On Wednesday, August 19, 1998 10:24 PM, Don Dillinger wrote:

> Michael wrote:
>
> >For those with typical seeing (most of us), the Hartmann mask is hard
> >to beat because precision is not directly related to seeing. I have a
> >special procedure for using a two hole Hartmann mask which produces
> >focusing results under typical as well as excellent seeing (1 arc second)
> >in 5 minutes (with experience) equal to diffraction methods which I use
> >as a check. Under typical seeing, my procedure produces more accurate
> >focus than diffraction methods on small telescopes below 12 inches in
> >aperture.
>
>
> I am VERY interested in hearing more about this, Michael! Please share
> this with us, or at least email me privately if no one else is clamoring for
> this info.
>
> thanks,
> Don

My requirements for focusing a CCD camera:

1.) It's got to be fast.
2.) It's got to be accurate.
3.) It's got to be simple.
4.) It's got to work without accessory focusers.
5.) It's got to work with small amateur telescopes.
6.) It's got to be seeing independent.

I'll check my notes and collect my thoughts. If there is enough interest, I'll
make a general post. If not, I'll send details to you.


--
Michael Hart
Husen Observatory

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Alternative Power Update, Rashad Al-Mansour
Next message: [M]: RE: diffraction focusing and 10" LX200, Michael Hart
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: RE: diffraction focusing and 10" LX200- corrected, Ron Peterson
Previous message in thread: [M]: Re: RE: diffraction focusing and 10" LX200- corrected, Don Dillinger