Klevtsov's letter to participants of an astronomical forum
In statements of some "opponents" in our opinion is available a lot of incorrect or obviously unreliable information. For this reason it has been decided to ask by J.A.Klevtsov to answer some problem points of charges that participants of a forum and all fans... The interested new workings out NPZ in area manufacturing telescopes, could receive the information first-hand.
I see, as you were already bothered with everyones there VD and Hrundel. One that these figures are buried under similar pseudonyms, already in itself forms the relation corresponding to them. If they have begun to yell again - so it is an obvious sign of that we choose a true azimuth of a direction in the market of astronomical devices! Therefore I personally concern and I incur responsibility to advise and to you to concern with proper attention that information which, can be in not so successful form, Andrey Belkin wanted to inform to you and that he didn't begin to hide under a pseudonym only raises it as it became fashionable to be expressed now, a rating. Well and me it is known that if mister Derjuzhin (VD) abstained till now from criticism to our refractors on it it has bases. I think, for all is known it "hromakor" which he offers to the right and on the left in the complete set to such telescopes, here only anybody for some reason from its colleagues respected by us in hands didn't hold, whom ask also all doubt, as such it is possible to arrange! In this connection, I could set to mister Derjuzhinu some serious questions, but, unfortunately, it is another story theme.
Now as a matter of fact the arisen questions. First of all, it is necessary to specify that such criterion of Shtrelja. This criterion of an estimation of quality of the optical image reflects influence of aberrations of a telescope on relative light exposure in the center of a diffraction stain.
Strictly speaking, this relation of light exposure in the diffraction center of a stain of dispersion for system with aberrations to light exposure in the center of a stain for the same system with the same form of an entrance pupil, but only without aberrations.
Mister Derjuzhin wrongly carries light exposure in the center of a diffraction stain of system with a ring pupil to the same light exposure for system with a continuous pupil. It is clear that at such approach even without aberrations the relation light exposure in the stain center will be obviously less units and is defined by size of the central shielding of an entrance pupil. Same absolutely other size reflecting change of light exposure in a diffraction picture for system with the central shielding, with aberrations not so not connected. We, of course, know and without Derjuzhina that the continuous pupil it is better, but it is we shielding necessarily we suppose, on it we go, moreover, it also is present at a comparable kind and in systems analogs: Schmidt-Kassegrene, Maksutove-Kassegrene and in Richi-Kretene, therefore all this sort of comparisons connected with an estimation of aberrations of system, optics spend for the same form of an entrance pupil (other simply isn't meaningful). For this reason, taking into account that in visible area of a spectrum, average quadratic aberrations on a system axis, as a rule, don't exceed 0,04 lengths of a wave (speech, of course, goes about the system which has been not burdened by technological errors), the criterion of Shtrelja for a sight midfield turns out at all 0,6 as Derjuzhin writes, and is close to 1 and makes nearby 0,95! Extra-axial aberrations of system, from which main things: the astigmatism and curvature of a field, narrow a diffraction image field on which this size doesn't fall yet more low 0,8. In general, at a relative aperture 1:8-1:10 and a pupil of 150-300 mm the diffraction field of telescopes let out by us will be 12-15 angular minutes.
As to the central shielding, here I completely support Nesterenko and I consider that, at least it is enough for a midfield of sight, simple measurements of a configuration of a pupil. In general we try not to get out for limits of 12-13 % of percent of the area of a pupil (0,346 - 0,361 on diameter). And though it is possible to calculate such systems with the central shielding of 8 %, we on it won't go, as thus always there is a loss in light force systems, narrowing of its spectral area and loss in adaptability to manufacture of its optics, and the difference during the frequency-contrast characteristic for system with the central shielding of 13 % and 8 % basically for the consumer will be imperceptible (I can result figures if it is interesting to somebody) so it is not necessary to fence a kitchen garden also.
I want to pay attention of consumers and the future buyers TAL-250K that by working out of this telescope, also as well as the previous models, we were guided by stability centering optics, creating, thus, the forwarding tool. The knot of fastening of the main mirror is accordingly modifed. It has allowed to keep stability centering a telescope by transportation any more as was earlier at a relative aperture 1:10, and 1:8,5 (at diameter of an operating aperture of 250 mm)! The pipe of a telescope with all accessories weighs 15 kg. And on delivery motor transport to the place of supervision (100 km from Novosibirsk and places gravel road) not adjustment - I it checked a telescope itself at pre-production model control on heavenly objects in the middle of May of this year (and me has largely carried with weather at these tests - who will manage this sample of a telescope, that won't be disappointed). Whether and much we have the tools possessing in the given class of a pupil by similar properties? I will not be mistaken, if I will tell that any! Certainly, I can facilitate the tool we will tell to 12 or even to 10 kg, to carry it begins much easier, and will use it much more difficultly. And that such a constant adjustment and as it irritates the observer, I think all it is known. However, reserves of reduction of weight of a pipe still are, but they are connected with technological problems which don't manage while quite to be resolved. The simplification of the main mirror and pipe application firm type is possible will allow to make transportable and 300 mm (1:8) the tool though I consider that the hospital is necessary for such telescope.
I would like to stop in this letter on one question of principle, it is close me concerning. It is a priority question on working out of the given system of a telescope. Two years ago on Starlabe this question was intensively discussed, and has reached almost fisticuffs, and persons known to you to me had been actually brought accusation in plagiarism. One it can be an occasion to proceeding so it would be desirable to think that these people have got excited with conclusions. And it is valid, the part from them already keeps mum, only here mister Derjuzhin, all won't be appeased in any way. It is necessary to me to mention some facts which were known until recently only to a narrow circle of persons and which certainly throw light on a problem being.
As occasion to attacks to me memoirs of the former head of astrooptical laboratory have served at Nikolay Nikolaevicha Fashchevsky's Odessa astronomical observatory [the collection "Pages of history of astronomy in Odessa" a part 4, Odessa 1997, publishing house the Astroprint, article "Telescopes of professor Argunova" p. 102] see.
In State Public Scientific Technical Library (Novosibirsk) of this work there is no also I long couldn't familiarize with it. I had a possibility to communicate on e-mailu with the author of article only in March, 2003 (under circumstances also worthy discussions, but beyond an assorted question see more low) and it to me has kindly quoted a place from the work which I result to you with insignificant reductions for business: "In parallel from P.P.Argunovym its scheme from the different parties was improved by employees of optical group of an observatory and students... M.P.Stodolja studied idea of combination of a secondary mirror and last surface of a lens. It has anticipated J.A.Klevtsova's works from Irkutsk which, making a start from schemes of Argunova, has patented and has made a telescope with the advanced proof-reader".
Dalee N.N. writes to me "... I have given this Theme to it, as felt that here there is a decision, and in P.P.Argunovu's peak which pressed the authority that leaves nothing." Actually he attributes to itself(himself) authorship to this system and does it for a long time already since the moment of ours with it correspondences in Soviet period (1978-1979) when I had already been received the copyright certificate on this system of a telescope.
Judging by received from it in 1978 to data of its ward return orientation of a meniscus with positive radiuses has been investigated only, and in 2003 he adds still very important detail that, I quote - "Work of Stodoli has been directed on decrease light loss and has confirmed such possibility".
When I began to argue with it that this system possesses other set of distinctive signs it to me have written literally the following, I quote - "... Orientation of lenses and signs on optical forces have no value, for the working out purpose - elimination of three aberrations..."
Magnificent safe position (truth completely illiterate in the patent relation) - all astronomical systems an essence same for all are corrected concerning three aberrations of the image, I ask to remember it, is useful further.
How you think, Argunov, knowing what on an observatory works on improvement of its system are conducted wouldn't inform me on it in correspondence? At me his letter marked on October, 1983 where he hasn't mentioned a word about these works is stored and here I won't be kept to result here the citation from this letter: "it was pleasant To me to learn that the business of working out begun by me already more 20 years ago katadioptric telescopes has found such serious continuer, the expert in the field of optics, as you. Here we on an observatory also have good optic [obviously it means Н.Н], but, as it is known," in the fatherland there are no prophets "and after me anybody seriously wasn't engaged in it". In the end of the letter he is interested in possibility of manufacturing of the proof-reader of my system for skilled 10 "the sample of a telescope.
Nikolay Nikolaevich, something at you the ends don't converge with the ends!
But at Н.Н. On all there is an answer, quote: "Argunov wasn't the employee of an observatory and knew not all. Character at it was ambitious, hasty on conclusions and insults...".
Still character when an observatory in the name of the same Fashchevsky it is consecutive for the short period of time wouldn't deteriorate at it was released from all Argunov telescopes instead of them to improve! And it as then it was found out, has appeared an error.
After death of Argunova in 1987 г, its archives have almost completely departed in order Н.Н., it is known to me according to daughter Argunova M.P.Doroshinoj living in Moscow. It has kindly sent me everything that it was possible to keep from its archive. It is a small folder with calculations of last years and archive of systems on computer "Spectrum". I couldn't read archive - wasn't already at that time (1992) Such computers so it at me also lies. Materials of calculations, generally draft copies, are separated, but attentive viewing of a direction of work of these last years his lives shows that Pavel Pavlovich perfectly was well informed about all optical works of an observatory, till the end of life worked, creating alternative to almost all projects Н.Н., in particular he was engaged in calculation of a three-mirror telescope and meniscal asferical the proof-reader to a telescope of Richi-Kretena. At that time the Odessa observatory has been occupied by the project of a telescope of 1 m and they searched for optimum optical system for this purpose. By the way, the same Fashchevsky then in the late eighties, has calculated the scheme of this tool on developed by me in 1984 to the scheme with two-meniscal without a patch of light the proof-reader and even the reference to my work hasn't considered as the debt to make [Fashchevskij N.N., Paulin of h.p., Ryabov A.V.creation of telescope 100-sm in Odessa//the Odessa Astronomical calendar 2003, Odessa, the Astroprint see. 2002. With. 180-182].
Nikolay Nikolaevich, yes as you so?
Yes after all if you investigated, how write, system with return orientation of a meniscus in the proof-reader, really you wouldn't face that obvious fact, what the parasitic flare in this system is very great, as the patch of light at reflection from a refracting surface of a lens of Manzhena lays down near to an image plane? In this connection I didn't begin to develop, in due time, this decision further.
And I have set Н.Н. Direct questions: if you were engaged in something like that describe, where your articles, security documents, model samples which, ostensibly, have anticipated my workings out. It was found out that it at it isn't present anything. One it solves a priority question in my advantage. But I all the same have requested at Н.Н. A copy of the inquiry on the statement of a theme of the diploma of its ward and a copy of that place from the thesis, where this scheme is described to have possibility most to draw conclusions. Unfortunately, on it our correspondence with Н.Н. Has broken and in the absence of arguments at the opponent I consider have the right to put forward following assumptions:
1. Or that confirms Н.Н. Full lie and any system similar to mine, they in 1974-1975 didn't investigate;
2. Or that is more probable, any researches in 1974-1975 were conducted by them, but concerned not mine, and to system of G.M.Popova [1967] known already by then which is only analog of my system and, just, has positive orientation of radiuses of a meniscus, but has no parasitic flare as instead of a lens of Manzhena, the usual convex spherical mirror there is applied. Strange patent position Н.Н (see above) directs at the same conclusion, allowing with quiet conscience to write down in the archive any new working out and its obvious unwillingness to give the detailed information on work of the ward, absence at them scientific works on this theme, together with that P.P.Argunov hasn't informed me in the letter on the spent workings out (it clearly that they didn't represent for it anything new).
In both cases about any priority of workings out of Fashchevskogo N.N. on this system of a telescope and speech can't be.
J.A.Klevtsov
P.S. Aleksander! Many thanks for support.
For all telescopes of this series let out by us I will inform exact estimations of a photographic field of vision in the following letter in which also I will make some observations concerning advantages of these telescopes before their analogs which are available in the market.
J.A.Klevtsov
To pass to the list of articles