Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.optics    |    Discussion relating to the science of op    |    12,750 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 12,204 of 12,750    |
|    Phil Hobbs to Phil Hobbs    |
|    Re: Definition of "Catadioptric"    |
|    01 Feb 16 13:14:51    |
      From: pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net              On 02/01/2016 01:13 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:       > On 02/01/2016 11:54 AM, Quadibloc wrote:       >> What? We all know what a catadioptric optical system is - it's one that       uses both       >> lenses and mirrors!       >>       >> Don't we?       >>       >> However, in the area of astronomical telescope designs, there seems to be       >> something else at work.       >>       >> A Maksutov or a Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope is catadioptric.       >>       >> Even such designs as the Klevtsov-Cassegrain, where a sub-aperture       corrector is       >> used for spherical aberration, are catadioptric.       >>       >> But a Newtonian with a glass *coma corrector*, even if that coma corrector       is a       >> permanent part of the telescope, is treated as a reflecting telescope.       >>       >> Since spherical aberration is larger, and has to be corrected to make the       >> telescope usable, while coma is a more subtle issue, it seems as if only the       >> parts needed to form an image and to correct for spherical aberration are       treated       >> as fundamental - and parts that correct for coma are peripheral, not       changing the       >> "nature" of the telescope.       >>       >> Am I just imagining things here?       >>       >> John Savard       >>       >       > Optics nomenclature is what it is mostly for historical reasons, so I'd       > guess that you're quite right.       >       > The names often don't match up exactly in different domains, either.       > For instance, "defocus" is something quite different in the ray and wave       > pictures--the ray one you can fix by twisting the focus ring, the wave       > one one you can't, exactly--in the wave picture, an axial displacement       > contributes terms of all even orders, whereas "defocus" in the wave       > picture is 2nd order only.              Even orders in the wave picture, that is.              >       > Cheers       >       > Phil Hobbs       >                     --       Dr Philip C D Hobbs       Principal Consultant       ElectroOptical Innovations LLC       Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics              160 North State Road #203       Briarcliff Manor NY 10510              hobbs at electrooptical dot net       http://electrooptical.net              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca