DominO123 Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 (edited) It takes Domino to start a weird thread like this right? I just like scientific optical instruments, I find them to be masterpieces. Share your masterpieces, post pics of instruments you like. Here the Leica DME microscope. http://www.bartelsandstout.com/website%202001/pages/products_page/clinical/DME.jpg A masterpiece of design, in its price range, nothing beat it, but unfortunitly it does not come with semi-plan or plan achromat as standards. Here the Olympus CX31, my dream scope, this is what MosJan, Azat and Sip will be buying me for this next Christmass, with the darkfield goody. http://www.microscopestore.com/catalogimages/100583.jpg Infinity- Plan C Achromat objectives and come up with the adapter for the digital camera... not as beautiful as the Leica, but the Plan objectives and the adapter for the digital camera makes it very cost efficient for lab miscopy that need clear images without aberation. I will be posting other optical masterpieces later. Edited March 7, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 This my friend is the ultimaters of the ultimates.. ofcourse a whole diff class of optical instruments.. but you didnt limit it to microscopes... btw: the main reflector lense on this telescope (HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE) is literally the smoothest surface known to man, except the first time they launced it they had fatal miscallculations on the curvature of the mirror, so they had to install another reflector lense to correct that, and all that was done in space.. http://hubble.nasa.gov/art/shuttle_missions/sm1/solar_array_pre-capture_1.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 (edited) Actually, there was no real miscalculation with the Hubble, it was rather a mirror deformation which created a spherical aberation... they have build the mirror and left it there for too long time without tracking and taking in account the variation of tickness by time which created the deformation... since it was a good quality mirror, the deformation was a perfect one(means that it could be corrected "mathetatically" perfectly). Oh and it isn't the smoothest as far as I am concerned... the main mirror in the hubble has nothing expetional other than it is in space, there are a lot bigger mirrors on Earth... just wait the Planet Finder... that is a technological achievement that will change humanity for ever... it is on my list of "why I want really to live to see." Edited March 8, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 Actually, there was no real miscalculation with the Hubble, it was rather a mirror deformation which created a spherical aberation... they have build the mirror and left it there for too long time without tracking and taking in account the variation of tickness by time which created the deformation... since it was a good quality mirror, the deformation was a perfect one(means that it could be corrected "mathetatically" perfectly). Oh and it isn't the smoothest as far as I am concerned... the main mirror in the hubble has nothing expetional other than it is in space, there are a lot bigger mirrors on Earth... just wait the Planet Finder... that is a technological achievement that will change humanity for ever... it is on my list of "why I want really to live to see." again, thanks for refuting my factual information.. but i am basing my facts on what i have read and learned.. i have no reason to make this up.. and as far as i am concrened, TLC channel seems o think that there was miscalculation and that the mirror surface is the smoothest surface known to man but, i will look into it asap.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 again, thanks for refuting my factual information.. but i am basing my facts on what i have read and learned.. i have no reason to make this up.. and as far as i am concrened, TLC channel seems o think that there was miscalculation and that the mirror surface is the smoothest surface known to man but, i will look into it asap.. Gevo, why are you believing that people just answer you to contradict you? Miscalculation means making an error in the calculation... there was no error in the calculation, the mirror tickness changed because of the position it was left on Earth for too much time and it deformed the mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 Gevo, why are you believing that people just answer you to contradict you? Miscalculation means making an error in the calculation... there was no error in the calculation, the mirror tickness changed because of the position it was left on Earth for too much time and it deformed the mirror. After reading more about it, the claim is regarding the manufacturing of the mirror. Weird as I always thought it was a deformation issue. I will search more about it. But still it does not change anything regarding miscalculation, it still can't be one... because the problem with the mirror was due to the fact that it was not a true parabolic mirror, and had spherical aberation... mathematically speaking, you can not have another function other than a parabolic one in the cases of such mirrors, so even if you do a miscalculation you will still obtain a parabolic mirror with a variation of the F, without spherical aberation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 (edited) OK Domino jan your right, and what i guess i meant by the "miscalculations" was that the mirror was figured 2 microns to low at the egdes,,, so i was right in that sense... lol.. but most of it was due to the aberration.. here is a good articel explaining the problem, its not too long Spherical aberration The first test images obtained with the WF/PC and FOC Cameras soon after the launch revealed that the main optics of the telescope suffered from severe spherical aberration. Subsequent investigations traced the problem to a manufacturing error made when the primary mirror was ground and polished. As a result of an incorrectly assembled null lens, the mirror was figured about 2 micron too 'low' at its outer edges. The main consequence of the result in spherical aberation was that the energy of a point source was spread in the focal plane over a diameter of about 4 arcsec and only 15% of the light, instead of the expected 70%, was focused within 0.1 arcsec. The core of the image remained quite sharp, so the main loss was in the capability of imaging faint sources rather than in the resolving power of the telescope. As a consequence, several observing programmes were no longer feasible and most of the remaining ones had to be reviewed. Edited March 9, 2004 by gevo27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.