Re: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: TOA 130
- In the translation I can read that they use a large airgab between the lenses to get this good correction. Will this not be negative for cool down time ? Large air between takes longer than small air gap. Any info about that ?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:28 AM
Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: TOA 130
My understanding from the translations is similar...they are
claiming that it achieves apochromatic correction with less inherent
spherochromatism than other apo designs. The argument is that the
typical three-element apo loses contrast due to the inherent
spherochromatism in the design. This is why they used flourite and
created the doublet FC and FS series...and why many Tak people (and
non-Tak people) comment on the superior contrast of the Taks
compared to many other unnamed triplet apos <g>. The claim here
appears to be that they have found a way to get around this, and the
graphs they show would seem to support this claim.
Someone who is an optical expert can jump in here and correct
me....regardless, I am expecting to get one later on, as I have
ordered one of the 4" models and I hear they will ship later than
the standard models.
--- In UncensoredTakGroup@y..., Gene Horr <genehorr@t...> wrote:
> Ron Wodaski wrote:
> > It works, but that translation is seriously fractured. Anyone
> > enough about optics to translate the translation? <g>
> Well, I've worked with Japanglish enough...
> Basically it is stating that this design provides better
> at the higher and lower bandwidths, particularly for
> errors. The latter is what it is harping on.
> It also stresses the IR and UV correction for CCD use.
> Gene Horr
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Hi Steve from Australia,
My name is not Saludos but Rainer :-)
Saludos is greetings in Spanish :-)
> Not a bad idea Peter, I have the same problem as Saludos if you
> call it that. Nobody likes dust on the objective, goodness knowshow
> it got there in the first place. I suppose it's easy enough tothe
> unscrew the rear flange off the tube and poke a tube up there as
> distance to the rear element is not that far, I'll just have totalk
> myself into doing it though.high
> "exfso" <millerp@> wrote:
> A bit scary removing the whole cell. Surely some high pressure air
> down the scope from the focuser end through a flexible tube would
> remove the offending dirt. Obviously firstly checking that the
> pressure air is clean and no possibility of contaminants. Ahurricane
> blower with an extension tube attached should do the trick. Just a
> suggestion, anything is better than possibly messing up collimation.