Re: TMB Field Flattener for TMB 175 - Need help - Still!!!!!
- Hi Tim
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Tube Tim" <potentate@...> wrote:
> I assume you subtracted the treaded portion correctly, as you
mention above. That is you are measuring the seating surfaces where
the threaded parts meet (probably confusing).
NO, your clear in your question. I measured and subtracted the
threaded portion using a steel ruler. It actually checked out
correctly against the FF diagram that Marcus sent me.
> I checked the diagram and it is incorrect as shown. The 113mm is
from the center of R4 but the diagram seems to show it's from the
metal seating surface. I assume the diagram is incorrect as the
verbage you use above is correct.
The 113mm is definitely from the center of R4 as this lens is a very
> Sorry about this but it's time for 20 questions: Did the changes
help from previous testing?
No changes from previous testing.
> What diameter are your two lenses?
> The R4 surface you show is closest to CCD?
> The spacer between elements really bugs me but Markus says it is
> correct. I only say that as the 152ff is larger gap. Would it be
> difficult (cheap / easy) make a 5mm air gap spacer?
Probably easy for APM's machinist. He is actually very good.
> It looks your results should be much better than they are.
Statement of the obvious, I know, but it's late and I am tired!
> This is all pretty amazingly (bad) to me as I use my 152FF on a 228,
> 152 and AP 160 and it works well with all of them. The distance I
got as close as I could but it never seemed that critical.
I agree Tim and I have now spoken with a number of people who use
different flatteners and they also expect better performance.
Thanks for the questions Tim,
- Same for me Tim -- can you place the CCD Inspector results in the Photo section on the TMB Group -- Thanks.
Teuwen Karel <publik@...> wrote:
Hi Tim and Mike,
Thanks for your answers gentlemen. Tim, I'm very curious to see the result
of your imaging combo in CCD Inspector, can you post it here or send it to
me privately ?
Van: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Namens
Verzonden: dinsdag 12 juni 2007 10:07
Onderwerp: [tmboptical] Re: Solved!!! We hope. TMB Field Flattener for TMB
>--- In tmboptical@yahoogro <mailto:tmboptical%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com,Michael Sherick
> <michaelsherick@...> wrote:Karel / Mike,
Sorry you guys are having this much problem with the 152FF. At 20%
I think other problems are at hand rather than spacing; unless the
spacing is way off. I don't have my 152FF CCD Inspector numbers
but they are in the CCD Inspector gallery on the ccdware website
(support / CCD I). I recall it did was a very good FF.
The FF I use had front lens of 94mm and rear element of 88mm (??).
Is this the same as yours?
Mike - what focuser do you have on the 152?
Still looking for Markus around the city....
> Hello Karel,TMB "Field Flattener" that I have been trying to use with my TMB152,
> I'm sorry to report that I'm in the same situation with my
with a STL6303. I have had nothing but difficulty getting a flat
field with this very expensive chunck of glass. I'm going to have
another housing made to try a new lens to CCD spacing distance --
this time 113mm according to Markus. I hope this works -- anyone
want to buy an expensive paper weight?
> Teuwen Karel <publik@...> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> With my TMB152 and the SBig STL11000 I also use the new designed
> TMB. I use a direct connection (not the nose piece) to connectboth and
> respected the right distance from the rear lens to the detector.Let's say
> that I'm not completely satisfied about it. I still have deformedstars on
> the edges and CCD Inspector tells me I have still a curvature ofmore than
> 20%. It wasn't a cheap piece of equipment and honestly I wasexpecting more
> of it. Who among you guys have the same impression about this ?[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Karel Teuwen
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]