Hi folks,
We get lots of discussions about the quality of figure and smoothness of parabolic mirrors. And the benefits of having a newt. primary re-figured by a pro.
Why so few similar discussions about the mirrors in all those designs utilizing spherical primaries? Primarily the mass produced SNs and SCTs. Certainly they too should benefit from a good re-figure.and would be easier to test.
Why have I never read a post about how great a SCT or SN performed after having its mirrors re-figured?
Any glass pushers out there done it?
Anyone ever had one re-figured?
I have ground a few mirrors and am confident in my ability to produce a very smooth sphere. Would I be wasting my time in attempting to make a 'premium' SN or SCT out of one of the mass produced OTAs? OR, does the mass produced corrector plate prevent me from ever reaching 'premium' status.
Yep, I'm contemplating a new project.
Bob
We get lots of discussions about the quality of figure and smoothness of parabolic mirrors. And the benefits of having a newt. primary re-figured by a pro.
Why so few similar discussions about the mirrors in all those designs utilizing spherical primaries? Primarily the mass produced SNs and SCTs. Certainly they too should benefit from a good re-figure.and would be easier to test.
Why have I never read a post about how great a SCT or SN performed after having its mirrors re-figured?
Any glass pushers out there done it?
Anyone ever had one re-figured?
I have ground a few mirrors and am confident in my ability to produce a very smooth sphere. Would I be wasting my time in attempting to make a 'premium' SN or SCT out of one of the mass produced OTAs? OR, does the mass produced corrector plate prevent me from ever reaching 'premium' status.
Yep, I'm contemplating a new project.
Bob
Fujinon 10x70 FMT-SX binocs
Tak FS-78 ƒ/8.1 - 630mm fl.
6" ƒ/6.5 homeground newt. - 981mm fl.
10" ƒ/4.85 homeground dob. - 1231mm fl.
