Hello All,
I recently acquired a used, but seemingly well-maintained Meade SN10 OTA with the hope of using it photographically. Both mirrors and the corrector plate appear to be in good shape.
Two test images are in my gallery (though the first does not include stars from the actual test). The brighter stars (in particular) in my first actual light frames were flared, some to the degree of being spiked. Afterward, I did find the three mirror front supports to be excessively tight, so I loosened them. I then made sure that the diagonal was as perpendicular to the plane of the focuser (as possible), and re-collimated. The secondary structure from the factory already accounts for any offset.
In a third test, I still had flared stars. It does not appear that the mirror bevel is rough at all ... though I have not ruled out an aperture mask.
Thinking that flared / spiky stars are typically caused by pinched optics, I am wondering if the primary mirror could be pinched in any other way - perhaps by main mirror clamps / supports?
Perhaps there are some here in the community who have experienced this issue and - better yet - resolved it ??
Jay
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi Jay, The Meade Schmidt Newtonian has a spherical primary and a corrector placed near focus. As such there will be the field aberration coma, that will flair off axis stars, even in the absence of other mechanical issues like a pinched mirror. Here is a reference https://www.telescope-optics.net/SN.htm https://www.telescope-optics.net/Mak-Newton.htm#approximated Regards, Dave
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Thanks, Dave.
1. When you say, "the field aberration, coma," I assume you mean regular old coma, which I understand ... and would think that whatever coma a Schmidt-Newtonian has should be less than a traditional Newtonian reflector, and certainly minimized in the smaller FOV captured by my ASI533MC 11.3x11.3mm sensor.
2. The flaring present in my test images is in the brighter stars across the entire image and (having just looked again) appear to be in a triangular orientation. To me, that indicates a pinched primary. I'll need to remove the primary cell again and look more carefully at how the mirror is supported.
3. I have also just looked at a few other images (here) captured with Meade Schmidt-Newtonian scopes. A few have better-than-decent stars (by today's standards). Unless I have a lemon, I should (hope to) be able discover the problem(s) and correct it.
I did review the telescope-optics.net article on Schmidt-Newtonian optics. Nothing described there resembled the degree to which my stars are distorted. I would settle for decent and let BLX do its thing ....
Jay
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I got pretty good stars from my former 8" Schmidt-Newtonian until I mistakenly took the corrector plate off to clean it. Even though I was careful to reassemble it in the exact same orientation, I thereafter had flared stars. Turns out it's devilishly hard to retighten the screws that hold the corrector plate in place so that pressure on the corrector plate is completely even. Just the slightest over- or under-tightening of the corrector place screws would introduce pinches in the optics. I spent a lot of time trying to re-adjust but I never got it exactly right.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Well, best of luck. It looks like coma, and that the center of the field is toward the bottom left corner in your M51 image. As expected with this field decenter the the coma is much worse toward the upper right corner. Thus a simple adjustment of the fold mirror, to center the field on your camera sensor, should fix the problem… Dave
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I'm afraid I have to concur with the previous poster. Despite the heavy processing it has all the hallmarks of field coma. Fact is that a SN isn't that much better than a traditional newtonian in terms of field correction (about 1/2 of a similarly sized newtonian). It was merely devised in order to use easy to make good spherical mirrors so you would still need a coma corrector for any wide field imagery. Collimation must be done properly, which is in focus and possibly at high magnification, after a first pass using the traditional out-of-focus techniques. Needless to say, it is best done the old fashioned way; with an EP and Mk.1 eyeballs.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
andrea tasselli:
Fact is that a SN isn't that much better than a traditional newtonian in terms of field correction (about 1/2 of a similarly sized newtonian). It was merely devised in order to use easy to make good spherical mirrors so you would still need a coma corrector for any wide field imagery. I used a coma corrector with my SN8 - a Baader MPCC - although the MPCC had an odd reflection that appeared in my flats and over-corrected the image so I’m not sure I’d recommend that one.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Keith Egger:
I used a coma corrector with my SN8 - a Baader MPCC - although the MPCC had an odd reflection that appeared in my flats and over-corrected the image so I’m not sure I’d recommend that one. It is got to be a coma corrector (and flattener) designed specifically for the SN, not for Newtonians.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Please upload a single stretched sub and provide a link.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
andrea tasselli:
Keith Egger:
I used a coma corrector with my SN8 - a Baader MPCC - although the MPCC had an odd reflection that appeared in my flats and over-corrected the image so I’m not sure I’d recommend that one.
It is got to be a coma corrector (and flattener) designed specifically for the SN, not for Newtonians. When I had one there was no coma corrector designed for the SN as far as I know. The MPCC worked well for the SN except for the reflection in my flats - the stars were round across the chip of my Atik 383L+ at least.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Keith Egger:
When I had one there was no coma corrector designed for the SN as far as I know. The MPCC worked well for the SN except for the reflection in my flats - the stars were round across the chip of my Atik 383L+ at least. This tails with what I know of SNs. I never heard of such a CC but I can only presume that you could design one, if you were so inclined. Given that SNs weren't much of widespread use even in their heydays I'd safe to assume that none exists today. Obviously you could try and see what modern CCs would do (of the 4-element kind) if you have a spare one laying around.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Thank you @hbastro , @Keith Egger and @andrea tasselli . I'm sure that in some combination of your advice / suggestions lies the reality. It is also becoming increasingly clear (unlike the skies) that there is no easy fix - like many of the issues we deal with .... Last night, I was imaged (Test #3) M101 with the SN10 and was able to WBPP 51x120s Light Frames. The stars were as good as I have been able to get ... but the reality is: even at its best (or at least as well as I've been able to tune it), my FRA600 is able to capture better detail. I knew going in that this investment (albeit comparatively minor) had a higher risk / lower reward factor. I was just looking for a scope in the 1000mm range ... and the amount of photons the SN10 captures is impressive. It's probably time to invest in another refractor .... Again, THANK YOU ALL, Jay
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
There is a solution for the field flattner. Here is a Zemax layout for one I designed almost 20 years ago that can be adapted...   Dave
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi, all. I came across this thread while desperately searching for some help with my SN8. I'll try to keep the backstory short. I started with an SN8 a few years ago. The scope seemed to perform fine. Somewhere along the way, I started getting stars like the ones in the image below. I tried everything to fix it. After many failures, I was forced to scrap it entirely as there seemed to be nothing I could do. Maybe somewhat in error, I've always loved this scope. I'll spare you my list of reasons and just say that I ended up buying another SN8 immediately. That was in December. All was fine until this past week. I've often struggled with collimation. I suspect part of that was operating with a scope that had additional problems. I've loved the new scope so far. I've always wanted to get a shot of the Apollo 11 site with all 3 craters named after the astronauts. The last scope wasn't up to the task. Already resigned to the idea that I would only be able to get the larger Armstrong crater, I finally tried with this one last week. While I was able to get the crater, it just wasn't a good photo. I went back out determined to get collimation down. Finally satisfied (mostly), I turned my scope to the moon. I knew immediately the improvement as, for the first time, I could see the Armstrong crater in the live view without stacking. After stacking, I was excited to see I had all three of the craters. I finally had an Astrobin worthy image! And that's where the fun stops. The day prior to my failed lunar shot, I imaged Saturn and got what I thought was a pretty good image. It wasn't until the next night with the failed lunar shot that I realized there was a problem. Having fixed that problem, I wanted to try Saturn again. However, it was next to a mostly full moon. So, I decided to wait. This is where it gets weird. I got a fantastic image of the Apollo 11 site on Tuesday night. When I was done, I parked the scope and covered it. That was all I did. I touched absolutely nothing else. On Thursday night, I went back out and uncovered the scope. When I turned on my laptop, I was horrified to see these stars on my screen. They're the exact same stars that caused me to scrap the last SN8. I can't afford to replace this. I don't know what to do. I'm sickened. This scope literally didn't move since the Apollo 11 image. It doesn't make sense and I can't fathom what would cause it. I'm at a complete loss.  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jay Hovnanian:
Thank you @hbastro , @Keith Egger and @andrea tasselli . I'm sure that in some combination of your advice / suggestions lies the reality. It is also becoming increasingly clear (unlike the skies) that there is no easy fix - like many of the issues we deal with ....
Last night, I was imaged (Test #3) M101 with the SN10 and was able to WBPP 51x120s Light Frames. The stars were as good as I have been able to get ... but the reality is: even at its best (or at least as well as I've been able to tune it), my FRA600 is able to capture better detail.
I knew going in that this investment (albeit comparatively minor) had a higher risk / lower reward factor. I was just looking for a scope in the 1000mm range ... and the amount of photons the SN10 captures is impressive. It's probably time to invest in another refractor ....
Again, THANK YOU ALL,
Jay Couldn't you just keep the tube and buy new optics? Get rid of the corrector plate and put a spider secondary?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Wow ~ I see my last entry here was well over a year ago, and the frustration has well subsided. I don’t know when it’ll be, but I’m not entirely ready to abandon this project. With my OCAL collimating gizmo, I was able to align the mirrors quickly, so another night in the driveway is calling. We’ll see ….
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
@Aris Pope ~ It could be a consideration, but if I really wanted it, a decent 10” Newtonian Light Bucket would probably be a more cost-effective investment. Thanks
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi Joe, I have a 6" SN and love it. Here are the things I would look at in order:
Pinched optics - Take a look at a star with high magnification both in and out of focus. The airy disk should be round and the rings of light inside and outside of focus should be to. If it passes this test you do not have pinched optics.
Collimation - The SN design seems to be very sensitive in terms of collimation. Don't use a laser unless you are very sure it's properly adjusted. It would be better to again, use a star image at high magnification as your guide here.
Light path intrusion - Anything that enters the light path will cause diffraction spikes or flairs as you call them. Take a good hard look at this. Common offenders are mirror clips and one thing a lot of people don't think of, the bottom of the focuser intruding into the light path.
Reflections - Anything that's in the tube that reflects light is unwanted. Look at everything, anything the sees light and isn't painted black or covered with flocking, should be. These things can be the hardest to track down because you can pass all the test above and still see weird flairs on long exposure images.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jay Hovnanian:
@Aris Pope ~ It could be a consideration, but if I really wanted it, a decent 10” Newtonian Light Bucket would probably be a more cost-effective investment. Thanks That's what I have and I love 10" Newt. With my coma corrector it's f/3.5
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
