Posts Made By: William Paolini

Dave,

I have been involved with optics since I was about 10. Everything from photography to filming to video to microscopy to astronomy. I remember well how "resistant" I was to digital photography. After all, nothing is better than silver halide film, nor will anything be better. However, I sloooowly came over to the digital camp. Plus all the time I spent in the darkroom, now done at the computer screen. Even in current day motion filming, while some still use real 8/16/35/70mm film, right after processing it is digitized for editing and final film. So it gets to digital, just not originates.

So the upshot is, I feel the digitization of a consumer telescope will be the future. It just makes sense as amateurs will be able to purchase a scope that comes already equipped with viewing screen and CCD embedded, plus firmware and computer interface for customization. So no more need to agonize over building an eyepiece arsenal, not the immense expense that can and does become.

When you look at current HD TV technology, they actually came to the decision on how dense to make the LPI based on the typical viewing distance and the human eye's resolution. So in an optimal situation, the screen integrated with the scope will be similarly optimized so at viewing distance the density of the screen pixels will exceed what your eye can perceive. Given CCD and display limitations, zooming may have to integrate a built in glass Barlow.

The real intrigue for me would be in the computer interface, which in my imagination would allow you to alter or control how the display functions giving you at your fingertips the ability to adjust the real-time image to accomplish filtering, intensification, alter spectra being viewed, transpose invisible spectra to visible range, etc, etc. With all this capability in place, and with the display device being such that the image produced "looks" virtually real or like I'm looking out a window at the real world, how could the old-school glass tradition of eyepieces survive except as a novelty approach (same as how some people still like to use Huygenian EPs and f/20 refractors). So sure EPs will survive, but IMO they will be like the camp of current users who have old Unitrons or keep those Ramsden and Huygenian and Kellner EPs around -- sure a market, but a small one at best.

When is the big question as all the advantages that will be capable heavily side with electronics. I still see it as substantially 50 or more years off to when it gets to maybe a 50-50 mix of people preferring electronics for visual vs EPs.

It is definitely hard to imagine and hard to accept also as glass is all we really know well and certainly is all we are "comfortable" with. But like the move to computers, and the move to cell phones, and the move to instant messaging and email as major communication mediums we can't live without, glass EPs will also similarly fall to marching technology and increased convenience and functionality. IMO just a matter of time.

-Bill

For absolute impact on me at first viewing when released, I think 2001 takes top spot.

But the sci fis I seem to never get tired of re-watching are:
1. Day the Earth Stood Still (loved concept of absolute power in robot police force)
2. Contact (inexplicable asterism appears thruout movie)
3. Forbidden Planet (special affects, sound, & the Robby of course)
4. Aliens (finally, a non-Star Trek clean spacecraft!)

John,
Great question. Always fun dreaming what might be the next innovations.

I think several things will be coming...

1. Automation at all levels. More automation making its way onto scopes. This to me means electronics in the eyepiece, electronis in the finderscope, more advanced gotos, production dobs out the box with gotos, interfacing with Internet, scopes interfacing with each other (imagine a star party where several scopes are interfaced to each other, all tracking the same object, all imagry combined, or people at different locations interfacing their scopes to each other's computers to share real time observing, etc), etc, etc. But bottom line, I think a definite trend will be the scope out the box will be more and more automated and integrated - the ultimate goal will be for it to reach the "appliance" level - no muss no fuss, it works right out the box and can do it all.

2. Liquid optics. Liquid lenses are here. 2-4mm liquid lenses where the surface is refigured via electric current are a current technology. Industry expects to see them show up 1st in consumer phone cameras. As they perfect the technology for larger lenses, and then array them, then we have possibilities for telescope optics. Perhaps the 1st application will be at the eyepiece, where electronics let the lens figure reshape for chaging focal length, adapt for fast primaries, etc. Where ever they 1st put it will be interesting. There are a number of patents popping up for these as well.

3. New Refractive Designs. I also feel there will be an innovation related to refractors. With the problematic supply of low dispersion glasses, there are quite a few patent applications popping up using non-low disersion glasses to achieve APO performance. So over next 10 years I hope to see some of these innovations come to market and reduce our reliance on expensive and hard to acquire glass for APOs, especially for larger ones.

ok...crystal ball has just lost power and gone dark ;->

-Bill

John,

Found this lecture on liquid mirrors (video file). Veru informative, especially the ones he talks about that are a step ahead of the liquid mercury thing being build as they are reformable surfaces. Perhaps one day we'll have a new Newt

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/seminars/online/PSC/borra2/title.html

-Bill

Julie,

You captured as aspect of Tom very well, and it's so true. I consider Tom as the absolute kindest and warmest individual I have ever come across in this hobby...doubly so considering him as a vendor as well. He always had time to talk, was always most considerate of what you wanted and not what he made or designed, and always seemed to be concerned about how he could help you. He was a rare and one-of-a-kind person that all of us, from observers to vendors in the hobby, can learn much from. A rare and brilliant human being who was a true innovator. Wishing his soul Gods speed into the heart of the heavens he so loved to observe.

-Bill

Uncoated lenses lose 4% on each air-to-glass surface. Single MgF2 coats usually loose 1.5%. Multicoatings lose around 0.5%.

So given that this 80mm used to not be multiciated on "all" surfaces, let's assume that meant one surface multicoated, the other 3 with standard MgF2 coat.

Results for the 4 surfaces:

Fully Multicoated = 2% total loss of light
1 Multi, rest single = 5% total loss.

Once you apply these losses to the actual objective, the 80mm with full multicoating acts like a 79.2mm objective with zero loss, and the older one with only one surface multicoated and the rest single coated would perform like a 78mm objective with zero loss.

I doubt anyone could see that difference. So in short, as already stated, answer is no, but now you can understand why ;->

-Bill

ps - 134 words 8)

Have not seen any user reports (in English) yet. As far as the "technology", if any element has any surface that is non-spherical, then it's an aspheric. So if they grind a parabolic surface on one of the elements, then they get to call it aspheric.

For a fast Dob it makes no sense, but for long refractors it's a lot of sense.

For instance, take a fictional 80mm 50deg afov EP:

Scope:
80mm f/15 Vixen = 2.19 TFOV -- 15x -- 5.53mm Exit Pupil
5" F/12 D&G = 1.73 TFOV -- 19x -- 6.67mm Exit Pupil
6" F/12 D&G = 1.44 TFOV -- 23x -- 6.67mm Exit Pupil
6" F/15 D&G = 1.15 TFOV -- 29x -- 5.33mm Exit Pupil
8" F/12 D&G = 1.08 TFOV -- 30x -- 6.67mm Exit Pupil

So basically, for any f/12 or longer telescope, the exit pupul of these long FL EPs makes them quite usable and what is needed to get some larger TFOVs.

I owned the 4.8 Nagler. Got it when it 1st came out many moons ago. It did fall into disuse though. Eye relief is really really tight. I later got a 5T6 and liked it much better...more light thruput and sharper IMO. All these opinions based on use in Orion XT10i. I did later sell the T6 though and now use the Hyperion 5mm. Star fields not quite as pretty as the T6 due to smaller afov, but transmission a contrast right up there with the T6. However, specifically for planetary use (and Luna), I found the Hyperion gives slightly more resolute image. So decided to take the small hit on star fields in favor of the better planetary performance which I do more often at this power. btw- I don't use paracorr and find the 5mm corrected excellently over 95% of the fov. Last 5% gets some minor CA.

Specifically for your XT10i, the central 60+% or so will be sharp, rest then has progressive coma, then slight astigmatism at around 85% mark, then minor CA at 90-95% mark. If you center the Perseus Double in the fov, the hearts of each cluster are still sharp. Dimmer clusters like M39 look sharp all around. Brighter clusters like Pleiades the lack of coma correction is obvious. If you have a Paracorr, then should perform exceptionally well out to about 90% mark I would guesstimate.

As others have said, for $99 excellent price/performance, but don't expect the edge correction that a Pan has as Hyperion has chosen to have little or no rectilinear distortion in this design. So a consequence of showing no barrel or pincushion aberrations, is other aberrations pop up instead...like field curvature and some astigmatism in last 10% or so.

Contrast and transmission are simply outstanding. I experience no blackouts or eye placement sensitivity with it and find I prefer viewing with the eyecup folded down.

I'd put it's performance on par with the older TV 24mm Wide Field as far as correction....better contrast and transmission than the older TV 24 though. I have both of these EPs.