is

Oh and also pinched optics but that's not because of the temperature difference
Okay so I'll admit this is wrong
But it does result in spherical aberration
onions result in triangle
Man the one time i dont double check
thats bc ur wrong always :(
Well it causes something i dont think 40c front and 10c back will have zero affect
Did you even read what we are discussing
Yes and it hurts my eyes
What is it
Yeah so you didn't
i love onions
FUNIONS
so what is going on here ?
get it outtttt
haii, unid is chat gomputer pomputer tomputer all his argiments
then getting it wrong
then defends himself
what does that have to do with RCs ?
rc thread is mostly for nerd stuff and arguing
rct is only on mondays and saturdays
idk here is a glorious Ritchey–Chrétien to bring us back on topic
Where's noot glaze thread?
smash, next question
Start one :)
I need someone to explain to me why they bought an RC instead of a Newtonian ?
Unless they live with 1" seeing skies (which you probably don't if you are here)
theres the greg thread but its mainly people telling me the greg is bad
I wonder why
i have 1" seeing often
Because a Newtonian is insufficiently glorious.

ITS PERFECT
YOU HATER
also genuinely love it, ive always been obsesssed with the gregorian, being able to own a gregorian has always been my dream so getting the chance to buiild one is such an opportunity if u get me
im am the no.1 gregorian fangirl in the modern day i think
show me ?
if a Newtonian were sufficiently glorious it would not require a coma corrector (here we do not tolerate the heresy of refr*ction)
I doubt you have 1" seeing
also dude genuinely thanks for posting your light painting, I wouldn't have thought to do it if I hadn't seen yours and it's a lot of fun
this was 1.5" seeing a few weeks ago but my shitty barlow and my 6" low resolving power frigged me over
f15 and only 5 mins of data 
not really 1.5" imo
was this lucky imaging?
yes
Still better than mine 💀
not every day is 1" seeing
;-;
so how many nights is it ?
10%
even at that rate a newtonian is better choice
or a refractor if you really want sharpness
Lol
REEEEEEEEE (how dare one speak of refr*ction)
An sct is a reflactor
sure...
but a 6" triplet will outperform a 10" RC 🙂
also refractors are anything but sharp
My 1430 is pretty sharp
Maybe a GSO rc
one thing to keep in mind about this, btw, is that seeing FWHM does not put a hard cap on what kind of details you can resolve in an extended object. You can observe details well below the resolution limit, like the Encke gap in Saturn's rings
Crap
-# also btw im not going to use an rc, im making a 10" gregorian, hand ground mirrors and all
Still hard to believe
Outperform in what sense actually
English?
perceived sharpness and contrast
he is going to bed

No I'm in the car with an hour left
oh
I'm not driving tho
I'm not driving my friend is lol
Nah he's def driving while typing on discord 
I'm too glurp

69 is the correct temperature
the unid argiing has moved channels for once!!!
You mean 64
horay horay
it was mostly optically limited
:(
Look at this beautiful glass 
i want to throw up
not william optics too
Not a tak or ap
pinnacle of depression
Those are overpriced
(I paid too much for this)
I should have gotten an Esprit 120
a 100mm frac imaging this..
my newt is sharper than that
ur 100mm newt ?
i will grind a 100mm mirror just for you, so we can compare sharpness
Lol
I mean with sharpness/contrast, you'll still get better resolution in a strict sense with a larger aperture (regardless of CO), and deconvolution will recover the contrast with sufficient data acquisition
The refractor will probably have better etendue though, no getting around that
ohh wowww less low frequency info
RAW
garbage in = garbage out
decon will always improve images in post
Central obstruction matters a lot less that people claim
I mean it depends lol
sure
sure..
What if you have a slow scope and a chungus central obstruction
its not like you can just crank up the 5th scale on wavelets and regain all the lost sharpness in that area 
(5th scale usually controls underlying contrast)
(the stuff you loose)
(the low freq info)
(which contains no fine details)
(fine details are high frequency)
Aperture is king end of story
Whether deconvolution can be done successfully will also depend the data quality
Pointless debate
omg ur so right!!
ong 
I like fracs but this is dumb
oh yeah, and optical quality
unless its GSO or GSO derived telescope
(GSO mirrors in custom tube behave a lot better tho)
The big GSO truss RC's can get pretty sharp stuff
I've seen some insane stuff from the 16"
lets say you have a 10" and an 8" mirror but the 10" mirror is stupid high quality exept at the last 2" due to a turned down edge, masking off those last 2" will result in a net sharpness gain as you loose the scattering of the outer 2"
but F8 or F6.3 = slow
so bigger is better unless the lens/mirror is shit
do you think my mirrors will be better than gso
🥺
I hope this doesn't sound harsh but...learn to read MTF graphs everyone.
(It's a super useful tool for understanding how features are actually resolved in an image)
f the MTF
read the images
end performance is what matters
Idk, but I do know mirror grinding is not easy.
same with spot size simulations
END RESULT IS KEY
Ostahowski or zambuto mirrors are thousands
horay, someone that doesnt overestimate my ability 
Well I've done visual planetary observing with my 8" RC (probably the single most sensitive task to CO size) and it's actually decent at it. Is it better than other 8" scopes? No, but it's not mush by any means
Fs in the chat for Zambuto.
What is the MTF if not a measure of performance
this is with a diy 31mm f4.5 lens
i still havent been able to test my diy frac on the stars
my sky hates me
its a sextuplet
congratulations
this means jack shi*
literally empirically worthless data
but i thought results mean everything

image a star
i only have fake ones
i have clouds stopping me from using the real ones
Great Britain moment
FWHM and star shape is measure of performance
fwhm isnt always
and u chose to buy an RC which is slow AF
i said i havent bought an rct...
indulge me to what is key
ah
so u can still be saved from a stupid decision
like drinking and driving
im making a gregorian which is almost 2 stops slower
Lol
hand grinding the mirrors and everything
so u hate yourself
FWHM is a single scalar value which is not robust to common deviations in a star profile
MTF graphs are calculated directly from star shapes
obviously, when i get good ill start selling mirrors too
same with people who use analog cameras
worse image, but "for the soul", for the "culture"
what about people that use a lwir cam?
do you have something to say about that
long wavelenght infrared imaging ?
its also going to be gold coated btw
yes
move away from earth
anything IR on earth is funny
there is a reason JWST is at L2
thats for miri.....
mir is almost 100% blocked by the atmosphere
be cool and image NUV 😉
lwir however has 2 major and 1 minor window
i would but that would mean making a second greg with nuv optimized aluminium
but slow scope + LWIR = slow AF
honestly after researching this I feel like a shortpass blue filter is superior to an NUV filter
its like saying being fat is good because having fat is good in winter
what
slow = bad
false!
you only have so much time in ur life for stuff to be slow
it reduces star halos in ir
all of it
star halos = bad optics
false star halos = no anti reflective coatings in infrared for cheap
also étendue is what matters, not focal ratio. What pixel sizes would a longwave IR sensor you'd use have?
i think its 6um
i need to be majorly oversampled
like majorly majorly
yeah that would be massively oversampled
it is
I would have expected such a sensor to have significantly larger pixels than that tbh
but if it works it works
it should
i should do ap during the day
that would be silly
btw the sensor is 32x24
Got a link to it?
Nah that's just fun
this
is also fun :)
cant have shit in #1326833769495269376
lux, i have an image that would probably make you pass away
its IHO on m94
what the hell is I
Infrared
oh
a lot of us here image infrared
im tryna slowly phase into just infrared
will occasionally shoot visible
but its just not as silly
like who doesnt love galaxies getting blown out in 10 minute subs
at unity gain
this is why i need slower!!
I will say, you should seriously consider getting more H-alpha integration if you have the time
ir is just too sensitive in galaxies
oh yeah 100%
i need it
ooh
that could look pretty
i need to get some narrower bandpass ir filters
so i can fit 3 different ir's at once
instead of just 2

hawt
Not arguing a nice and civil discussion unlike some people not to name any
nothing you do is nice and civil
i love rc
all i rc is rc
my life is rc
What can a guy not defend his opinion and only accept whatever everyone else says blindly
Tbh shoving false information into our faces from chat gpt then getting all defensive when people actually know it's false AND providing you with information to WHY it's false. Tbh it really sounds like you aren't being kind tbh
im not being nice?
okay
oh okay
That wasn't even chatgpt it was my own reasoning and the only reason why i was wrong is because i decided to be lazy and not double check the information i gave
gnnn

he needs his eepy sleepy okay
I got.uo at 6 was fishing the entire day
You're not in Texas rn?
Nuh uh look at this
In perpetual bad weather land.
AHAHAH
Nah it's fine
Well sometimes
I GOD DAMN KNEW IT
Look at my first message
What does it say
you were talking about tma's
ficking tma's
"A mirror with the opposite aberration"
You the told me it was false
that only corrects on axis
Not this week lmaoooo
therefore it isnt a tma
Rainy all week
it is false if you want your tma to work like a tma
Well how would it correct all axis
💀
This is why im not engaging
you need 3 mirrors with a hyper specific conic constant to correct off axia
Smart move lol
you were sayig you could take 2 mirrors form and rct and add a third making it a tma
Im just talking around the argument because you cannot win an argument with somebody like this.
yeah
Lol yea
im just hella axious from exams and arguing is good for loosing it 
Lol
i wouldnt engage otherwise
They will twist your words to fabricate an idea that you are attacking them and they are the victim and that somehow removes themselves from all of the criticism that comes with holding an opinion.
It's hopeless.
You can if you provide me with the data (or math) I'll gladly listen but as long as it's your word against mine then yk

Arguing makes me more anxious.
I cant do it.
awh
Anyways back to this can't you make it that using the mirrors of an RC
rct's are made aplanatic so they have to be in a very very specific configuration that doesnt account for any extra mirrors
i do think you can add 2 more mirrors to make an rct well corrected across a large field tho
1 doesnt work
Wait but how come a lens gets to just have the opposite aberration while the mirror cant
lenses are not the same as reflective elements
Gn
Listen. I was diagnosed with anxiety, and I medicated it for a while but it's generally mild enough to manage without medication. It's only when I feel the walls closing in on me that I feel panicked.
Even if I have no reason to be panicked.
It's just that when you get forced down a path you didnt voluntarily go down, your mind gets left with a scar that never quite heals. 

Really how so
theres no reflections
There shouldn't be any lol
Yeah but like how does that affect how the light behaves
But I don't think I should go down the rabbit hole of coatings etc etc

agreed
Man i thought you were going to bed go already you keep coming back like one of those zombies that keep reanimating
Same
Yeah the only person i can truly talk to is my close friends everyone else the conversations just feel forced for some reason especially when you dont have a topic of interest
based question

