Progress while waiting for Fay to go away. Finished rough grinding
yielding a focal length of 24" (this is a 100 mm diameter f 6 mirror)
and finished the #120 grit and have started on the #180. My
magnifications will be a low of 15 X an a high of about 30X.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:31:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Progress while waiting for Fay to go away. Finished rough grinding
yielding a focal length of 24" (this is a 100 mm diameter f 6 mirror)
and finished the #120 grit and have started on the #180. My
magnifications will be a low of 15 X an a high of about 30X.

How do you know when you have the shape just right? What do use as a
blank?

On Aug 26, 10:52 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:31:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Progress while waiting for Fay to go away. Finished rough grinding
yielding a focal length of 24" (this is a 100 mm diameter f 6 mirror)
and finished the #120 grit and have started on the #180. My
magnifications will be a low of 15 X an a high of about 30X.

How do you know when you have the shape just right? What do use as a
blank?

At this stage, one simply uses a depth micrometer (or more simply a
feeler guage under a straight edge) to measure the depth of the
"bowl". The one grinds the "tool" (another glass blank) against the
mirror in such a way that they naturally form a concave and convex
spherical surface. Later, to change from spherical to paraboloidal,
one uses an amazingly simply shadow test called the Focault test to
measure the figure errors. It is so amazing that this actually works
and was figured out over a hundred years ago.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 26, 10:52 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:31:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Progress while waiting for Fay to go away. Finished rough grinding
yielding a focal length of 24" (this is a 100 mm diameter f 6 mirror)
and finished the #120 grit and have started on the #180. My
magnifications will be a low of 15 X an a high of about 30X.

How do you know when you have the shape just right? What do use as a
blank?

At this stage, one simply uses a depth micrometer (or more simply a
feeler guage under a straight edge) to measure the depth of the
"bowl". The one grinds the "tool" (another glass blank) against the
mirror in such a way that they naturally form a concave and convex
spherical surface. Later, to change from spherical to paraboloidal,
one uses an amazingly simply shadow test called the Focault test to
measure the figure errors. It is so amazing that this actually works
and was figured out over a hundred years ago.

My father-in-law does this as well. Surprisingly (to me anyway) hand ground
mirrors are amazingly accurate. Because if the randomness of a human doing
it. So much so that duplicating the level of precision with manufacturing
machinery is quite difficult. As I recall it's also very messy and time
consuming. You sit with a piece of thick round glass in your lap and dish
it out by hand using various grit sizes of compound and another piece of
thick round glass as a tool. Once you finish, you send the glass off to
have the mirror coat applied. On the smaller sizes if you apply a value to
your time it's cheaper to buy a telescope. On bigger sizes like 8 or higher
you can save a fair amount of money making your own mirror. Of course there
is the satisfaction of knowing you made it your self. For a boat I might
try one of the cradle style. My daughter has a 4 inch one. You can take it
out of the socket and just sit the ball in your lap.

http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes...rtelescope.cfm

On Aug 27, 8:07 am, "jamesgangnc" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Aug 26, 10:52 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:31:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Progress while waiting for Fay to go away. Finished rough grinding
yielding a focal length of 24" (this is a 100 mm diameter f 6 mirror)
and finished the #120 grit and have started on the #180. My
magnifications will be a low of 15 X an a high of about 30X.

How do you know when you have the shape just right? What do use as a
blank?

At this stage, one simply uses a depth micrometer (or more simply a
feeler guage under a straight edge) to measure the depth of the
"bowl". The one grinds the "tool" (another glass blank) against the
mirror in such a way that they naturally form a concave and convex
spherical surface. Later, to change from spherical to paraboloidal,
one uses an amazingly simply shadow test called the Focault test to
measure the figure errors. It is so amazing that this actually works
and was figured out over a hundred years ago.

My father-in-law does this as well. Surprisingly (to me anyway) hand ground
mirrors are amazingly accurate. Because if the randomness of a human doing
it. So much so that duplicating the level of precision with manufacturing
machinery is quite difficult. As I recall it's also very messy and time
consuming. You sit with a piece of thick round glass in your lap and dish
it out by hand using various grit sizes of compound and another piece of
thick round glass as a tool. Once you finish, you send the glass off to
have the mirror coat applied. On the smaller sizes if you apply a value to
your time it's cheaper to buy a telescope. On bigger sizes like 8 or higher
you can save a fair amount of money making your own mirror. Of course there
is the satisfaction of knowing you made it your self. For a boat I might
try one of the cradle style. My daughter has a 4 inch one. You can take it
out of the socket and just sit the ball in your lap.

http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes...pes/tasco30x76...

I know, I can buy one for less than what my time is worth. I just
wanna do it for the love of optics and math.
However, I can relate this to boating even more. In one of the
Patrick Obrien books, Jack Aubrey grinds a telescope mirror being
tutored by Lady Herschel if I remember right. He uses the "Finest
Pomeranian Sludge" for polishing whatever that means. At that time,
they were still making such mirrors from metal because they either
couldnt polish the glass well enough or they couldnt make a front
surface mirror. I remember from somewhere that the best metal for
this was called "Bell metal". In a later Jack Aubrey book, he
attempts to rig his telescope from the ships rigging in such a way
that it stays oriented regardless of the ships rolling in order to
view the moons of Jupiter using them as a timepeice to avoid the need
for a chronomator. This didnt work in the book as it did not work in
real life. I think the reason was that they had to use very long
focal length telescopes because they did not have the Foucault test
for parabolizing a mirror and the diff tween a sphere and parabola for
long focal lengths is minimal. Long focal lengths mean high
magnification so any movement of the ship would be magnified.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:07:19 -0400, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

You sit with a piece of thick round glass in your lap

I have read the few books on the subject, and perused the telescope
making column in Sky and Telescope regularly for decades, and I have
never heard that one. Sounds like doing it the hard way. You creat an
immovable stand, somewhere in the area of waist high, and fix the tool
to it. Occurs to me you might make the stand from concrete blocks. The
mortar doesn't have to look pretty. When finished chisel it apart, or
just break it up with a big hammer.
You walk around it while rubbing the mirror blank over it. Never heard
of any other way. You have to keep good control of the grit, or a
piece of 180 will show up while you are doing the final figuring. You
keep your clothes away from things, so that you don't transfer coarse
grit into a fine grit stage. I bet Edmund still has stuff of interest.

Casady

On Aug 27, 10:38 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:07:19 -0400, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

You sit with a piece of thick round glass in your lap

I have read the few books on the subject, and perused the telescope
making column in Sky and Telescope regularly for decades, and I have
never heard that one. Sounds like doing it the hard way. You creat an
immovable stand, somewhere in the area of waist high, and fix the tool
to it. Occurs to me you might make the stand from concrete blocks. The
mortar doesn't have to look pretty. When finished chisel it apart, or
just break it up with a big hammer.
You walk around it while rubbing the mirror blank over it. Never heard
of any other way. You have to keep good control of the grit, or a
piece of 180 will show up while you are doing the final figuring. You
keep your clothes away from things, so that you don't transfer coarse
grit into a fine grit stage. I bet Edmund still has stuff of interest.

Casady

I built a stand weighted down with two concrete blocks. When I was
13, I ground a 6" mirror from an Edmund kit and I think the Edmund kit
was crap to comparison to what I have now. Edmund's largest abrasive
was 180 Aluminum oxide and they didnt send enough of that. By
comparison, my three largest abrasives now are #80, 120 1nd 180
Silicon carbide, MUCH faster. You do not use Al2O3 till the finer
grades.
My wife who is the usual clean freak around the house marvels at my
sudden interest in cleanliness in the utility room.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:52:24 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:31:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Progress while waiting for Fay to go away. Finished rough grinding
yielding a focal length of 24" (this is a 100 mm diameter f 6 mirror)
and finished the #120 grit and have started on the #180. My
magnifications will be a low of 15 X an a high of about 30X.

How do you know when you have the shape just right?

There are optical tests with simple equipment.

What do use as a blank?

Two discs of pyrex from a mail order house. One is the mirror, one the
tool. You put grit on them and rub them together.

Casady

On May 28, 5:56*pm, Richard Casady
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:52:24 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:31:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Progress while waiting for Fay to go away. *Finished rough grinding
yielding a focal length of 24" (this is a 100 mm diameter f 6 mirror)
and finished the #120 grit and have started on the #180. *My
magnifications will be a low of 15 X an a high of about 30X.

How do you know when you have the shape just right?

There are optical tests with simple equipment.

What do use as a blank?

Two discs of pyrex from a mail order house. One is the mirror, one the
tool. You put grit on them and rub them together.

Casady

The action of grinding naturally produces a spherical mirror. You can
measure its focal length by wetting it and seeing where it fills with
light from a small bulb.
The proper shape for a telescope is a paraboloid and for a very long
focal length, say f10, the diff tween a sphere and paraboloid is too
small to notice. For a short focal length one like what I am making,
you have to "parabolize" it. This is done as part of the polishing
process using a very simple device called a Foucault tester. The test
can literally be done with a candle flame and knife edge. In this
test, variations in shape from a paraboloid are enormously magnified
so you know where to concentrate polishing. This test (or a variation
on it) is normally done on ALL telescope mirrors and this is what
Perkin -Elmer neglected to originally do with Hubble necessitating the
corrective optics.
The entire mirror making process is a beautiful excercise in applied
trigonometry and patience.

On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:38:14 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On May 28, 5:56*pm, Richard Casady
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:52:24 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:31:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Progress while waiting for Fay to go away. *Finished rough grinding
yielding a focal length of 24" (this is a 100 mm diameter f 6 mirror)
and finished the #120 grit and have started on the #180. *My
magnifications will be a low of 15 X an a high of about 30X.

How do you know when you have the shape just right?

There are optical tests with simple equipment.

What do use as a blank?

Two discs of pyrex from a mail order house. One is the mirror, one the
tool. You put grit on them and rub them together.

Casady

The action of grinding naturally produces a spherical mirror. You can
measure its focal length by wetting it and seeing where it fills with
light from a small bulb.
The proper shape for a telescope is a paraboloid and for a very long
focal length, say f10, the diff tween a sphere and paraboloid is too
small to notice. For a short focal length one like what I am making,
you have to "parabolize" it. This is done as part of the polishing
process using a very simple device called a Foucault tester. The test
can literally be done with a candle flame and knife edge. In this
test, variations in shape from a paraboloid are enormously magnified
so you know where to concentrate polishing. This test (or a variation
on it) is normally done on ALL telescope mirrors and this is what
Perkin -Elmer neglected to originally do with Hubble necessitating the
corrective optics.
The entire mirror making process is a beautiful excercise in applied
trigonometry and patience.

Very interesting. Thanks.

I'd have said 'geometry' instead of 'trigonometry', but you're the
expert at lens grinding here.
--

John H