Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Solved!!! We hope. TMB Field Flattener for TMB 175

Expand Messages
  • erdmanpe
    Wow, that s been a long road trip to get to the bottom of your difficulty! How in the world did that happen? Peter
    Message 1 of 51 , Jun 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Wow, that's been a long road trip to get to the bottom of your
      difficulty! How in the world did that happen?

      Peter

      --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Anderson" <bob@...> wrote:
      >
      > Turns out that the optics that was used in the TMB 175 FF that was
      > originally shipped to me was not the correct glass for this model of
      > scope.
      >
      > All of the many different spacers, hours of wringing hands, testing
      > this, testing that, re-calculating distances and angles was due to
      > wrong glass being used in the FF.
      >
      > Markus realized this a few weeks ago and immediately upon
      > confirmation from me which glass was in my unit, had his machinist
      > starting building a new FF for me.
      >
      > I received the new FF on Friday but unfortunately am almost 2500
      > miles away on a business trip. Can't wait to get back and test the
      > real thing!
      >
      > Markus never gave up and once the problem was identified, initiated a
      > fix as fast as he could. A great big thanks for sticking with the
      > problem and helping solve it.
      >
      > I will hopefully be able to log my first light image in a week or so
      > upon my return home, (been a long 3 months trying to solve this
      > issue).
      >
      > Cheers
      >
      > Bob
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Anderson" <bob@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Now that is an nice looking CCDInspector report Neil!
      > >
      > > Spoke with Marcus on Wednesday morning and he is checking with LZOS
      > > on the glass. Plate solves on four different images are showing the
      > > same dramatic change in the scopes focal length, (1800mm f/10
      > versus
      > > what the scope actually is, 1400mm f/8).
      > >
      > > The FF is acting like a barlow versus a native FF.
      > >
      > > Irrespective, glad to see your up and running and looking for some
      > > fantastic images.
      > >
      > > Cheers
      > >
      > > Bob
      > >
      > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Fleming" <neilfleming@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hey there, Bob. I finally got some clear skies to test out the
      > > > flattener for the TMB 203 F/7. Thankfully, it seemed to test out
      > > OK.
      > > >
      > > > http://www.flemingastrophotography.com/astropics/interim/TMB-
      > FF.jpg
      > > >
      > > > You probably have a different flattener design. Did you figure
      > to
      > > > send it back to have it checked out?
      > > >
      > > > Regards...Neil
      > > >
      > > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Tube Tim" <potentate@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > >--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Anderson" <bob@>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi Bob,
      > > > >
      > > > > Well it sounds as like everything is done properly on your
      > part.
      > > > The
      > > > > FF lenses are looking like expensive paper weights or skeet
      > > targets.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Tim
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > > Hi Tim
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "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
      > > > > > deep convex.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 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?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 92mm
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > The R4 surface you show is closest to CCD?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Yes
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 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.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Tim
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Thanks for the questions Tim,
      > > > > > Cheers Bob
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Michael Sherick
      Same for me Tim -- can you place the CCD Inspector results in the Photo section on the TMB Group -- Thanks. Mike ... Teuwen Karel wrote: Hi
      Message 51 of 51 , Jun 12, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Same for me Tim -- can you place the CCD Inspector results in the Photo section on the TMB Group -- Thanks.

        Mike

        -----------------------------------------------

        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 ?

        Regards

        Karel

        _____

        Van: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogroups.com] Namens
        Tube Tim
        Verzonden: dinsdag 12 juni 2007 10:07
        Aan: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
        Onderwerp: [tmboptical] Re: Solved!!! We hope. TMB Field Flattener for TMB
        175

        >--- 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?

        ___
        Tim
        Seoul, Korea

        Still looking for Markus around the city....

        > Hello Karel,
        >
        > I'm sorry to report that I'm in the same situation with my
        TMB "Field Flattener" that I have been trying to use with my TMB152,
        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?
        >
        > Mike
        >
        > ----------------------------------------------------------
        -
        >
        > Teuwen Karel <publik@...> wrote:
        > Hi Jason,
        >
        > With my TMB152 and the SBig STL11000 I also use the new designed
        FF from
        > TMB. I use a direct connection (not the nose piece) to connect
        both 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 deformed
        stars on
        > the edges and CCD Inspector tells me I have still a curvature of
        more than
        > 20%. It wasn't a cheap piece of equipment and honestly I was
        expecting more
        > of it. Who among you guys have the same impression about this ?
        >
        > Regards
        >
        > Karel Teuwen
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






        ---------------------------------
        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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.