Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_4.gif.6a323659519d12fc7cafc409440c9dbf.gif

Anyone using a CNC secondary spider on their Newt


Recommended Posts

Hi All,

Just wondering if anyone out there had upgraded their secondary spider to use one of these CNC secondary cells ?  just looking for some feedback to see how much of a difference they make - primarily interested from a collimation perspective, but also interested to see how much it impacts your diffraction spikes.

Cheers,

Rich.

spacer.png

Edited by Northernlight
update
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you find that Rich? It looks like it's designed for very thin walled light weight OTAs which can't take tensioned thin vanes- a bit like the one on the scope I just bought which came off a Vixen R200SS- except that has really thick vanes that produce really pronounced spikes from what I've read.

I don't know if the depth of the vanes has any impact on spikes but thickness does- those don't look too thick at all though- looks a nice solution though the outer ring looks pretty chunky.

I'd be interested in where you can get these as I might look to upgrade mine at some point

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to have a look online to see if i can see any imaging examples.  I can only assume they help with holding collimation and dont have too much of a detrimental impact on the diffraction spikes as all the high end scopes are using them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John, was that for visual or Imaging ?  It's good news if there is very little impact on diffraction spikes as i only want one of these CNC cells to stiffen up the front of the scope as i think the oversized secondary of the Quattto Series flexes the standard spider vanes as it moves across the sky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the strength of the diff spikes depend on the lengths of straight edges, thickness doesn’t really come into it. The thickness will increase obstructed area of course and thereby reduce contrast, but the spikes will be unaffected.

a single vane obviously has 2 edges and will throw out 2 spikes from a star in two directions perpendicular to the edges

M

Edited by Captain Magenta
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about newts, but my ODK12 has a CNC spider and throws fairly sharp spikes, Still getting to grip with it though. Permacloud, grrr :mad:.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Captain Magenta said:

I think the strength of the diff spikes depend on the lengths of straight edges, thickness doesn’t really come into it. The thickness will increase obstructed area of course and thereby reduce contrast, but the spikes will be unaffected.

This is also my understanding.

James

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, johninderby said:

Can’t find the article but as I recall they took images using the different vanes and asked people to guess which vanes were used.

Would be really interesting to see that if you do manage to find it John 

22 hours ago, Captain Magenta said:

I think the strength of the diff spikes depend on the lengths of straight edges, thickness doesn’t really come into it. The thickness will increase obstructed area of course and thereby reduce contrast, but the spikes will be unaffected.

a single vane obviously has 2 edges and will throw out 2 spikes from a star in two directions perpendicular to the edges

M

according to theory the width should have an effect- thicker vanes are supposed to make shorter stubbier brighter spikes 

“the wider vanes, the more energy spread out, the higher its peak intensity, but the shorter spike length.”

“Thicker vanes may appear to be producing less intrusive, shorter spikes, but they drain more energy from the Airy disc, causing greater negative effect on the contrast level.“

https://www.telescope-optics.net/spider.htm

so would be really interesting to see the article John mentioned- theory vs reality 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Got me thinking. Suiter also says thicker vanes produce stubbier brighter spikes. I guess as a vane gets infinitesimally thin the diffractions produced by each other side of the edges will interfere each other out. As the lengths get further apart they interfere less until there’s negligible interference and the effect is then simply one of obstructed and reduced aperture and extra edge-lengths.

Edited by Captain Magenta
Infinitesimally thin not think
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Abhishek Pawse
      Hi guys. Please tell me if collimation is required for the celestron 9.25 edge HD  after using the hyper star system( after putting back the secondary mirror in its place ). Or it holds its collimation.?
      Thanks In advance for help :)
    • By jonathan
      Hi,
      I'm collimating my Skywatcher 150p reflector and have got so far with aligning the secondary according to AstroBaby's guide, however I seem to be at a conflict with the positioning in the focuser tube.  It looks to be aligned up/down the main tube, but not left/right (looking into the main tube from the open end) or up/down when looking down the focuser tube with a collimating cap on.
      i was told to align the secondary to the middle using the spider vane adjustments, but I can't see any other way to move the mirror than to adjust the spider vanes, which would result in the secondary no longer being precisely central in the main tube.  Am I missing something?  I hope these photos explain it better.  To my eyes there seems to be clearly a larger gap at the bottom than at the top.
       


    • By Corpze
      Hi, I know that there has been a couple of threads on how to collimate a newtonian, more specific, how to center the secondary mirror under the focuser.
      I bought mine "Concenter eyepiece" for almost a year ago and can't praise it enough - it makes centering the secondary a breeze.

      Have anyone else tried this? What is your opinion?

      I have also read that some have questions of how accurate it is? - I might not know the answer to this question, but what I do know is that after I have been centering the secondary with the Concenter eyepiece, I finish of the collimation with the Catseye XLKP and Blackcat. The small adjustments I have to make of the secondary after adjusting it with the Concenter eyepiece tells me it is very accurate. It is just the absolute finest adjustments i have to make afterwards.

      I have made a video of how it works and how it looks like when I am collimating my scope. (10" f3,4 astrograph)

      Best regards, Daniel
       
       
    • By Synq
      Hi I am fairly new with telescopes and I noticed my telescope needed collimation. I preview the collimation at the beginning (tell me please if its alright) however after I finished the secondary mirror kept tilting and not staying in place as seen in the video. This is a Heritage 130P telescope. Please help.
      VID_20201123_161617.mp4
    • By Guanzz
      I want to purchase the AC for optical axis calibration, but after consulting the jim fly, he is not sure whether the tool can be operated on the hyperboloid primary mirror, so has anyone used the catseye autocoliimation tool to perform the optical axis on the sharpstar 150hnt f2.8 Calibration, please share information, thank you
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.