[RCC]Celestial Incident Divergence Theory Requests for constructive critique · MO64 · ... · 34 · 1565 · 14

John Hayes:

V:
You could easily go that path, but sidestepping innovation and experimentation on the basis of viewing a problem as non-existant or offering existing alternatives that are seemingly perfect as they can be is counterproductive to the technological expansion of the human race. Lets just see how it plays out and save judgement for later once all is said and done.

Who knows what this could lead to; I say keep going. 

MO64 stated that a 4" planar surface pinhole with a ~1.2KM focal length could resolve extraordinary detail, and in that I see a next-generation space telescope for direct exoplanet observation. An Aragoscope of incredible size could also work for incredibly high resolution, but these are purely theoretical at this point.

I hate to burst your bubble but ignoring physics is also "counterproductive to technological expansion of the human race."  There is simply nothing innovative about a pinhole camera.  They were invented in 1856.   A pinhole camera has no formal focal length, they do not have "incredibly high resolution", and they are remarkably light inefficient.   Because they operate at a very slow effective focal ratio (radiometrically), they require very long exposures--even for bright objects.  A 4" diffraction limited aperture in the far field will have an optical resolution of 2.7" just like any other 4" telescope.  That's just how the diffraction of light works.  If you go study some diffraction theory, you'll quickly learn that a lens has the property of creating the far-field in the focal plane.  That's why 4" telescopes don't need to be 1.2 km long.

Pinhole cameras are fun to play around with but you almost certainly are not going to replace James Webb--or any conventional telescope, large or small, with a pinhole camera.

John

The difficulty in discussing anything outside ones purview is finding the right words using an unfamiliar vocabulary. I recognise the multitude of issues with a  Pinhole camera used in this way, the primary difference with this perception is the aperture having a thickness, which this design does not. Also, the unobstructed light path that allows for wavelength filtration using different base materials is interesting. 
I have no idea if it will ever produce an image worth looking at, but it keeps me busy.

John Hayes:
I hate to burst your bubble but ignoring physics is also "counterproductive to technological expansion of the human race."  There is simply nothing innovative about a pinhole camera.  They were invented in 1856.   A pinhole camera has no formal focal length, they do not have "incredibly high resolution", and they are remarkably light inefficient.   Because they operate at a very slow effective focal ratio (radiometrically), they require very long exposures--even for bright objects.  A 4" diffraction limited aperture in the far field will have an optical resolution of 2.7" just like any other 4" telescope.  That's just how the diffraction of light works.  If you go study some diffraction theory, you'll quickly learn that a lens has the property of creating the far-field in the focal plane.  That's why 4" telescopes don't need to be 1.2 km long.

Pinhole cameras are fun to play around with but you almost certainly are not going to replace James Webb--or any conventional telescope, large or small, with a pinhole camera.

John

Never mind that such pinhole camera would have to be 9,440,315 mm long (i.e., nearly 10 km long in terms of equivalent focal length) to be as efficient as it gets. And while photographic pinhole cameras have been "invented" in the mid-1800 the principle and application such as in a "camera obscura") or as device to understand prospective are much much older than that, by about 2,500 years, possibly the oldest optical device known to man.

Except, unless you leave the comfort zone outside of your experience, the path your on doesn't end up going anywhere. 
The research happens as required, as I don't know what questions will present themselves. 
I have altered course, by only being concerned with the OTA and obtaining a proper EQ mount and decent cameras. Which is beyond my resources at present. But will be required for the Omega Centauri cluster, which will confirm one way or another, whether to continue with this project. 
Until then, I will carry on regardless.

The goal of science and engineering research is to push boundaries but in the real world, that doesn't happen by starting from scratch with no knowledge of fundamentals.  James Webb pushed a LOT of boundaries to do something at the extreme leading edge of technology.  The development process involved science goals and a deep understanding of what came before along with an informed road map of how to come up with solutions for the difficult engineering hurdles that pushed beyond the state of the art.

I'm not trying to talk you out of your project.  I am trying to get you to understand that research involves more than just building something.  Research includes understanding the basic principles behind what you are doing...and from what I can see here, you would benefit by learning a bit more about how telescopes and optical systems work.

John

John Hayes:

Except, unless you leave the comfort zone outside of your experience, the path your on doesn't end up going anywhere. 
The research happens as required, as I don't know what questions will present themselves. 
I have altered course, by only being concerned with the OTA and obtaining a proper EQ mount and decent cameras. Which is beyond my resources at present. But will be required for the Omega Centauri cluster, which will confirm one way or another, whether to continue with this project. 
Until then, I will carry on regardless.

The goal of science and engineering research is to push boundaries but in the real world, that doesn't happen by starting from scratch with no knowledge of fundamentals.  James Webb pushed a LOT of boundaries to do something at the extreme leading edge of technology.  The development process involved science goals and a deep understanding of what came before along with an informed road map of how to come up with solutions for the difficult engineering hurdles that pushed beyond the state of the art.

I'm not trying to talk you out of your project.  I am trying to get you to understand that research involves more than just building something.  Research includes understanding the basic principles behind what you are doing...and from what I can see here, you would benefit by learning a bit more about how telescopes and optical systems work.

John

Thank you for your feedback. I respect and appreciate your time, and in spite of appearances, understand what you are saying.  
I do not claim to be anything more than a curious toolmaker, I don't pretend to be an engineer or citizen scientist. Before leaving high school to become a toolmaker, I noticed how modern designers require the skillset of another to achieve a result. Which is usually compromised by time and cost, due to investors wanting it now. As I grew reading about past designers, I became attracted to the trade that was most likely required to achieve a result. 
This project is based on a desired result, that is fundamentally different from the bucket method, that provides new information. 
My research will begin, once I have a device that produces repeatable results with a fidelity beyond the Dawes limit. Which cannot be achieved using a device based on the bucket method. 
I am sure there is a formula that describes the distance required from a star at which point the light effectively becomes collimated, essentially behaving laser like. A pinhole can receive laser light, a zero thickness pinhole can only improve things, in regards to artefacts and such.
I am not restricted by failure, only by the time I have to give the project. But it is not something I will be letting go, any time soon. 

Paul

This is the focuser of the new OTA showing the 60mm square baffle, linear bearings and M4 adjustment bolt.
The main tube has been replaced with a cone 3d printed in one setup. To replace the parts I have found at work, to make it more doable. 
The choice of a square baffle is to ultimately use this device with medium format film, to then scan and create an image beyond any 1 sensor. The Hayear camera is only to confirm that an image exists and it is worth proceeding to the next stage. 
To which an EQ mount and guide camera would improve the results of.

Paul