Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just to say, Today the realization of motorized systems subservient to plc and various side systems, It has a fairly modest cost and functional. The hard part is the development (work processes , etc.). Electronic modern cut costs heavily, while for the mechanical part (planes of rotation, immersion systems, etc) the costs are quite high.
Ciao
MaximumWow 500 euros for half a kilo of paint !!!
It must significantly increase the overall quality of the telescope to justify such an expense I assume ...Obviously yes. And those who use it in very dark skies realize it where the difference is stratospheric even on very weak objects.
Maximum
The telescope will perform at its best as the weakest point of its design.
It follows that if you decide to make a telescope in a certain way, each component will have to maintain that type of technical quality. To explain me better: useless to build a super polished super optic, a super cell etc.. and then put a focus from 70 euro. Many performances of the tube will be lost precisely in the off-axis of the focus.
If you notice the difference between the paint and the nanotubes it is very wide, think a little’ when they intertwine with paints that have not even been studied for these uses what is lost in terms of final performance.
The flocked in nanotubes (which is not even difficult to do) and a little’ exuberant for the amateur astronomer (we will never have the conditions they have in professional tools). Furthermore, its application requires a lot of expertise already in the design phase (typical angles for example).
The economic alternatives are economic according to the meter of each, there are intermediate routes that cost a bit’ but they are practicable and clearly visible during use.
Maximum
Yes, but be careful. If I produce an excellent optics in XX hours and to make it much smoother I have to work it XXX hours and maybe I neglect everything else, I can say that the extra X hours are wasted?
My hint refers to optics for non astronomical use, but not photographic (signal transmission), but I mention for example that a very qualified company to which the problem is subjected with manual specifications brings the cost of a piece xx to 2000 euro a 18000 euro.
If I can improve CONSIDERALLY enough to see it visually in the sky and not at the counter, with a slightly high cost but affordable for everyone, I think this is a way to go. Today the times of the manufacturer of optics (which are now on half a hand in decline) they can no longer be those of 10 years ago, unfortunately the tongs of the tax authorities and the competitiveness of the market no longer allow us to deal with certain issues in a romantic way…….
If one works for oneself, then can’ also devote to surface finishing 100 or 1000 hour, both have zero cost. But I don't think we can expect this from anyone who builds without the right economic price.
Maximum
Hi Massimo,
the link you report is correct. Industrially, there are feedback systems both with special sticks, both with bench measuring methods. In fact, do not think that the production of industrial optics (not astronomical, but maybe for the laser sector where super polishing or ultra polishing is the norm) do it with the artisanal methods that we amateurs are used to seeing. Normally microscopes are used that scan surfaces and photograph and measure micro-grooves or deformations.The big problem is that , for example, with cnc systems for machining optical surfaces, it hardly drops below the level of commercial polishing ie’ in virt’ the need not to commit too much a machine to the high hourly cost (not by manpower but by own machine). Vice versa, to tailor the reasoning, the same machines produce surfaces for laser optics with S / D 10-5. Just know that a surface with this parameter, flat and with a diameter of 50 mm costs over 4000 euro.
For the above, and not wanting to write a boring pistol, I always remain a little hesitant when certain numbers are presented to me. From experience I learned that a good test must be done on the sky with perfect seeing, so for us amateurs, otherwise they are good speeches but very academic…….the mirror never works in a neutral environment.
The paint is the one used in the professional field, very difficult to apply, where you must have good expertise and good level instrumentation (a very slight pressure difference in the spray gun ruins the work), respecting all safety standards (i think mice in range 100 die……
). At this point someone will say: but how much does this soup cost? half a kg. 500 euro. And once the surplus is opened it is thrown away in a few weeks. Is’ therefore it is clear that it is not within the amateurs' reach both for the cost but also for the rest (also difficult to have it), and I could say that in a tube from 280 mm one meter long affects about 180 euro. 
Maximum
Certainly Giulio,
the only discriminating factor is to produce by itself, produce to market.
The customer forgives nothing, especially if you want and can give certain guarantees, it is clear that hardly (even if it happens among the less experienced) someone will raise complaints about a product from 300 euro……..on one from 8000 maybe even inc… a little.So I don't agree at all with the minimalist theory, and in fact talking with the various customers who have learned to use settable products in all possible ways, satisfaction is maximum.
Is’ always a question of the expectations one has. For example, I have production plants with cutting-edge machinery, very expensive to maintain and very expensive to buy. Obviously I have maximum productivity and final quality (not in telescopes), I would never dream of buying Spanish or Chinese competitors because they cost the 40% in less……my market asks for the top and you give the top to them with the top (and I'm not talking about telescopes).
Instead, I agree that everything is always, infinitely improvable, the cost discriminant is triggered, sometimes a small change increases by 3-400 euro the final price, it's worth it. Many times not.
ciao
MaximumI put in the maximum available 600 mm-counter that it was delivered two or three months ago by Norman.
The optical bench (that would not call so, but rather ground for functionality verification and quality) It is designed to test the optical mounted in optical tubes. We are currently in progress with the pieces , Behind the advice of Norman, Optical proven experience and skills in very fast optical (f2,6-f3).
Naturalemente we use certified mirrors, and our requirement is to verify:
1) that the mirror corresponds to what is stated;
2) that the installation is not due to some defect (stapling, deformations, etc);
3) the BFL parameters etc.. are compliant with the stated, ordered and received;
4) for playing
and do various tests related to the roughness etc..This of course is feasible with all the mounted system and finished, we are choosing the various accessories required (also obviously certificates), and then complete with recording systems and recording of images for each test.
It is therefore not a bench for the process control (like that of Norman).
The control system is based on the double pass null method in which errors, obviously, doubling. We do not use the interferometer to more convictions’ that based on its inefficiency to certain corrections. The tests we perform them always full optical September, we only test that is not a primary but the whole set mounted with its obstruction and its secondary.
A very qualified laboratory which issues certification in Autocollimation of flat mirrors, è Optical Surfaces in UK, ducts in that lab tests with professional metrology systems have consistently delivered results very close to those declared by the supplier (which is what interests us), the fact that then a mirror is PtoV 1/8 and not 1/10 RMS 1/28 and not 1/35 It has a very marginal relevance. It is enough to replace some elements to the bench to change the values, Also the Double Pass Null lends itself well to the controls, but it has the advantage of playing well the final values if you do not follow to the letter all the starting elements (What much more realistic with the Hartmann method used by Airy Labs).
We are a little late with the process of urgent deliveries but they put us in difficulty. However, this is to say only as the approach of a manufacturer is different from that of an optical designer, which must forget the mechanical interference elements , and here we could talk for hours on this subject. Just to give a silly example, a client who has withdrawn a dk 230 f 12 (primary f 2,6) He challenged the product citing an optical defect unclear. The instrument had passed all tests, however, we immediately replaced the optical set with a new one (We have many sets shelf for each optical scheme, except for new models) and the customer the next day informed us that the telescope was perfect and absolutely free from defects (customer picky, meticulous and friend, not a dimwitted who do not even know what the pattern that bought….)
Suspicious of this fact we immediately thought of a mechanical problem, we identified in too hard tightening of the secondary barrel. Today Norman sends us all of the optical test set, we sent him to the bench for a control, as guaranteed by the trade. Indeed, the images of all the tests and the technical report confirms the total absence of problems of this set, ergo a normal too tight secondary support has created its own problems. This has helped us to plan the design of a secondary barrel exempt from this kind of problem (the series never stop learning).
But I could tell you about an infinite number of cases where there giugono not working telescopes, to which is singled out a poor optical quality, while in reality it is the mechanics completely wrong contour.
Ciao
Maximum
