The resolution is indeed more like a 41 inch scope, but the light gathering power is equivalent to a 64 inch unobstructed apreture scope. This certainly will do better than the Grim by almost a magnitude. Interestingly, if the secondary mirror were only 20 inches in diameter, the light gathering power would only increase by about 10%. I believe Chuck referred to this a day or so ago. From: Erik Hansen <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Journey to the 1.8 meter I was not suggesting a smaller secondary, I was suggesting a smaller primary with a more efficient design.> The true aperture is 41 inches, so you are getting the resolution of a 41 inch scope, my point is a 45 inch primary with a more conventional secondary would give same light gathering with probably same ladder height as a 70 inch with a 29 inch secondary. I doubt it puts the Grim to shame, it would be interesting to compare the 2 at SPOC, and hear what the comments are. The other issue, is what is the largest field of view with the scope? With some eyepieces any object centered will not be there long. The time it takes someone to climb down the ladder and another one up, the object will be out of the field of view....will they have more than a minute or less than a minute. True, but a smaller secondary would also mean a taller ladder. As built,
the observing position when pointed at the zenith is only about as high as you'd need to go with the 22" that Brent built.
Reducing the secondary diameter also only gains a very small percentage of the total area of the 70" mirror.
And the diffraction effects from a 40% obstruction won't be an issue with deep-sky objects, and should be offset by the increased resolution of a massive 70-inch aperture.
There are always trade-offs.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Erik Hansen <erikhansen@thebluezone.net>wrote:
of course the draw back is you get a shorter tube but a 40% obstruction of the primary, probably could have a used a smaller mirror, to reduce tube length, and get similar light gathering.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".