At 8:41 AM -0800 1/25/98, Gene Mroz wrote:
>Darren:

I concur with Rob's and Gene's advice. I would like to underscore one of
Gene's remarks, though:

>...Remove the corrector plate--handling only by edges...

Ordinarily, you would be tempted to use the secondary as a convenient way
to pull on the corrector when removing it. But since yours is loose this
might be a very bad idea.

I'm not sure, either, whether the rotational position of the secondary
mirror is important. The position of the corrector certainly is. But if
your star test comes out badly after getting it all back together with the
corrector correctly aligned, you may be able to repeat the process several
times with different orientations of the secondary to arrive at the best
position for the secondary. My *guess* is that this is not particularly
important. Only a star test will tell.


Your story is pretty amazing. How could anyone be so stupid as to mess
with someone else's expensive equipment like that? I've never heard of
anything like that before. Anyway, just be thankful he didn't completely
loosen it and have the secondary fall onto the primary!

---
Bill Arnett "Science is a way of trying
San Jose, CA USA not to fool yourself." -- Feynman

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: OT: MAPUG usage question, JohnLX200
Next message: Re: [M]: Meade 12" LX-200, Bill Arnett
Previous message in thread: [M]: RE: Someone Broke My Scope...., Gene Mroz