The Joy of Mirror Making Mel Bartels

The Joy of Mirror Making
Mel Bartels
Introduction
The telescope and the toolmaker.
Though our species isn't the only toolmaker on the planet, we have taken toolmaking to new heights. Stone tools go back 3.3 million years. Pounding,
scraping, knapping, grinding combined with fire, heat, melting leads us today to grinding telescope mirrors from glass.
Making a telescope mirror is one of the most satisfying sublime joys you will experience. It's also arguably the most accurate surface made by man or
machine. If the mirror is expanded to the size of a football field, then the mirrors surface will be smooth to 1/1000 inch or 1/30 millimeter! Our experience
begins with the varied sensations through the hands and sounds during grinding and carried through to the cerebral challenge of parabolizing the mirror to
perfectly reflect light. Our experience both ends and begins again with the mirror in a telescope to contemplate the mysteries of the universe and the
meaning of life.
Here is my 13 inch [33cm] f/3.0 meniscus plate glass mirror, 1 inch [2.5cm] thick, sagitta of 0.27 inches [7mm], ready for aluminum coating - Enjoying
pinpoint star images at the eyepiece (Oregon Star Party, 2011)
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
Compare mirror making to rock climbing.

MOYERS: What drew you to climbing?
HOUSTON: It's a beautiful thing to do. You're surrounded by beauty. No matter whether it's a storm, or a sunny day, or clouds, or not, the mountains are
simply beautiful. I just liked climbing. I like the feel of the rocks.
MOYERS: The feel of the rocks?
HOUSTON: Rock feels good, yes.
MOYERS: How? I mean, you're talking to somebody who doesn't climb.
HOUSTON: Well, rock climbing; you have a sense of the rock. Almost as though it were a living thing under your hands and you learn to explore... I've
never been a great climber. I'm just a competent climber and I know my limits. But I love getting out and doing it. [PBS,
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript350_full.html]
The Goal
This means that the mirror should focus the light as sharply as possible. We want the stars to be pinpoints in the eyepiece at our telescopes highest
powers, tight dots in our digital images and we want our planetary and lunar views to be richly detailed.
Youll test your telescope mirror at the eyepiece, finding any areas that are slightly high to polish down. Youll also test your mirror for smoothness using a
simple tester made from inexpensive easy to obtain materials.
Im purposefully side stepping discussions of the Rayleigh Criteria et al. Dont be sucked into the online whirlpools swirling around wave ratings,
secondary sizes, contrast, super polishing compounds, exotic testers and so on the list is endless. Too many amateur astronomers have too much time on
their hands waiting for clear skies, too many blather on about what they dont know, and very few have any real observing experience in good seeing
conditions with a variety of telescopes *and* have taken the time to separate the various factors that impact telescope performance.
Suffice to say that if you concentrate on producing a smooth mirror that focuses sharply and properly baffle your telescope for best contrast then youll
have a telescope that you can enjoy every night and will pass all the tests. A smooth mirror all the way to the edge: Ronchigrams of 13 inch [33cm] f/3.0
mirror, 100 lines per inch [4 lines per mm] grating
Reaching the Goal

To finish a project doing only the work necessary at each stage, it is useful to imagine the finished product and determine what needs to be done. This
betas an earlier stage that we can similarly treat. Eventually we reach the beginning of the project, with a clear path of dependencies or what needs to be
done in order to accomplish the stages.
The four milestones in reverse for completing a mirror are: parabolizing, polishing, fine grinding, and curve generation. Each stage depends on the previous
stage being completed correctly.
Here are the four steps in sequence
1.
2.
3.
4.
Generate the curve (rough grinding)

Smooth the curve (fine grinding)
Polish the surface (polishing)
Figure the mirror (parabolizing)
No matter how complicated and how many ins and outs you consider, never forget that mirror making boils down to these four essential steps. It need not
be that hard! It can get a lot of fun and be deeply satisfying!
Parabolizing
In order to make an indistinguishable from perfect star image, the mirror surface must be accurate to a small fraction of the wavelength of visible light. The
stage of adjusting the mirror surface to a paraboloidal shape by preferential polishing is called parabolizing. To begin this phase, the mirror surface should
be smooth and spherical.
Polishing
To achieve this preparatory to parabolizing stage, the mirror is polished to a shape that is smooth and spherical. The rate of glass removal during polishing
is exceedingly small. It could take fifty years of non-stop polishing to polish a flat piece of glass to within a wavelength of light of the desired mirror profile.
We need much strong action! Using silicon carbide grit, the curve can be achieved in hours, albeit with heavy damage to the mirror face by the grit
particles.
Polishing with a pliable material like pitch (first used by Isaac Newton three hundred years ago) results in a smoothly polished surface, accurate to a
wavelength of light or better, that is ready to begin parabolizing. The act of polishing is both a mechanical and a chemical process.
Oversized laps and turned edges
Mirrors are notorious for turned edges during polishing. Flash polishing after each stage in fine grinding shows an even edge, so the turned edge must occur
during polishing. Ive found that an oversized pitch lap controls turned edge. Oversized ratios can be up to 6:5, the so called magic oversize ratio that
automatically maintains a spherical shape at desired radius of curvature. Oversized laps have a long history. They were in use almost from the start of glass
mirrors and pitch tools. Brashear used them over a hundred years ago and professionals today use them (see Strong's Procedures in Experimental
Physics).
Oversized 14 inch [36cm] pitch lap for 13 inch mirror; note the micro-facetting in place of channels - Parabolizing the13 inch [33cm] f/3.0 mirror with
extremely long 'mirror on top' strokes
Fine grinding
A series of ever smaller grits are employed in order to repair the damage caused by rough grinding, ending with aluminum oxide which leaves much smaller
pits and few fractures compared to the silicon carbide. This stage is called fine grinding. I like to use three grit sizes, 220 silicon carbide, 500 silicon
carbide, and 9 micron aluminum oxide. Grit of a particular size comes with a wide distribution of particle sizes. Typical are 20% of particles that are twice
the stated size. Comparing particle sizes of 400 grit with 500 grit, the size ratio looks to be 4:5. But when looking at the 20% particle distribution, it is a
nearly identical 9:10 ratio. Consequently its wasteful to run through a long series of grit sizes, as commonly practiced: 220, 300, 400, 500, 600, 25
micron, 12 micron, 9 micron, and 5 micron aluminum oxides. The third and final grit that I use is 9 micron aluminum oxide. Ending with 9 micron instead of
5 or 3 micron reduces the chance of sticking on large blanks and controls scratching. Comparing 9 micron to 5 micron looks to be a nearly two times
reduction in glass pit depth, but looking at the 20% particle distribution, the reduction is only one-third.
I use plaster tools cast to the curved mirror with unglazed ceramic tiles glued to the face. Stroking the tool on top of the mirror, I rotate the mirror 30-45
degrees every fifteen minutes. This prevents astigmatism from occurring via print through from the mirror's backside. The frontside of the mirror can flex
more over areas where the mirror's backside is thinner. Flexing downward during polishing can result in less glass removal, resulting in a bump when the
polishing tool is removed. Mirror on top can also be used to avoid astigmatism, since the tool supports the mirror, but the grit seems to fall down between
the tiles requiring more grit and wets to complete.
6 inch [15cm] tiled tool
Rough Grinding
Unless the mirror comes pre-generated, the initial curve will have to be ground into the mirror. A ring tool of half the diameter of the mirror used on top of
the mirrors flat face with the coarsest grit will rapidly grind a spherical curve into the mirror.
Grinding a 6 inch [15cm] mirror to F/2.8 using a ring tool.
References
- Jeff Baldwin's telescope making pages http://www.jeffbaldwin.org/atm.htm
- Bell's The Telescope
- Richard Berrys Build Your Own Telescope
- Richard Berry and David Krieges The Dobsonian Telescope
- John Brashear's The Production of Optical Surfaces from Summarized Proceedings and a Directory of Members, 1871, http://tinyurl.com/pn3crhl
- Sam Browns All About Telescopes

- William J. Cooks The Best of Amateur Telescope Making Journal
- John Dobsons How and Why to Make a User-Friendly Sidewalk Telescope
- Myron Emersons Amateur Telescope Mirror Making
- GAP 47's machines summary
- David Harbours Understanding Foucault
- Albert Highnes Portable Newtonian Telescopes
- Neale E. Howards Standard Handbook for Telescope Making
- Albert G. Ingalls Amateur Telescope Making, Volumes 1-3
- Henry Kings The History of the Telescope
- Karine and Jean-Marc Lecleires A Manual for Amateur Telescope Makers
- Allyn J. Thompsons Making Your Own Telescope
- Allan Mackintoshs Advanced Telescope Making Techniques Optics, Advanced Telescope Making Techniques Mechanical
- Daniel Malacaras Optical Shop Testing
- George McHardie's Preparation of Mirrors for Astronomical Telescopes
- Robert Miller and Kenneth Wilsons Making and Enjoying Telescopes
- James Muirdens Beginners Guide to Astronomical Telescope Making
- Donald Osterbrocks Ritchey, Hale, and Big American Telescopes
- Henry Pauls Telescopes for Skygazing
- Robert Piekiels Testing and Evaluating the Optics of Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescopes, Making Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope Optics, ATMs Guide to
Setting up a Home Optics Shop, Tips for Making Optical Flats
- Norman Rembers Making a Refractor Telescope
- Sherman Shultz's The Macalaster Four-Goal System of Mirror Making and the Ronchi Test, Telescope Making #9
- John Strongs Procedures in Experimental Physics
- Scientific Americans The Amateur Astronomer
- H.R.Suiter's Star Testing Astronomical Telescopes
- Telescope Making magazine (no longer published)
- Jean Texereaus How to Make a Telescope
- Stephen J. Tonkins Amateur Telescope Making
- John Walleys Your Telescope, a Construction Manual
- Wilkins and Moore's How to Make and Use a Telescope
- Stellafane Amateur Telescope Making pages http://stellafane.org/stellafane-main/tm/atm/ (comprehensive collection of links to web articles)
- Advanced mirror makers who are also experienced observers
(end of introduction)
For more see
Rough Grinding
Fine Grinding
Polishing
Parabolizing
Star Testing

Mel Bartels
Fine Grinding
The goals of fine grinding are to prepare the curved mirror face so that it is ready for polishing and figuring and make any adjustments of the focal length.
Previously in rough grinding we deepened the center of the mirror's face either by grinding with coarse grit and a tool, slumping in a kiln over a mold, or
purchasing the glass pre-generated.
During fine grinding, we'll grind the mirror face against a tool with a series of ever finer grits. I like to use the fewest possible number of grit sizes, using
professional quality grits that are accurately sized. This gives me the best confidence that the mirror surface is free of major defects and can be quickly
polished in preparation for figuring.
The three grit sequence for fine grinding:
1. 220 silicon carbide grit
2. 500 silicon carbide grit
3. 9 micron aluminum oxide (MicroGrit WCA-9T or similar)
In microns, grit sizes are:
60-90 silicon carbide grit for rough grinding: 200 microns
220 silicon carbide grit for initial fine grinding: 60 microns (varies from 100 down to 20)
500 silicon carbide grit for smooth grinding: 20 microns (varies from 40 down to 10)
9 micron aluminum oxide for final grinding: 9 microns (varies from 15 down to 5)
Keep in mind that silicon carbide leaves pits about three times deeper than aluminum oxide.
Using more grit sizes is largely an exercise in wasting time. The difference in grit size between 400 and 500 grit is very little. Simply grinding a tad longer
with 500 grit means avoiding 400 grit completely. Also, professional quality grits are better sized, meaning that the percentage of abnormally large and
small particles is very small. Cheaper grits have a higher percentage of extra large and extra small particles. The anomalously large particles make the grit
act like a coarser grit and the anomalously smaller particles slow down the grinding action. The cleanup time between grits is significant. Everything must be
cleaned and cleaned again. Favor fewer cleanup changeovers between grits.
Keep in mind that the way that silicon carbide attacks glass. The sharp pointed edges of the silicon carbide particles chip away the glass as they are
caught, tumbling between mirror and tool. The glass sustains fracture damage up to a depth of three times the grit size.
By contrast, the aluminum oxide is a much gentler sliding of aluminum oxide particles in the shape of plates between the glass and tool. Using aluminum
oxide as the final grit size greatly speeds polishing time since there are no deep fractures.
I recommend making a separate fine grinding tool from plaster and tiles. Strive to make the tool the same size as the mirror. Tools larger than 20 inches are
difficult to lift gently onto the mirror face. Tools act roughly similar as long as they are at least 50% of the primary mirror diameter. Experiments during a
recent mirror making class show that there is a distinctly superior recipe to creating the tool. The recipe goes like this.
1. Use Hydrostone (a dental stone) or casting plaster, mixed with a power mixer, using the precise mixture of water to plaster. Use large measuring
cups. Hydrostone proved superior to casting plaster, concrete and other materials.
2. Place the mirror on its back, face up.
3. Cover the mirror face with thin kitchen plastic wrap.
4. Place the 1 inch square unglazed ceramic tiles, still in their webbing, either face up or face down onto the plastic. It's not necessary to chip every
edge tile to fit within the paper dam.
5. Make a thick paper dam around the edge of the mirror, taping it into place. 1 1/2 inches tall is fine for mirrors up to 12 inches in size; beyond that
make a 2 inch thick tool (large tools that are too thick are very heavy and dangerous near glass because it's too easy to drop it the short distance to
the glass, chipping the glass and ruining the blank).
6. Mix up the Hydrostone and pour onto the tiles without delay. The Hydrostone will flow into the spaces between tiles.
7. After a few minutes, the Hydrostone has set enough to remove the paper dam. It will feel warm and moist to the touch.
8. Slide the tool off the mirror.
9. Let the tool dry overnight.
Using 220 grit, begin fine grinding. The webbing will be quickly rubbed away. When it has disappeared, periodically use a metal or stone tool of your
choice to slightly open up the plaster channels between the tiles sufficient to allow air, grit and water to flow across the tool.
Two of Jerry Oltion's tiled tools. The first shows a tool immediately after it has cured enough to slide off the mirror face. The second shows a tool with
freshly opened channels between the tiles.
Here's how I made tiled tools. First, I place the webbed tiles face up against a plastic sheet. Then I pour in the Hydrostone obtained from local hardware
or ceramics store. Then I spend a few minutes grinding it into shape with 220 grit.The tool does not have to be pristinely perfect.
Beveling a mirror is critical to avoid small chips and flaking at the mirror's edge. A rounded bevel can help prevent scratches streaking in from the edge
with very fine aluminum oxide in the final stages that are caused by particles clumping together. I like to maintain a 1/10 inch [2.5mm] bevel. A diamond
belt or cloth will round the mirror edge in minutes; a wetstone will take longer. Stroke down and across to avoid lifting flakes off the mirror's face. Use
water if necessary. Renew the bevel periodically if it becomes too small.
Beveling the tool's tiles is not necessary - sharply angled tile edges do not break off and cause scratches. Instead, sources of scratches include:
1. Anomalously large grit particles that are not broken down in the initial strokes by reduced pressure (holding the tool up in such a way to reduce its
weight on the mirror) and cautious strokes (if a scritching sound is heard, movement must be stopped immediately and the tool lifted straight up,
followed by a washing of the mirror and tool and a new charge of grit).
2. Continuing a wet too long which leaves broken down grit particles.
3. Letting the wet dry out causing part of the tool to be pulled in against the mirror and which can cause grit particles to clump together, acting like a
much larger particle.
4. Too fast of stroke which can plow the edge of the tool into the mirror and cause grit particles to pile up against each other.
5. Flexing of thin mirror or tool resulting in the tool's edge being forced into the mirror's surface.
6. Too thick of mixture, causing clumping.
7. Too thin or watery of mixture, allowing the tool's edge to ride into the mirror's surface.
8. Abrupt starting and stopping of the grinding strokes.
9. Contamination, either a previous grit not being washed out of the tool or washed away from the mirror's edge, or a previous grit being drug onto the
mirror's face by your shirt sleeve or hands, or debris being knocked down from the ceiling or even dust in the air (I've seen the former, experienced
the latter).
10. Bad grit.
11. Forgetting to remove your wedding ring, scratching the mirror's surface when you mix up the grit and water with your fingers.
12. Dirty or contaminated water or water bottle.
13. A tile getting lose, often caused by dropping the tool onto the mirror.
14. Pausing the tool's motion on the mirror where the grit compound can dry out and clump up.
15. Too sharp of mirror edge, resulting in glass flakes breaking off and getting caught between tool and mirror.
16. Tool warping.
Scratches are hard to come by with 220 silicon carbide grit; they are very easy with the finer 9 micron aluminum oxide.
Fine grinding is done with tool on top (TOT). The grit lasts longer because it's not pushed down into the channels. Grinding also proceeds quicker because
the tool spends more time working the mirror's edge, where most of the glass is located and where pits tend to grind out last.
Tool on top tends to lengthen the radius of curvature while mirror on top tends to shorten the radius of curvature. The sagitta should be checked every
hour.
Initially the mirror may not be that spherical as it emerges from rough grinding, or has been slumped. If it's been generated, then it can be counted to be
spherical; only the generating marks need be removed. Depending on the mirror shape after rough grinding, the sagitta may undergo unexpected leaps,
either deeper or shallower as the mirror is brought to a spherical shape. Once the mirror becomes spherical, the sagitta can be adjusted by prolonged TOT
or MOT with 220 grit. Remember that TOT will lengthen the focal length and MOT will shorten the focal length.
If the sagitta is far from desired, a return to rough grinding is indicated. If that's not practical, then 120 grit or even 80 grit can be used. The tiles will grind
down if pursued too long, resulting in the need for a second layer of tiles to be glued on top of the thinned tiles. The new layer of tiles will need to be
ground to shape with an hour to several hours of 220 grit, depending on glass size and type.
Run each grit size for about two hours; longer for large mirrors larger than 12 inches diameter.
A fine grinding session is called a 'wet' and runs five to ten minutes long. Start with a thoroughly washed mirror and tool, placing the mirror on the bottom.
Make sure the mirror's face is clean and dried. Sprinkle some grit on the surface. You will quickly see how much grit is necessary: too much results in lots
of grit being pushed off the mirror's edge, too little results in the wet ending prematurely. Using a water bottle add an equal volume of water. Again, you
will quickly gauge how much water to add: too little results in a sluggish muddy mess, too much results in the wet ending prematurely and possible
scratching. Using your fingers, mix up the grit and water mixture, spreading it thinly across the mirror face. Gently lower the tool on top, and holding the
tool upward such that there is as little pressure as possible, gingerly move the tool in a few slow strokes, listening carefully for any scratching sounds. If
they are heard, remove the tool, wash the tool and mirror and start over. After a half dozen short stokes, relax the upward pressure and commence with
the intended strokes. As the mixture thins and dries out, spritz a few drops of water and continue. Eventually, the sound level will drop off indicating that
the grit particles are exhausted, broken down in a muddy mixture. Lift the tool off. Wash, dry and begin a new wet.
Stroke the tool across the mirror face, going past the mirror edge about 1/6 the tool's diameter. Vary a little bit from side to side (no more than 1/10 the
tool's diameter). Take ten or so strokes, then take a step to the right, spin the tool a partial turn clockwise, and continue stroking. It's important to keep the
tool moving at all times - don't let it pause on top of the mirror, especially with finer grits because it can seize. Placing the water bottle on top of the tool is
a good way to ensure smooth tool action. Don't rotate the tool during the strokes. Don't press down on the tool any more than is necessary to grip it.
Keep your hands spread out across the middle of the tool; avoiding pressing down on the tool's edge. From time to time, swirl the tool to evenly distribute
the grit and water mixture. After a few minutes, add a couple of drops of water to prevent drying. The tool and mirror can suddenly seize together if the
grit becomes too dry and thin. Adding a dash of water also clears the "mud" or broken down grit. Don't go for too long and let the mixture become too
thin. This also carries a high risk of sudden seizing. Swirl the tool by spinning it (not too fast!) clockwise while making figure eights across the mirror's face.
After every wet, rotate the mirror clockwise about 30 degrees.
This is called, "walking the barrel". If you can't walk entirely around the mirror, then work from a counter corner, walking 90 degrees before rotating tool.
Vary a little bit the stroke length and step size and spin of the tool along with spin of the mirror. This variation is not random: in fact it is very regular.
Random would be using the throw of a die to determine stroke length, step size and so forth. It is this regularity that drives the tool and mirror to spherical
shapes. A truly random approach results in a 'random walk' towards an astigmatic, non-spheroidal figure. It is this regularity that is the key to avoiding
astigmatism, particularly in large thin mirrors.
Supporting the mirror in order to avoid astigmatism is a particular concern. Options include:
1. Blocking pitch. This is very hard pitch, produced in half inch thick by 2 inch square squares, stuck onto a rigid base such as a granite block. The
mirror is allowed to settle onto the pitch over several days. Once the mirror is evenly supported, it is never moved from the pitch until figuring is
finished.
2. Soft cloth like a bed sheet. Use cleats to keep the mirror from sliding more than 1/8 inch. Rotate the mirror 15-30 degrees once or two every wet.
This is the approach I've used for many years.
3. Rubber non-stick pads, found in the kitchen section of big box stores. Not suitable for very thin work. Rotate as above.
The mirror back must be flat, or at least regular in shape. Grind a few minutes with 220 grit and inspect for low unground spots. Grind until they disappear.
It's OK for the back to be ever so slightly spherical.
For large thin blanks, check the wedge. Wedge is the difference in thickness from one side of the blank to the other. Take a series of measurements
around the mirror's edge, using a permanent marker pen to write the results on the mirror back. Preferentially grind the mirror back where the wedge is too
thick. Then re-grind the mirror back flat. Measure again and repeat until the wedge has disappeared. Wedge can cause astigmatism; the thinner side of the
blank flexes more and adopts a different radius of curvature. I keep wedge under 0.002 inch.
Plan to spend two to three hours per grit size. This is a relatively constant time regardless of size of mirror, as long as the tool is as large as the mirror.
Using a magnifying lens, mark the largest pit you can find by circling it from the back side of the mirror using a permanent marker. Grind until it's gone.
Once again, mark the largest pit. Eventually you'll notice that no large pits are to be found, just slightly larger and smaller pits. Circle the largest to remove
for the next grit size. Plate glass grinds a third quicker than Pyrex but can show more damage than Pyrex if the fine grinding tool is pressed too hard while
grinding.
When you finish the 9 micron aluminum oxide, the mirror will be ready for polishing and subsequent parabolizing.
6 inch [15cm] fine ground and a 10.5 inch [27cm] fine ground, reading for polishing and parabolizing.
(end of fine grinding)

For more see
Introduction
Rough Grinding
Polishing
Parabolizing
Polishing
Star Testing

Mel Bartels
Polishing
Polishing a mirror is one of the great joys you will experience as a maker and builder. It's also arguably
the most accurate surface made by man or machine. If the mirror is expanded to the size of a football
field, then the mirrors surface will be smooth to 1/1000 inch or 1/30 millimeter! Polishing a 10.5 inch
[27cm] F/2.7 plate glass meniscus shaped mirror.
T he Goal
The goal of polishing is simple: polish out all the tiny pits that remain from fine grinding, ending with a
smooth spherical mirror surface ready to parabolize. Y ou will use a laser pointer to look for any remaining
pits and a Ronchi tester to look for a smooth mirror profile.
What is Polishing?
Polishing is a mechanical chemical process where glass is chemically sheared by the polishing compound
after being softened by water. Its most important to come to grips with the factors that influence
polishing, namely pressure, velocity and polishing agent. Polishing is proportional to time (the more time
spent, the deeper the polish), pressure (press harder to polish faster), speed (stroke faster to polish
faster) and type and amount of polishing compound (cerium oxide is faster than rouge). Of course, too
fast of polishing results in sub-optimal results. See chemical mechanical polishing
Materials Needed
Pitch is used today to polish amateur telescope mirrors, though any soft material will work to some
degree such as felt, paper and even plastic. Pitch was first used by Isaac Newton three hundred years
ago. Polishing compound is either cerium oxide or rouge, the former being much easier to work with
though currently expensive thanks to global political-economic factors. Occasionally you will hear of super
polishing agents. Y ou dont need them.
The greatest impact on mirror surface quality is your technique: heavy smooth slow strokes with the
mirror across the pitch lap after achieving perfect contact between glass and pitch, keeping the pitch lap
wet with a drop of dishwashing detergent and the optimum dilution of the polishing compound.
I like Gugolz pitch because it maintains the desired viscosity over a wide range of temperatures. Acculap,
a synthetic pitch, is very clean and easy to work, though the range of temperature that it works best in is
narrower in my experience. Gugolz pitch comes in various viscosities. Pick the variety that is just below
your shop temperature. I use #55 in my workshop which typically runs 60-65F [16-18C].
Making the Pitch Lap
I make my polishing tools from high quality plywood like ApplePly. My 7 inch [18cm] lap is made from a
single thickness of 3/4 inch [2cm] plywood. The 11 inch [28cm] lap is made from three layers of plywood.
Scale accordingly. Note the thin veneer layer on top because these two mirrors happen to be very fast
and deep, F/2.7-2.8. It's important to keep the pitch approximately the same thickness from center to
edge because thinner pitch acts harder and thicker pitch acts softer. If your sagitta is 1/8 inch [3mm] or
less then don't worry about this extra step.
I make my laps slightly oversized. This is a practice that goes way back to at least the start of glass
mirrors and pitch tools. Brashear used oversized laps over a hundred years ago. Professionals use them
today (see Strong's Procedures in Experimental Physics). The 7 inch [18cm] lap is for a 6 inch [15cm]
mirror, the 11 inch [28cm] lap for a 10.5 inch [27cm] mirror. My experience is that any lap size can be
made to work. However, laps that are exactly the same size as the mirror with the pitch trimmed back
1/8 to 1/4 inch [3 to 6mm] can result in frustrating turned down edges. That's because this outer strip at
the edge receives less polish (the polishing tool is slightly undersized) and lags behind the ever
shortening radius of curvature or focal length of the mirror. Most amateur techniques tend to reduce the
focal length by a fraction of an inch, a few mm. One observation that supports this is that most amateur
mirrors polish from the center outward.
Knowing that the pitch's edge will be trimmed back, make the pitch tool slightly larger so that the
mirror's face is completely in contact from far edge to near edge. I like to make my laps a bit more
oversized: this gives me more control over the edge. Mirror makers from centuries ago knew that the
magic ratio of 6:5 meant that the mirror would not change focal length and that the mirror would polish
evenly from center to edge. However, an oversized tool this big can be awkward to press, so I
compromise.
Pouring and Shaping the Lap

The whole process takes maybe 15 minutes and goes quickly and smoothly. W ith a little practice you will
be making great pitch laps. The first time or two and the occasional bad day can be difficult. I've
accidently poured pitch onto the floor, filled the kitchen with pitch aroma, ruined good clothes, burned my
fingers, dropped the pitch lap (of course they always land upside down on their face) and otherwise
messed up. Power through these bad days - don't give up easily.
Get a hot plate with a clean old pan to melt the pitch.
Tape up the sides of the tool with masking tape (survives the hot pitch the best) and pour the pitch. Pour
the pitch as soon as it is pourable. Don't wait until it is smoking hot and as slippery as water. Here's a 7
inch [18cm] lap moments after pouring. Y ou can see a few bubbles slowly rising to the top.
How thick should the pitch be poured? I like 1/4 to 3/8 inch [1cm]. Thicker and the pitch acts softer;
thinner and the pitch acts harder. Use this fact to deal with pitch that will be too hard or soft otherwise.
Here is an image of the 7 inch [18cm] diameter lap, poured to the recommended thickness.
T hat Magic Moment When the Pitch is Just Right
Have a spray bottle filled with water and a few drops of dishwashing detergent. Test the pitch by
pressing on the masking tape sides. W hen the pitch becomes stiff enough to not pour off the tool's edge,
rip the masking tape off with quick decisive pulls parallel to the edge of the tool. Spray the lap and soak
your fingers. Using your fingers, take a few seconds to shape the lap as needed: keeping the edge up in
place and squeezing a bit of pitch towards the center (if you have a deep sagitta).
Here's a 7 inch [18cm] that's been finger shaped. Remember to keep your fingers wet! Hot pitch sticking
to your fingers cannot be quickly removed and will burn.
Quickly take a long piece metal or wood, soak it with soapy spray and press in a couple of channels for
the air to escape when the mirror is first pressed on the lap. Here's the 7 inch [18cm] lap and the 11 inch
[28cm] lap. Larger laps benefit from more channeling.
Now soap up the mirror's face very liberally and press it on the lap, at first using just the mirror's weight
then later pressing down hard with your hands. Press to gain contact as you can and when contact slows,
slide off the mirror, re-channel the lap and press the mirror on again. A couple three of these cycles
should result in full contact. Here are the same two laps after being pressed into full contact. W hen
working an oversized lap, move the mirror around every few seconds as you can see in the second image.
Aim to achieve full contact about the time the pitch becomes too stiff to work.
Now, pour cold water over the lap to stiffen the pitch so as to maintain its shape. After several minutes
you can micro-facet the lap by an X-Acto knife cutting across the surface at an angle while under water or
under a water spray (this to contain flying pitch pieces, which can become very messy and difficult to
remove later).
The result is a micro-facetted polishing lap ready to go. Here are 7 inch [17cm], 11 inch [28cm] and 14.5
inch [37cm] laps (two images). Note that one of the laps is missing contact in the center. This is not an
issue: laps can be fairly irregular in contact and still do their job.
Mirror on T op or T ool on T op?

Having done both for many mirrors, I prefer Mirror on Top (MOT). The polishing agent lasts longer
because it sits in the channels and microfacets, the chance of scratching is greatly decreased because the
offending particle sinks into the pitch almost immediately, it is easier to obtain a smooth hard drag when
polishing and the mirror is naturally supported on the pitch lap (an elaborate mirror support is not
needed).
The largest full sized tool I've made is a 30 inch [76cm], so it is possible to make very large pitch laps if
necessary. Our predecessors used very large grinding and polishing tools to ensure a regular astigmaticfree surface.
Here are some large laps that I have made in years past. First, an early fiberglass encased plaster 30
inch [76cm] lap, then a later wooden 30 inch [76cm] lap, and finally a very large lap.
T he I nitial Flash Polish

Mix the cerium oxide with water in a 1:10 ratio in a little squeezable pour bottle.
W arm the pitch lap's surface with hot water for a minute and press the pitch lap into shape by squirting a
couple of shots of cerium oxide mixture and a couple of sprays of soapy water. It should look like this
Polish for 15 minutes to gain an initial shine.

Press hard and slowly stroke the mirror back and forth with 1/6 overhang on the far edge and the
overhang on the near edge: the stroke overall should be about 1/3 the diameter of the mirror. Do not
swing the mirror much side by side, sometimes called a 'W ' stroke; instead keep the stroke more like "|".
Each stroke should take about a second. Y ou should feel an even heavy drag. If the mirror skips or sticks
then the lap needs to be pressed better into shape.
Make a half dozen strokes, then rotate the upper piece clockwise a bit and step around the bottom piece
counter-clockwise a bit. Repeat. Add a bit of spray water if the lap begins to dry. The bubbles in the
slightly soapy water (don't over-soap at this point) should keep the lap moist for 10-20 minutes.
Here are the 6 inch [15cm] and 10.5 inch [27cm] mirrors flash polished. Note that the center of the
mirrors are not as shiny as the edge. The test here is that there are no areas or zones of the mirror that
do not have some polish. If this should ever be the case, polish for another 15 minutes and try again. If
still zones show no polish, then consult an expert. It could be that fine grinding did not finish properly or
that there is a problem with your polishing technique.
Do an initial Ronchigram test to verify that the bands are fairly straight without extreme curving at the
edge. Note that you can see the centers' relatively less polish. These curves are called oblate spheroids
where the center and edge are low and the 80-90% zone is high. This is a common outcome of fine
grinding and can be straightened up an half an hour to hour of shorter (1/4 long) strokes without any
side swing. See the third image (note the turned edge that is 1/16 inch [1mm] wide. Straight Ronchi
bands indicate a spherical surface.
Standard Work
Place the tool on a soft surface. I use non-stick mats meant for the kitchen.
Stroke the mirror on top back and forth with strokes that overall are one-third the diameter of the mirror.
Vary them very slightly side to side. Make the strokes very regular - try not to vary them. Take six
strokes (as pictured) then rotate the mirror on top clockwise 30-45 degrees or a twelfth to eight of a turn.
At the same time take a step to your right or counterclockwise.
Mirror makers have a difficult time with stroke length. Mark the desired start and end points on the back
of the mirror. Place masking tape on the work area to mark the length of the strokes. Most people over
stroke.This can lead to edge problems.
Try to stop facing your work area in the same orientation that you started. If you cannot walk all the way
around, then simulate these motions as best as you can.
Stroke the mirror on top back and forth with a heavy smooth motion that gives you lots of drag. Each
stroke should take a second or two, so not so fast. Make all your work as regular as possible.
Dont fall for nonsense about random motion. First of all, you cannot produce random motion. Y ou might
be able to move erratically or irregularly, but thats not random. Random motion or too much erratic
motion can cause astigmatism in larger thinner mirrors. Lastly, professionals and some amateurs use
machines. The machine motion is very regular. Machine results are consistent and very good.
Use a cerium oxide to water ratio of 1:10. Add a droplet of dishwashing soap to help combat evaporation.
After about ten minutes the mixture will be thin. Stop momentarily to squirt a couple more modest
squeezes of the cerium oxide and water polishing compound onto the tool. Be sure to shake the squeeze
bottle every time, thoroughly mixing the cerium oxide, which can settle fairly quickly to the bottom of the
bottle. I keep my bottle lying on its side this orientation makes for easier and quicker mixing.
After 30 minutes the microfacetting may be pressed out and need to be renewed. Use an X-Acto knife
under cold running water and renew the microfacets by scratching the knife across the lap holding the
knife at an angle. Make cuts at several orientations. W ash off thoroughly and continue with polishing.
W arning: this can make quite the mess. I do it outside in a clean area away from dust and breeze and let
the pitch fragments melt naturally into the ground. Try to do an hour each session. Y ou'll become tired.
Here's what the standard stroke looks like with the blue mirror over the tan-gray lap.
Here's hand placement for small and medium sized mirrors. Try to keep your fingers from curling over the
edges. This does not promote even heavy pressure across the entire stroke and can heat the edge of the
mirror while polishing, resulting in a turned edge. Squirt a drop of water on your hands so that they will
stick to the back of the mirror.
Here's what the lap looks like after squirting some cerium oxide polishing compound mixture onto the
lap.Note the hint of soap water spray.
Most Common Polishing Mistakes
- Not understanding that polishing is all about removing pits left from fine grinding
- Not judging that precise moment when the temperature of the pitch is best for channeling and pressing
- Not enough pressure
- Stroking too fast
- Adding polishing compound at precisely the wrong time
- Not maintaining a consistent but slightly varying pattern of rotation of both tool and mirror
- Glancing at the figure before polishing is done - forgetting that the goal is solely to remove fine
grinding pits
Determining w hen is Polishing Done
For an hour or two you'll see haze if carefully held up to a bright light at an angle. Eventually the haze
disappears. But the glass is not fully polished. Use the laser pointer test as illustrated. See the red
speckly streak a short distance in front of the laser pointer? Those are pits that have not been fully
polished out. It will take two to four hours more of polishing to get a nearly invisible laser pointer
reflection.
How Much Glass is Removed?
Each stroke removes several SiO2 molecules from the mirror's surface (about one nanometer or 10
angstroms). One solid trip around the barrel can affect a zone by 1/10 wavefront (50 nanometers or 100
angstroms).
Polishing Problems
- Mirror polishes strongly from center outward. If mirror on top then strokes are too long. Also possible is
that fine grinding strokes were too long.
- Edge refuses to polish out. Fine grinding incomplete or poorly sized, poor quality final grits.
- Polishing taking too long. Not enough pressure. Strokes too fast. Incomplete fine grinding.
- Scratches. Poor quality polishing compound. Dusty work area. Scratches from fine grinding. No bevel.
T urned Dow n Edge
The extreme edge of the mirror can sharply turn or fall away. A turned edge is 1/32 to 1/8 inch wide [13mm]. W ider edge problems are called 'rolled edge' because the mirror's edge rolls away gradually over a
wider width.
Here is a plate glass 10.5 inch [27cm] mirror with a 1/16 inch [1mm] wide turned edge that after an hour
of effort is not going away.
TDE can be caused by incomplete fine grinding. Fine grinding often completes from center to edge. If not
enough time is allowed per grit size then larger pits may remain at the very edge.
TDE is most often caused by polishing with pitch laps that are somewhat undersized. The extreme edge
of the mirror simply does not get the same polishing time as the rest of the mirror. Since amateur
polishing typically drives the mirror to a very slightly shorter radius of curvature or focal length, the
extreme edge will lag behind, staying at the longer focal length and appear turned. Also keep in mind
that plate glass is more suspectible to TDE.
Fix a turned edge by either:
Mirror on top and using short strokes of no more than one-fourth the diameter of the mirror executed
directly over the center of the tool (in other words, with no side to side motion).
Or tool on top using short strokes with some side to side swing so that the edge of the pitch lap goes
out over the edge of the mirror by an inch [3cm] or so.
Or try a rectangular pitch lap 1x2 inches [2.5x5cm] for smaller mirrors, 2x4 inches [5x10cm] for larger
mirrors, with elliptical strokes parallel to the edge.
Both of these approaches gradually lengthen the mirrors radius of curvature, bringing it closer to the
extreme edges longer radius of curvature. Do this for 30 minutes and inspect the results. If getting
better then continue as long as you have patience.
If after a reasonable effort TDE remains then it is time to be rational and move on. The TDE can be
masked off with a retaining ring in the mirror mounting or can be ground off by increasing the bevel. The
retaining ring is a good idea anyhow because it restrains the mirror with minimum diffraction or
degradation to the image, unlike mirror clips that generate diffraction. In fact, one of the great telescope
making companies of all time, Cave-Astrola, used retaining rings. The amount of glass lost is 1-2%, an
amount that is completely unnoticeable at the eyepiece. Professionals have quoted twice the price for
mirrors good to the extreme edge. For twice the price or twice the effort, one can make a larger mirror.
Consider a 20.5 inch [52cm] mirror masked to 20 inches [51cm]. For twice the effort you can make the
20.5 inch [52cm] mirror good to the edge or make a 24.5 inch [62cm] mirror masked to 24 inches [61cm].
There is also a misconception that TDE scatters veiling light across the field of view. All light obeys law
of diffraction - light from edge doesn't get a vacation. The light from the edge is not any different than
light from center, in fact, it's the wave front of the incoming light being reflected by the wave front of the
mirror that forms an image described by the laws of diffraction. Light from the edge consequently doesn't
'smear' outside of the airy disk and diffraction rings - it contributes to it. It is magical thinking says that
turned edge smears light - this is a straightforward claim to test - mask off edge and try again, sweeping
Moon into field of view and looking for stray light - you'll find no discernible difference. Depending on the
test, mirror makers may have different fear factors - in the Foucault test it is hard to determine depth of
turned edge so people who rely on it are overly fearful of turned edge. In conclusion, a turned edge is no
different than a zonal error or surface roughness or over/under parabolization - they are all to be avoided,
but they all occur to some degree and unless extreme, are not fatalistic or normally detectable; my
experience from testing hundreds of telescopes over decades is that every single mirror (except perhaps a
handful) has discernible defects, the defects in the best mirrors have no detectable impact on the image,
the defects in the average mirror has slight impact on the image, certainly outweighed by the myriad of
issues that accompany telescope use.
Astigmatism
This can be a huge problem with larger thinner mirrors. If you follow standard technique and keep the fine
grinding and polishing actions regular, place the lower piece on a flexible mat, rotate it regularly, then
astigmatism should not be a problem.
The star test or an interferometry test is customarily used to reveal any astigmatism. I've used the
Ronchi test to not only reveal gross astigmatism but to quickly find the orientation of the saddle shape.
Placing the Ronchi grating outside of the radius of curvature, bands that strongly curve one way on top
and curve the other way on the bottom indicate the low portions of the saddle; bands that do not curve
irregularly indicate the high portion of the saddle.
If your mirror has it, then make a considered guess as to the cause before continuing, otherwise the
astigmatism may return after it has been removed. Causes include failing to pad and rotate the mirror
when face up, the mirror's back not being a regular surface (flat or sphere), and wedge (one side of the
mirror being thicker than the other) and bad glass.
There are two fixes. The first is returning to 220 grit. Grind the back regular and remove wedge if needed.
Then after grinding the mirror face with 220 grit, cleanup thoroughly and flash polish by polishing for 15
minutes. Don't go onto finer grits until the astigmatism is gone. The second is to identify the saddle
orientation, and using a sub-diameter lap, locally polish the ends of the saddle. It's not necessary to
polish the center of the saddle. If the astigmatism cannot be removed then test the glass for strain or
consult an advanced mirror maker.
Ronchi T ester
The Ronchi tester is easy and inexpensive to make. It reveals turned edge and overall smoothness. In
the hands of an experienced practitioner it can be used to parabolize mirrors very accurately. For example
I have parabolized a 30 inch [76cm] F/4, a 20 inch [51cm] F/5 and a 13.2 inch [34cm] F/3.0 mirror using
the Ronchi tester pictured and my open source software (now online - see below). Y ou are welcome to
star test any of my scopes at the next star party that I attend and judge the results for yourself.
The tester consists of a light source that goes through one part of the Ronchi grating. Y ou look through
the other part of the grating. Y ou can obtain gratings from a couple of sources.
I prop the mirror safely then place the Ronchi tester at the radius of curvature which is twice the focal
length. I move the Ronchi tester up and down and left and right until I get the reflected image. I then
move the Ronchi tester in and out until the reflected image is as large as possible. At this point I see
bands so I adjust the Ronchi tester's position slightly. I use a music stand to hold the Ronchi tester.
Here is the Ronchi tester I built decades ago. It's been dropped and broken several times by me and
students and glued back together each time. Pictured is a 2 inch square [5cm] 100 lines per inch [4 lines
per mm] glass grating.
Here is the URL to my online Ronchi testing program. Ronchi

Later on in parabolizing we will consider other tests. It is a false dichotomy to claim that you should only
use a single best test for polishing and parabolizing telescope mirrors. The reality is that you are better
off using at least two tests (think of the Hubble optics calamity where they ignored the results of a
second tester). For polishing and initial parabolizing, the Ronchi tester is the quickest test to run.
Prepping for Parabolizing
W hen is the polishing stage finished? W hen are we ready to begin parabolizing? This is an important
stage that if skipped over can set up parabolization for failure.
The mirror must be fully polished. Any turned edge should be minimized. And the Ronchi bands should be
as straight as possible (it is acceptable if the bands bow slightly outward towards the center if inside the
radius of curvature) . To straighten the bands, adopt a stroke with no side swing (no W action to the
stroke). Straight bands mean a spherical mirror surface. Try this for 30 minutes then inspect the results.
Y ou may need to lengthen or shorten the stroke. Continue as needed.
Here's the 10.5 inch [27cm] F/2.7 plate glass mirror pictured earlier ready for parabolizing: it is fully
polished out, the edge is as good as it is going to be and the Ronchi bands are straight (the mirror is
part of a perfect sphere).
(end of polishing)
For more see
Introduction
Rough Grinding
Fine Grinding
Parabolizing
Star Testing
The Joy of Mirror Making: Parabolizing

by Mel Bartels
What's parabolizing?
Testing The paraboloid...
Control and variation...
Sub-diameter and oversized laps...
The four parabolization methods using full sized tools...
Parabolizing sessions and polishing speed...
My parabolization process...
The Ronchi and star test tandem...
The Ronchi test...
Star testing...
Fixing common maladies...
How to know you are finished...
Some final words: a journey ends, another begins...
References...
What's parabolizing?
T he Goal
The goal of parabolizing is to produce a mirror that focuses perfectly at the highest powers with no scattered light.
Our mirror must meet these two criteria:
1. The wavefront at the eyepiece cannot vary peak to valley more than 1/4 wave of green light and should be much less than this over much of the
wavefront. Don't forget to halve this when talking about the mirror's surface. This is the total deviation or Danjon-Couder condition #2.
2. The mirror's surface must be very smooth with fine scale deviation less than 1/60 wave. This is the slope criteria, Milles-Lacroix tornado or
Danjon-Couder condition #1.
That calls for the mirror's surface to be accurate to about two-millionths of an inch, or one-twentieth of a micron (0.05 microns). The mirror's
surface is carefully polished to achieve the required accuracy. Because math is often employed, this is also called 'figuring'.
Thanks to interference, perfectly focused light forms an Airy disk surrounded by rings of fainter brightness. If we meet these two criteria then our
star image will look essentially perfect. Failure to meet the two criteria means that the surrounding rings will be too bright, ruining resolution and
scattering light.
Every optical test devised rates mirrors on their ability to produce a perfectly focused mirror. The beauty of a telescope is that we can look through
the eyepiece and judge for ourselves.
The principal defect of a spherical mirror is called, 'spherical aberration'. Parabolizing a mirror means removing spherical aberration. Parabolizing is
an intensely satisfying intellectual endeavor, requiring some physical skill with a fair amount of patience and discipline. It is man the tool maker
at his finest. W ith simple test equipment, the mirror maker can resolve and remove errors in the mirror's surface to a millionth of an inch [0.025
microns], creating a surface so large, smooth and precise that the light of astronomical objects from across the universe can be seen.
"O telescope, instrument of knowledge, more precious than any sceptre." - Johannes Kepler
"I have tried to improve telescopes and practiced continually to see with them. These instruments have play'd me so many tricks that I have at
last found them out in many of their humours." - Sir W illiam Herschel
Spherical Aberration
Every mirror maker should grind and polish out 4 inch [10cm] F/10 and 10 inch [25cm] F/4 mirrors. Before parabolizing, mount them in a temporary
structure propped up on a chair aimed at Polaris or best possible in the southern hemisphere. Try to bring a star image to focus.
At the radius of curvature the light emanates from the tester and is focused back by a spherical mirror onto the tester - thus the straight Ronchi
bands. But light coming from infinity focuses at half the radius of curvature's distance. This distance is the focal length of the mirror.
The 4 inch [[10cm] F/10 mirror focuses nicely with only the slightest hint of spherical aberration. But a 10 inch [25cm] F/4 will be a disaster. If you
attempt to focus the central portion of the mirror then the edge zones throws light way out in a giant disc. If you attempt the focus the edge
portion of the mirror then the center zone throws light way out in a giant disc. This is very ugly and will give you an appreciation of the importance
of parabolizing particularly if the mirror is large or fast.
Y ou will no doubt note that the center focuses outward compared to the edge. This is extreme spherical aberration. W e say that the center is high
and the edge is low. Here is the above graphic greatly enlarged illustrating the mirror zones' different foci. Pictured is a 10 inch [25cm] F/4 mirror
where the difference between central zone focus and edge zone focus is 1/6 inch [4mm].
If the mirror's curve is deepened from a sphere to a parabola then the light focuses perfectly, limited only by diffraction. The amount of glass to be
removed is a few millionths of an inch. The formula is r^4/(8R^3) (r=mirror radius, R=radius of curvature). For a 6" F/8, it is one hundred
thousandths of an inch or about 1/2 wavelength of light. It is amazing that testing at the eyepiece or testers built from common inexpensive
materials can test to a millionth of an inch. W ant to know how much glass to remove?
Parabolizing Calculator
Mirror diameter 6
Focal ratio 8
Calculate Difference
Testing The paraboloid...

T he Uphill Climb
It's easy to casually test a mirror to a half wave. It's much harder to critically test to a tenth wave. Mirror testing is one of those vast fields where
the more you learn the less you realize you know. Malacara's "Optical Shop Testing" is an indispensible reference. Y et a few realities shine through
the fog.
Separating reality from fog is learning what you do not know. There is more illusion in what you see and more reality in what you do not see. At
first you observe that a parabolizing stroke has a certain effect. But this effect is dependent on so many hidden variables or contexts. As the
stroke is repeated in different settings with different mirrors of different focal ratios with different pitch hardness with different ambient
temperature and humidity and different polishing compound and different dilution with different pressure and speed and a whole host of factors,
you observe a variety of effects. As you observe each of these effects, they then spin off into sub-universes of downstream variables or contexts.
This is the beginning of mirror making wisdom.
W isdom in mirror making is not learned; it is absorbed by constant observation and thought over a long period of time. Luckily for the first time
mirror maker, the joy of taking the first step is as powerful as the joy in taking the next step. Above all, take the steps; walk forward - observe
and learn. Y ou are making arguably the finest surface possible by man or machine. It's an intrinsically personal journey that you will find
necessarily frustrating yet ultimately deeply satisfying.
The diameter and speed of the mirror matter a great deal. A 6 inch [15cm] F/9 is very different from a 12 inch [30cm] F/5; a 24 inch [61cm] F/4 is
a beast of another stripe. A test that works quite well for the former may run into trouble for the latter. Attitude matters. Brash, quick to judge,
seeing what you want to see, leads to a poor mirror. Cautious, doubting, quiet, thoughtful, looking for defects, testing again and again - this
leads to a quality mirror. As the mirror improves, the reality of its quality, of its profile, will shine through the noise in a shy and relentless
manner.
W hile I did a great deal of long exposure cold camera astrophotography and eyepiece projection photography and later on was an early CCD
imager, my consistent interest has been observing. I enjoy planetary viewing but most of all I cannot get enough of widest angle largest aperture
deep space observing. Consequently I've tended towards large aperture, fast scopes. The tests I use and my experience with them are slanted
towards large thin fast mirrors.
Foucault T est
As with most mirror makers, I started with the Foucault test. The Foucault test enabled me to achieve satisfactory to good mirrors. But I ran into
limitations on larger faster mirrors. The edge and center zones are difficult to judge. I could see this instantly in the Star Test, a test I was
learning from the old masters. After all, before Foucault invented his test (we use it differently today), mirror makers were using the Star Test.
John Hadley and James Short in the 1700's gained reputations for figuring mirrors using the out of focus illumination pattern. This began my
journey using the Star Test to first judge, then parabolize mirrors.
Caustic T est
I began using the Poor Man's Caustic Test in order to achieve better zonal readings. To my surprise years later it was discovered that the math to
reduce the test readings was flawed when the zonal readings deviated from ideal. But how was I able to make mirrors for years? The answer lay
with how I began to approach tests that measure the mirror's slope at various zones and then reconstruct the mirror's surface profile. I abandoned
the concept that there is any acceptable tolerance in the zonal readings. Each zone must read perfectly. I discovered early on that any error in the
Foucault/Caustic zonal readings meant a very real error at highest powers using the Star Test, an error often worse than anticipated. The only
acceptable standard became that each zone had to read perfectly. But even that wasn't enough.
A mirror's surface has to be smooth. It cannot be wavy or what we call 'zonal', it can't have high zones and low zones. The surface should flow
smoothly from edge to center. Far better some smooth spherical aberration than a mirror with ripples. The old masters said this. Lord Rayleigh
said this. Many mirror makers say it. It cannot be overly emphasized.
Ronchi T est
But how to test for mirror smoothness? The Foucault knife-edge test can be used, but not zonal readings - they are too coarse and far apart.
About this time Sherman Schultz at Macalaster College in St Paul Minnesota was having tremendous success using the Ronchi test with his many
students. W ith the Ronchi test you can see the smoothness or lack thereof instantly. And it's a quick test to setup and execute, perfect for mirror
making classes.
But could it be used to critically judge spherical aberration? I tried the Mosby Null test where a compensating set of curved bands are used, but
found the registration difficult. I set up the task of comparing the curved Ronchi bands at a set of precise spacings to computer generated Ronchi
bands of a perfect mirror. W ith a little practice and careful eye, I was able to produce mirrors that were not only smooth but also had good
spherical aberration correction or parabolization. A quick Star Test confirmed the overall correction and if a touchup session was needed, the
Ronchi test served to confirm the mirror's smoothness when done. This proved so successful that I've continued with this approach ever since.
T he Numbers Game
I avoid the numbers game. After all, reducing zonal readings is a mathematical exercise. But what does that number, say 1/6 wavefront mean? Is
it good enough? W hat if there is a turned edge or a high center or a noticeable zone? Is it all about the number or not? Behind every number is a
subjective judgment, not only regarding the number itself but the about the errors that led up to the number. The reality that it's the entire
telescope, the atmosphere and the observer's experience that combine to produce an outcome at the eyepiece that's judged. If it's subjective, at
least to some degree, then maybe cutting to the chase and using subjective tests is the most direct way to an excellent mirror. After all, by using
the Star Test you know exactly what you will get each and every night, in the observing conditions that you'll be using your scope under.
He Said, She Said
W hy the variation in people's approaches, particularly in polishing and parabolizing? Some makers like thin hard pitch, e.g., Gugolz 73 and others
like thick soft pitch, e.g., Gogolz 55. Some use full sized polishers, some use sub-diameter polishers. Some like me use oversized polishers. Mirror
makers often point to the materials as the culprit or the savior. I can hear them preaching, Hard pitch is the answer to everything; it'll cure what
ails you". Y et in the end, it is the mirror maker's process, his personality that makes the greatest impact and generates consistent results.
This varies by generation too. The 'standard' today is quite different than the standard two generations ago. I suppose this is a useful reminder to
judge the artifact, the finished mirror, and not the construct, or the mirror maker's process.
Find a Mentor
W hich path to choose if you are beginning? My suggestion is to find a mentor that you like and follow his process. As you first copy then learn by
repeating, you'll develop into your own personality, eventually striking out in your direction. Me? I like to learn by studying the reports of the old
masters from the late 1800's when American mirror making first flourished. These makers encountered and overcame the seminal problems. Today,
we have unprecedented access to information, each other, there are more of us, and digital computer processing of tester algorithms that take
into account the effects of diffraction result in very high mirror quality. Testing early mirrors from decades, even a century ago, show rather mixed
results compared to today's mirrors. Nonetheless, mirror making has drifted as twists and techniques have been modified and overlaid on top of
the initial masters - sort of a random walk. The result is a certain lack of appreciation for the core problem in mirror making, namely
parabolization. For instance, our testers can measure lots of zones, so we use sub-diameter laps that rough up the surface in order to attack the
zones, forgetting the initial masters' admonition of the importance of a smooth overall mirror figure.
Open to Discovery
I advocate investigating accidents and happenstance. One day when pitch gradually squeezed past the edge of the lap as I was polishing I
happened to stop and test the mirror's figure. I was sure I had done something terribly wrong. But to my astonishment, there was for the first
time, no turned edge! I removed the pitch that had squeezed past the edge, polished more, finding that the turned edge had reappeared. I
polished hard some more until the pitch once again squeezed past the lap's edge and found that the turned edge had disappeared. I asked a
couple of professional opticians who told me about the value of oversized laps and that channelled laps rough the surface. Investigating the
original masters I found that John Braschear advocated oversized laps along with petal laps, another area that I was sliding into.
Bath Interferometer T est
I continue to look at new tests. The Bath Interferometer is absolutely wonderful, a revolution in the making for amateur mirror makers. The SCOTS
test, a slope test, is intriguing, and the Holomask Test shows promise. Check out a new test called the Slit Image Test
(http://www.yubagold.com/tests/index.php) I've used the Ross Null test briefly, ending up using it more for overall smoothness than for exacting
spherical aberration correction. Also check out the holographic mask test.
Beyond T he T est Methods
W hat are the realities that shine through the fog? Be cautious and thoughtful, look for defects because they are surely there, confirm with the Star
Test and become conversant with more than one test. Finally, practice, practice, practice by making mirror after mirror after mirror. Give them to
friends or barter them for eyepieces or other goodies (I once made a 20 inch [50cm] mirror in exchange for a fully enclosed trailer to transport a
large scope of mine).
Regardless of the tests you use, you will face high zones that need more polishing, low zones that frustrate you, turned edges that are plain
annoying and astigmatism in large thin mirrors that can result in temporary insanity. Above all, it's the combination of sky, observer, telescope
and optics that create the view. So let's get on with the task of creating the very best primary mirror we can.
Geometric T ests and the Diffractive Nature of Light
A perfect mirror is limited by the wave nature of light. Fraunhofer diffraction of a circular aperture, the mirror's rim, sets the limits of performance.
The circular rim of the aperture diffracts light into expanding spherical waves that interfere with each other at focus, going in and out of phase
repeatedly as the angular distance from the center grows. This creates a central dot, the Airy disk, and a series of rings of decreasing brightness.
A perfect mirror will reflect 84% of the light into the Airy disk, 7% into the first ring, 3% into the second ring, and so forth, with a total of 16% of
the light in the rings combined. [Oldham Optical, UK, http://www.oldham-optical.co.uk/Airy%20Disk.htm]
Less than perfect optics increase the brightness of the rings causing the star image to lose resolution. Our mirror should present very close to the
ideal Airy disk with approximately the same brightness in the rings. Geometric based methods that calculate the path of the reflected light rays
across the mirror face are popular and have a long history. These tests typically measure the longitudinal aberration, or the discrepancy between
where the light ray geometrically would travel to compared to where it ought to be. However, geometric tests need to be used with the
understanding that the light actually does not exactly go where the geometric ray traces say it goes, thanks to the diffraction of wave optics. [Jim
Burrows, http://home.earthlink.net/~burrjaw/atm/t_verse.lwp/t_verse.htm and http://home.earthlink.net/~burrjaw/atm/odyframe.htm]
Control and variation...

Stroking a full-sized polishing tool against the mirror using not too long of strokes or spinning a 5/6 sized tool on the mirror drives the mirror's
surface spherical. W hat can the mirror maker vary to induce a paraboloidal curve on the mirror's face? W e know that polishing is a result of time,
pressure, speed, and polishing compound. W hile accentuated pressure is occasionally used to fix a zone, it isn't used to parabolize because it isn't
consistent. W e can't easily vary speed or polishing compound, so that leaves time.
W e vary time of polishing by lengthening and widening the stroking, by using a smaller pitch lap, or by altering area in contact of the lap. W hile
it's possible to combine these techniques, it's saner to vary just one and control for the others.
Lengthening and widening the stroking using mirror on top is arguably the most popular technique for mirrors up to 12 inches [30cm] in diameter.
It's well described in popular telescope making books. For larger and faster mirrors, this approach has trouble achieving the deeper paraboloidal
curves; zones also become an issue.
Mirror makers turn to sub-diameter laps for larger faster mirrors. Deep parabolas can be carved out and zonal irregularities attacked. However,
surface smoothness is an issue.
A smooth mirror surface along with deep parabolas can be achieved with full-sized or over-sized pitch laps by varying the pitch lap's area of
contact. Strokes are kept simple and constant. Since pitch is a source of variability due to hardness, thickness and temperature, this approach
constrains all the variables into the pitch lap. I find great success with this approach, a technique not widely used today but popular in the past.
Sub-diameter and oversized laps...

T he Problem with Sub-diameter Laps
It's easy to concentrate on 'hitting the number', forgoing mirror smoothness. For many, hitting the numbers is less difficult with sub-diameter laps.
The problem with these laps is that they promote roughness. Imagine you are icing a cake or pouring a concrete pad. W hat happens when you use
a tiny spatula or trowel? No matter how hard you try, the surface will not be as smooth from edge to edge as that gotten from a large spatula or a
wide trowel. A surface worked with a sub-diameter lap needs smoothing with a full sized lap. But this changes the figure subtlety. I chose to learn
to parabolize with full sized and ultimately oversized laps exclusively.
Zonal problems show up in 12 inch [30cm] and larger mirrors because these larger mirrors are often worked with sub-diameter tools. The first
masters (Ritchey) used very large laps to generate smoother surfaces. W e should not forget the lessons learned by these pioneers.
Finally, there's another drawback to sub-diameter laps that no one seems to notice. A parabolizing tool 1/3 the diameter of the mirror works at 1/9
the speed of a full sized tool and even slower compared to an oversized tool.
Parabolizing Fast Mirrors with Oversized Laps
Researching further, I found that Brashear mentioned oversized laps as a standard technique in the late 1800's. Oversized laps were used almost
from the start of glass mirror and pitch tools. Y ou see, during that era, there was an explosion of pamphlets and small books on how to do things.
Telescope making was a 'big deal' back then. Holcombe had formed the first USA telescope company in the early 1800's (to the surprise of leading
European intellectuals who maintained that Americans were not up to the task), followed by Fitz and Clark which was followed by Brashear and
others. Check out http://tinyurl.com/pn3crhl, The Production of Optical Surfaces by John Brashear, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1881. Also see
Strong's Procedures in Experimental Physics for a modern treatment of oversized laps.
I use slightly oversized laps to better control the edge. The lap pattern and strokes are the same as for standard sized laps. (Actually, any sized
lap will control the edge - it is a matter of technique. Many amateurs have trouble with turned edge using subdiameter and full sized laps. I've had
far less trouble with oversized laps.)
The four parabolization methods using full sized tools...

To remove the spherical aberration, we need to change the mirror's spherical shape to a paraboloidal shape by preferentially polishing glass. Here
are four ways to parabolize a mirror. I've tried them all successfully.
1. In the first example you see a standard channelled lap with mirror on top and extreme strokes in width and length. This is the most commonly
cited approach in telescope making books and is suitable for common mirror sizes and focal ratios. This method wears down the center and the
edge.
2. The second example is the approach I use for very fast very large mirrors. The lap preferentially concentrates polishing in the center region
tapering off towards the edge. I use short strokes with no side to side variation. Ellison in the early 1900's called this approach the standard way
to parabolize a mirror. George McHardie states in his 1937 book, "Preparation of Mirrors for Astronomical Telescopes" that 'graduated facets' is the
simplest method and strongly recommended by experts. Here's McHardie's drawing of a graduated lap.
3. The third example is very unusual from what I can gather. I've used it to parabolize 20 inch [50cm] F4 mirror. Short strokes with no side to side
variation are called for.
4. The last example is also unusual. I've tried this too. Use the same short strokes with no side swing. Note that this is equivalent to a sub
diameter star lap for the center and a feathered ring lap for the edge.
To form the shapes you can scratch out the areas that are not to be in contact, or you can use paper cut to shape pressed between the mirror and
lap for a few minutes.
It can be quite confusing at times to contemplate that all these approaches parabolize a mirror, after all the second and third laps are perfect
inverses of each other, and the fourth approach is a hybrid of the second and third laps. Here's another way to visualize parabolizing. Never forget
that after parabolizing and testing from the radius of curvature, the mirror's center zone must always focus short and the mirror's edge zone must
always focus long.
During parabolization, we have the luxury of increasing or shrinking the radius of curvature of the mirror's zones to float or change. Here's a
graphic to illustrate.
In each of the three cases, the sphere and the parabola have different touch points.
And if the spherical mirror's surface is straightened into a horizontal line, the glass to remove for each of these cases is the gray colored volume:
Here is what the 7 inch [18cm] oversized parabolizing lap looks like. This is meant to be used mirror on top. Noteow the percentage of pitch in
contact with the glass is high in the center and tapers off towards the edge.
Here's the 7 inch [18cm] pitch lap adjusted to remove parabolization from an overcorrected mirror. The pitch concentrates on the 70% zone,
sharply tapering towards the edge and more gently tapering towards the center.
And where is what the pitch lap looks like after being prepared to remove the kink in the 70% zone (the mirror is sitting on top). Note how the
pitch at the 70% zone is scratched away. Short strokes are used.
Here is what extreme chordal strokes looks like (10.5 inch [27cm mirror on a 11 inch [28cm] pitch lap).
T he 70% Zone is Special.

Note that when we deepen the center it focuses shorter and when we deepen the edge it focuses longer. The key is that we do not polish the 70%
zone. Inside of the 70% zone polishing tends to shorter the focal length and outside the 70% zone polishing tends to lengthen the focal length.
Now that we've seen these curves, we know how to fix overcorrection, which otherwise can be a real bear. I successfully employ the technique of
preferentially polishing the 70% zone, tapering sharply towards the edge and gradually towards the center in order to reduce the height of the
curve.
Parabolizing sessions and polishing speed...

Now that the post-polish stage has been completed resulting in a good edge and straight Ronchi bands indicating a spherical curve, it's time to
begin parabolizing.
A parabolization session starts with analysis of the mirror's surface, forming an hypothesis of how the mirror's surface will be altered given a
particular pitch lap and stroke pattern then finally testing the results. How long should the session be? It needs to be long enough to detect a
sufficient change in the mirror's surface that hopefully makes progress but not so long that the session ruins the parabolization if the action
proves deleterious.
Check out the following analysis that shows the number of sessions for three mirrors that I have detailed logs.
'Close'' means that the mirror forms an acceptable low power star image. 'Final' means that the mirror forms an excellent high power star image.
'Restart' means that the parabolization spun out of control and necessitated a return to a spherical mirror surface to begin the parabolization
anew. The '2nd close' means that the second parabolization attempt forms an acceptable low power star image. And the '2nd final' means that the
second parabolization attempt forms an excellent high power star image. I draw three conclusions.
The first that focal ratio matters more than aperture in determining the difficulty of parabolizing.
The second that getting 'close' is one-fourth to one-half of the journey, depending on the difficulty of the focal ratio (parabolizing an F/2.8 mirror
is like zig-zagging about on ice).
The third that returning to spherical when parabolizing spins out of control is a viable strategy because the second try goes faster after learning
from the first parabolization attempt. For the 10.5 inch [27cm] mirror, I determined to become expert at controlling parabolization, particularly
overcorrection in the outer zones of the mirror. This ultimately proved successful. Subsequent mirrors will show if this advanced technique shortens
the number of parabolizing sessions.
What's more difficult, a large mirror or a fast mirror?
In my experience, focal ratio is most correlated with effort and touchiness during parabolizing. An F3 is difficult at any size, F8 not nearly so much.
Parabolizing accuracy in terms of smooth under and over correction depends solely on the focal ratio, not on aperture. For instance, consider the
following chart. The graph is for worse case 1/4 wavefront; for the more demanding 1/8 wavefront, halve these values. W hile slower focal ratios
have a larger allowable parabolic deviation percentage, because the paraboloidal correction is smaller, the deviation in absolute terms is also
smaller. I derived this relationship by using a standard algorithm that calculates wave error given a set of zonal readings. I iteratively fed it zonal
readings smoothly varying by a correction factor, deriving the maximum correction factor that fit the quarter wavefront error envelope.
The six factors of polishing or cutting speed

1. Glass is polished or cut away in proportion to the time the tool passes over the glass.
2. The faster the tool's speed, the more that's cut away (this is not strictly proportional).
3. Overhanging sections of the tool cut faster (gravity).
4. The leading edge of the facets and channels cut faster than the trailer edges (more polishing compound builds up in front of facets).
5. Polishing or cutting action is heaviest when and where pressure is heaviest.
6. Type of polishing compound (Ceium Oxide is faster than Rouge).
7. Thickness or concentration of polishing compound.
My parabolization process...
I developed a parabolizing procedure from my 13 inch [34cm] f/3.0 where I studied parabolizing the mirror using several procedures.Later when I
had to return the 6 inch [15cm] to spherical after overcorrecting the outer zones, I streamlined the process, halving the number of sessions from
thirteen to seven.
The parabolizing process is:
1. I start with mirror on top of an oversized lap, but only execute the extreme chordal strokes at the edge - I do not stroke through center. This
roughs in parabolization into the central 60-70% of the mirror. This proceeds rapidly and does not need a lot of precision.
2. After significant parabolization appears in the central zones, I then switch to the second parabolization method to push the parabolization out
to the edge. These are long strokes with no side swing over a parabolizing lap where the percent of pitch contact fades towards the edge. The
result of this is a kink or low point at the 70% zone. This goes slower and requires some attention.
3. I alter the lap by scratching (pressing out is fine too) away pitch at the 70% zone; this in effect raises the 70% zone back up. I use short
strokes with some almost no side to side motion. This gives a lot of control over the overall shape of the curve. As the parabolization reaches the
edge, the Ronchi test should be switched from the inside of radius of curvature position where the test is most sensitive to the central zones of
the mirror to the outside of radius of curvature position where the test is most sensitive to the edge zones of the mirror.
4. I now adjust the parabolization more closely by using the Ronchi test with precision offsets from the radius of curvature. I start by placing the
Ronchi tester inside of the radius of curvature such that the bands match the appearance as given by the computer, move the tester outward the
precise distance as indicated by the computer using an engineering ruler and inspect the outside of radius of curvature bands. I adjust the curve
as needed. A 6 inch [15cm] F/9 mirror at this point could be serviceable at high powers (1/4 wave). A 12 inch [30cm] F/5 won't focus well at high
power (1/2-1 wave). A 24 inch [61cm] F/4 might focus at low power (1 wave). How good is the mirror? Build a test rig and see for yourself - that's
how you'll really learn.
5. Fine tune the parabolization by using the star test in conjunction with the Ronchi test.
Select the parabolization method (mirror on top with very long very wide strokes) if working a standard sized standard focal ratio mirror, or the
second parabolization method (long strokes with mirror on top of a parabolizing lap that has progressively less contact towards the edge of the
lap) if working a larger faster mirror, and begin 20 minute sessions. As with polishing, execute slow strokes with heavy even drag. Do not go too
fast! Look for the swelling of the bands in the mirror's center when testing inside of the radius of curvature and look for the smoothness of the
bands.
Once you find the sweet spot where parabolization gradually increases then take small steps, testing or measuring often. Sneak up on the final
100% parabolization curve. If you go over, then you will have to work to find a new lap configuration and stroke pattern that works. Usually this
cannot be found and the worker returns to spherical to start over.
A Parabolizing Session
I start with warming the pitch lap by pouring warm water over it for a minute or two. I want the pitch warmed just enough so that it can be
pressed into perfect contact. Too much heat will warm the glass causing all sorts of havoc. I press the lap for a few seconds, then rotate and
reposition the lap slightly and press again. I repeat until satisfied with the contact. If necessary I warm the pitch again. After contact I renew the
microfaceting using room temperature or slightly colder water to prevent the chips from flying too far and creating too big of a mess. I place the
mirror back on the lap, rotating and moving every few seconds, until the glass and lap have equilibrated to the same temperature. This whole
process takes 5-15 minutes and is necessary for consistent results. However long it takes though, don't settle for less than the desired contact or
equilibrium.
Remember to keep slow heavy even drag. Rotate top piece methodically; walk around or rotate the bottom piece at a slower but regular pace.
Start and stop in the same position. Don't be shocked if you are working a very large very fast mirror: you will have to push down harder on the
mirror's back to maintain even drag. That's because the difference between sphere and parabola becomes quite severe.
Each session I begin with a test, at this stage, Ronchigrams, write out my analysis of the mirror, pick the biggest error, write out my plan of
attack (strokes, deformed lap, accentuated pressure, time to execute or at least see if the proposed cure is making the mirror healthier or sicker),
execute, then follow up with more tests to evaluate results. This is recorded in a log. The log will be your savior as you look back to see how you
corrected issues that crop up again (hopefully more shyly). Y ou will find that your personality coupled with the mirror tend to produce similar
outcomes. If that particular outcome is not desired, then study your notes for what to do differently. Sometimes in desperation, doing the exact
opposite is exactly the ticket! Then you can study why this worked, talk to other mirror makers, and ultimately gain a deeper insight into
parabolization.
Remember that you only really need know the worse defect and if the mirror is getting better or worse. Don't become sidetracked into obsessively
measuring the amount of deformity. It does not matter - it has to be removed. That's a beauty of the Ronchi test. Y ou can see instantly the major
defect and if its getting better or worse.
It's not only learning what to do and why it works, but it is also learning what to pay attention to and what to ignore. W atching an experienced
mirror maker deftly go through the motions may leave you with the impression of casualness but believe me; it's all carefully thought through and
controlled.
The Ronchi and star test tandem...

I've been grinding mirrors, making telescopes and observing with them for 40 years. I quietly star test every telescope (when I can get the owner
to put in a high power eyepiece) I look through. I've noticed a trend. Mirror makers that used the star test or the interferometer test consistently
make better mirrors.
I am going to show you the Ronchi test for roughing in the curve and testing for overall smoothness and the star test, both indoor and outdoor, for
final adjustments. The Bath interferometer is explained in great detail by others (see the interferometry@yahoogroups.com discussion group for
resources). I've made mirrors with other tests like the Foucault, Caustic, Poor Man's Caustic and the W ire test and have used various data
reduction programs. Y ou can find all the information you need on these tests elsewhere, but in my experience nothing beats the Ronchi and star
tests or the Bath interferometer in consistency, ease of use and accuracy. Remember the primary goal is to produce a mirror that focuses light
perfectly at the highest powers, not to argue over Strehl ratio. Spend more time grinding and less time arguing online, I say!
My experience from star testing many hundreds of telescopes over the decades is that every single mirror (except perhaps a handful) has
discernible defects. The defects in the best mirrors have no detectable impact on the image, the defects in the average mirror has slight impact on
the image, certainly outweighed by the myriad of issues that accompany telescope use.
Allow me to offer an unsolicited testimonial from well-known telescope maker and interferometrist Dale Eason. "A few years ago I met Mel in
person for the first time at a Star Party in W isconsin. W e had communicated for year on the net. I had my 16 F/5 telescope whose mirror I made
and knew very well from the interferometry data. The telescope itself was still a work in progress and I think the mirror was not yet coated. The
telescope had no tracking and was very unstable. It jiggled when you toughed the eyepiece. Mel wanted to star test it so I let him. He did not
know the interferometry data from it. He took about one minute and then he proceeded to describe its faults that I knew from interferometry and
described their position on the mirror. That man can star test" --- Dale Eason
Y ou too can learn to star test like this with practice, particularly if you star test your mirror as you parabolize.
Here is a Hartman test report by Jim Burrows on a 6 inch [15cm] F/4 mirror parabolized by me using my standard approach of the Ronchi test
followed by final touchup using the star test. The mirror has a small turned edge that is masked off when in use and during the test. Y ou can see
that the RMS figure of 9nm is about 1/60 wave RMS and peak to valley of 1/20 wave (both on the surface). By the way, I saw the high zone is the
star test but judged it extremely minor - the mirror was more than good enough, and I was able to suspect the zone in the Ronchi test with very
careful inspection after the fact.
A 20.5 inch [52cm] F/5 mirror that I made in 1990 has been viewed through by many experienced observers. It gives an indistinguishable from
perfect star test pattern at high power. On nights of excellent seeing I use it at powers of 800x-1200x. On one famous night of perfect seeing at
the Oregon Star Party I used it at 6000x power.
The Ronchi test...

I use the Ronchi test for its speed and quickness to interpret. The tester is used in two positions: inside the radius of curvature and outside the
radius of curvature. Shown here is a mirror that is parabolized. Testing at the radius of curvature shows that the mirror's center zones focus in
front of the mirror's edge zones.
W hen inside the radius of curvature, the tester is closest to the mirror's center zones and furthest from the mirror's edge zones. W hen outside the
radius of curvature the situation is reversed: the tester is closest to the mirror's edge zones and furthest from the mirror's center zones.
As the tester is moved close to a zone's focus, that zone's Ronchi bands expand, becoming further apart and thicker. Here's the Ronchigrams for a
finished 13.2 inch [34cm] F/3.0 mirror (final parabolizing by star test at high power). The image on the left is outside of the radius of curvature
and the next image on the right is inside the radius of curvature. Note in the first image that since the tester is closest to the mirror's edge, the
bands at the edge spread apart and are thicker. The bands representing the mirror's center are spaced tightly together and are thinner since the
mirror's center focuses further away. The reverse is true for the second image.
Here's a favorite visualization of mine. The paraboloidal mirror is concave at the radius of curvature by virtue of lowering the center (or
equivalently lengthening the edge). A grating placed inside the radius of curvature will see the center closest, the edge farthest. Since the bands
expand closer in and shrink further out, the bands will appear fattened in the center and tapered at the edge. A grating placed outside the radius
of curvature sees the center farthest and the edge closest, resulting in the bands appearing thinner in the middle and spread out at the edge.
Ronchigrams outside and inside of radius of curvature
Go to my online Ronchi test software, http://www.bbastrodesigns.com/ronchi.html, enter your mirror's measurements and look at the left most
inside of radius of curvature image. Y our goal is to induce parabolization in your mirror until it looks close to this image. Y ou will be inspecting for
the character of the Ronchi bands (smoothly curved with no kinks or straight sections or sharp bends) and the overall curvature of the band.
Keeping in mind that this initial stage is to get some parabolization into the mirror, if you have a smaller slower mirror then you may be within a
fraction of a wavelength, if you have a large fast mirror you may be within a wave or two. Here are the desired Ronchi test patterns for the above
mirror.
Using precision offsets from the radius of curvature and comparing to the computer generated Ronchigrams, I judge that this mirror is quite close,
perhaps slightly overcorrected. target images outside and inside of radius of curvature.
W hy are the curves shaped differently inside of focus compared to outside of focus? Look at this surprising graphic showing the same parabola but
with different offsets from the radius of curvature. Y ou can see these curves mirrored in the Ronchigrams, the lower curves seen outside the radius
of curvature and the upper curves seen inside the radius of curvature.
Dr. Sherman Schultz's Ronchi T esting

One of the most successful practitioners was Dr. Sherman Schultz of Macalester College in St Paul Minnesota. He used the Ronchi test in his mirror
making classes with countless students successfully completing their telescopes. For a interview with Dr Schultz, select here. See Telescope
Making #9 for an article by Dr Schultz on the Ronchi test.
He lists the following advantages of the Ronchi test.
1. Ease of interpretation. Leads to confidence which leads to a better mirror surface. Getting mired down in numbers, spreadsheets and
equipment adjustments just isn't confidence inspiring.
2. His students made 275 mirrors. Not a single student gave up or quit. Testing can be the point of failure for telescope makers. But not with
the Ronchi test.
3. The Ronchi test is sensitive enough to distinguish between excellent, good, fair and poor. Every little irregularity is seen. It doesn't matter if
the error is 1/6 or 1/8 wave - you don't need to know the magnitude of the error. A drowning person doesn't need to know how deep the water
is once he is in over his head. He just needs to know how to swim.
4. Y ou work until the curves match. The curves are not a mysterious table of numbers or a grid of coefficients. Y ou can see the perfect simulated
curve; remember it in your mind's eye. Each mirror diameter and focal length combination has its own curves (and for that matter, its own set
of Foucault zonal measurements).
5. Y ou can easily detect, better than any other test, the most common issue, that of turned edge. And the next most common issue, zonal
roughness.
6. The student immediately recognizes the overall curve as compared to the sphere. The correct corrective action is quickly devised. There is no
plotting of the mirror profile as reconstituted from zonal measurements, which by the way, misses issues between the arbitrarily designated
zones.
7. The test image is bright. The Ronchi test can be used in an ordinarily lit room in daytime. It's easy to setup, easy to see, easy to understand.
Another approach mentioned soon after the invention of the Ronchi test by Vasco Ronchi in 1923 is to measure the separation between
Ronchigrams where the inner Ronchigram shows the central bands separated by a precise amount, say 1 inch or 2.5cm, and the outer Ronchigram
shows the edge bands separated by the exact same amount. The separation between Ronchigrams should equal r^2/2R (mirror radius squared
divided by twice the radius of curvature).This can be used to gain a sense of overall correction. This can be extended to intermediate zones.
Ronchi T est Examples
Here are two examples of mirrors that require extreme parabolization. The first is a 6 inch [15cm] F/2.8. These are the Ronchigrams taken after
every parabolizing session, each session consuming 15-30 minutes of parabolizing time on the lap. I needed 13 sessions to match bands close
enough (note: not perfectly) to switch to star testing for guidance in final parabolizing. After the outer zones became overcorrected and I could not
fix them, I spent three hours polishing the mirror returning it to spherical. On the second parabolizing attempt I skipped the extreme chordal
strokes, going directly to long strokes center over center over a parabolizing lap. This took seven parabolizing sessions to come close enough to
justify star testing. Note: every parabolizing session is shown regardless of result. I keep notes so that I can understand and improve.
My 20 inch mirror log
My 10.5 inch mirror log
6 inch [15cm] F/2.8
6 inch [15cm] target.
Step 1. Roughing in the curve in the middle part of the mirror. The first two sessions were extreme chordal strokes (no strokes through the center)
on a normal oversized lap.
Step 2. Pushing parabolization out to the edge. The next six sessions where very long center over center strokes on a parabolizing lap.
Step 3. Smoothing the curve. The final four sessions short strokes on a lap with the 70% zone scratched away.
Step 4. Using precision offsets from the radius of curvature and comparing to the computer generated Ronchigrams, I judge that the mirror is quite
close, perhaps slightly overcorrected particularly in the 80% zone.
Step 5. Fine tune the parabolization by using the star test in conjunction with the Ronchi test. Initial star test at 3mm exit pupil shows
overcorrection; all zones do not quite focus simultaneously. Overcorrection perhaps slightly worse in mid-zones. I then attempted to fix the
overcorrection which resulted in a star test where the light barely focused into a pinpoint now (so overall correction closer) but with heavily
overcorrected mid-zones.
Further attempts to fix the overcorrected mid-zones by accentuated pressure and then by a deformed lap resulted in the following Ronchi test
which shows that the parabolization is getting worse.
At this junction I judged it best to return to spherical and start the parabolization process anew. A touch of turned edge persisted after three
hours of very short strokes on an oversized lap.
Back to the beginning of parabolization where I decided to start on step 2, pushing parabolization out to the edge using very long strokes with no
side swing, mirror on top of oversized lap that's been microfaceted into a parabolizing shape.
At this point I switched to short strokes with the 60% zone on the pitch lap scratched away. Y ou can see the parabolization build smoothly while
the kink at the 60% zone disappears.
Here are the final results: star test looks very good: excellent overall correction with a touch of overcorrection in the 50-80% zones.
Compare to ideal.
10.5 inch [27cm] F/2.7

The second example is a 10.5 inch [27cm] F/2.7. Again, the images are taken after every parabolizing session, whether better, worse or
indifferent. Here I needed 26 sessions to match bands close enough to switch to star testing for guidance in final parabolizing.
10.5 inch [27cm] target.
Step 1. Roughing in the cuve in the middle part of the mirror. The first session was extreme chordal strokes (no strokes through the center) on a
normal oversized lap.
Step 2. Pushing parabolization out to the edge. The next six sessions where very long center over center strokes on a parabolizing lap
Step 3. Smoothing the curve.The next five sessions short strokes on a lap with the 70% zone scratched away to fix the kink in the 60% zone. This
proceeded successfully until the extreme edge zones lost their parabolization and the kink consequently became worse in the last two sessions. At
this point the lack of parabolization is the greater problem and so I concentrated on solving this problem.
Step 3b. Fixing the kink and putting more parabolization back into the mirror. The next 8 sessions I reverted back to the very long strokes with no
side swing over a mildly parabolizing lap with the 50% zone on the pitch scratched away to minimize contact there. The kink gradually disappeared
and the overall parabolization increased in a smooth fashion. Y ou can see the curvature near the mirror's edge increasing each session.
Step 4. Using precision offsets from the radius of curvature and comparing to the computer generated Ronchigrams, I judged that the mirror was
slightly undercorrected in the outer zones. Using very long strokes directly center over center (no side swing) on a parabolizing lap, I push in more
correction. Sessions were 10 to 15 minutes long. The second session used a standard oversized lap that was not parabolizing (less pitch in contact
towards the lap's edge). That resulted in a rougher surface with slightly reduced parabolization. Lesson learned! The next two sessions were
executed with very long strokes, some side swing, on a parabolizing lap, resulting in more correction being added. Note also that the turned edge
is disappearing. At this point the Ronchi bands are close to ideal.
Step 5. Fine tuning the parabolization by using the star test in conjunction with the Ronchi test, a star test at 3mm exit pupil which reveals that
the mirror focuses to a pinpoint with slight and smooth undercorrection. This resulted in a great number of sessions where I zigzagged between
overcorrected and undercorrected, eventually overcorrected the outer zones, then attempting to remove the excess parabolization resulting in
undercorrecting the central and mid-zones, then finally pushing more parabolization into the mid-zones. Sessions were as short as seconds and as
long as a couple of minutes. Like other mirrors, I came close early (see the 4th and 5th test images, were the 4th test image is slightly
overcorrected and the 5th test image had a bit too much correction in the outer zones and not quite enough in the middle zones; a problem that
got worse before it got better).
Here are the final results: the star test shows diagonal shadow breakout the same in both directions but with the above focus position showing a
brighter ring around the diagonal and the below focus position showing a brighter ring on the outside meaning that the outer 15% is very slightly
overcorrected and the inner 85% is very slightly undercorrected. Star test pattern improves as the mirror cools to ambient air temperature. These
issues are very slight.
Compare to ideal.
Jerry Oltion's 12.5 inch [32cm] f4.5 Mirror

Here's Jerry Oltion's 12.5 inch [32cm] f4.5 mirror that's been parabolized to high quality: at 50x per inch of aperture [2x per millimeter] the mirror
focuses sharply and has an essentially perfect star test with a slight brightening of the diagonal breakout ring outside of focus, indicating a broad
high zone between the center and edge of the mirror. The third image is composed of the first two images laid on top of each other showing that
the mirror's 40-80% zone is ever so slightly undercorrected. This gives you an idea of how carefully the Ronchigram should be judged.
Final comments on zonal irregularities: I discovered by accident after washing a mirror in warm water that a Ronchi test of a temporarily heated
mirror makes minor zonal irregularities more obvious. There is a lot of shimmering but through it the zonal problems are exaggerated and easier to
see. Allyn Thompson, in his 1947 book, "How to Make a Telescope", describes how heating the glass exaggerates zonal irregularities. Also, it can
help to move the Ronchi tester a great distance from the radius of curvature so that many bands cross the mirror's face. Zonal irregularities can be
seen as discontinuities in the tightly spaced bands.
Star testing...
A Piece of Glass
He labored late into the night,

At early morn' his task resumed,
To fashion thus a disk of glass
Into a subtle curve, not deep,
but measured only by the shades of light.
From a simple pinhole made of foil,
Revealing to his practiced eye
Imperfections infinitesimal;
Until at least his skill produced
A curve so true the mind of man
Could not discern the wavering of a breath.
"Just a piece of glass," 'twas said,
But in that simple disk
The heavenly host
Of suns and stars, yea, universes,
Revealed their glory in the sky
For man to ponder - and adore.
-C.A. Olson, W estwood, N.J.
John Dobson
John Dobson wrote in the Celestial Observer, 1973, published in San Diego, California, "The bright spot ... is thrown out of focus first one way then
the other by pushing the eyepiece in and out. The two resulting discs of light should be the same. If they are not the mirror needs to be dug in
those areas that bundle too much light when the eyepiece is too far out."
Remember his simple words. He knows what he's talking about. I've star tested his 24 inch [61cm] f/6.5 mirror and it is very good. He gave me
confidence that the star test was a serious, discerning and demanding test. So I learned the art of star testing. The quality of the view through
the eyepiece is subjective. Stirring in numbers like peak to valley wavefront rating, r.m.s. wave error and Strehl ratio confuse as much as they
clarify. The beauty of the star test is that you get what you see. And it is all done with a simple high power eyepiece on a night of good seeing. I
try to star test every telescope I look through. The experience of seeing hundreds of mirrors and their defects is invaluable. Every mirror will show
errors or deviations in the star test, some greater that are injurious to the view, some hard to see and completely inconsequential.
It is a simple rule of thumb: rack the eyepiece outward. Those areas of the mirror that appear excessively bright or have bright rings need more
polishing. Rack the eyepiece inward. Those areas of the mirror that appear excessively bright or have bright rings need less polishing.
A T estimonial
Allow me to offer an unsolicited testimonial from well-known telescope maker and interferometrist Dale Eason. "A few years ago I met Mel in
person for the first time at a Star Party in W isconsin. W e had communicated for year on the net. I had my 16 F/5 telescope whose mirror I made
and knew very well from the interferometry data. The telescope itself was still a work in progress and I think the mirror was not yet coated. The
telescope had no tracking and was very unstable. It jiggled when you toughed the eyepiece. Mel wanted to star test it so I let him. He did not
know the interferometry data from it. He took about one minute and then he proceeded to describe its faults that I knew from interferometry and
described their position on the mirror. That man can star test" --- Dale Eason
I've moved my star testing section to its own web page so that it's available to anyone wishing to star test their telescope.
Fixing common maladies

Outside of proper parabolization, edge problems are the most common maladies afflicting mirrors. A turned down edge, or TDE, is a narrow zone,
no more than 1/8 inch [3mm], at the extreme edge that turns downward, focusing long. If the zone is wider then it is called a rolled edge. Rarely
the extreme edge will turn upward, focusing short. This is called a turned up edge.
T urned Down Edge
A turned edge is readily be detected in the star test. A hairy edge inside of focus and a bright outer ring outside of focus indicates that the
mirror's edge is focusing long.
TDE is also easily detected in the Ronchi test by looking for hooks at the ends of the bands, particularly noticeable when testing outside the
radius of curvature.
There is a great deal of superstition on turned edges since they can appear unexpectedly and are not usually quickly fixed by amateur opticians.
The earliest optics exhibit terrible edge problems, so it's a malady that's afflicted opticians from the earliest times.
W hile TDEs can be caused by too soft of pitch plowing into the mirror's edge as it is stroked back across the mirror's face, more usually TDE is
caused by fear. The amateur optician, fearful of a TDE, consciously or unconsciously avoids polishing the edge with the same vigor as the rest of
the mirror. Polishing in amateur hands typically drives the mirror to a shorter radius of curvature. Since the edge receives less polishing, it lags
behind, hanging onto its longer radius of curvature.
Common thinking is that a TDE can be caused by warm fingers curled over the mirror's edge. I've not seen this when I grip the mirror's edge.
W hat to do about it? It's been said that professional opticians charge double for work good to the extreme edge. A simple solution is to very
carefully bevel the turned edge off. Another solution is to use a retaining rim to restrain the mirror in the cell. One of the most popular lines of
telescopes, Cave Astrola, used such a retaining rim. I never saw a turned edge in a Cave telescope! The amount of light lost is very small, maybe
0.02 magnitudes of light, which can be made up for with better coatings, cleaner mirrors or observing on clearer nights.
Removing a turned edge depends on the perspective taken. The TDE can be seen as zone that's low, in which case the fix is to polish the entire
rest of the mirror. Planing down the entire mirror surface sans edge takes a long time. Harder pitch can help keep the radius of curvature from
shortening, otherwise a new TDE will be continuously re-created. Use short center over center strokes with mirror on top
The better perspective is to imagine a line from the mirror center to the outside extreme edge. In this perspective the glass exhibits a bump just
inside of the edge. The fix then is to remove the bump. There are several approaches. The first, recommended by Texereau's classic, "How to Make
a Telescope", is to concentrate polishing on the edge. This is a powerful technique and done carelessly can exacerbate the TDE. The second,
recommended by W aineo, is to use a rectangular lap, say 1x3 inches [25x75mm] in size, stroking it laterally to the mirror's edge. I like this
approach because I have more control, though the roughed outer zones need to be smoothed with a larger lap. The final approach is to ignore the
edge, particularly with fast optics, using a parabolizing technique that lowers the outer zones, for instance a small star lap stroked tangentially, or
mirror on top with very long strokes. Done properly, the TDE will be swallowed up by the parabolization, magically disappearing.
How to know you are finished...

Two factors work against us when completing a mirror. The first is our very own psychology and the second is the difficulty in testing our mirror.
W e are goal centric beings. Once we set a goal, say of 1/4 wavefront or 1/10 wavefront, we become highly motivated to reach it. W e optimistically
interpret the tests when we are within reach of the goal. Professional training is no inoculation twice Ive looked over the shoulders of
professional opticians while testing who became convinced that the mirror was good, blind to significant errors.
My defense is twofold: first, I use more than one type of test, and secondly, I deliberately look for errors. Each type of test shows the mirror from
a different perspective. Its harder to skip over a potential iffy result when the error is revealed in different ways. For instance, there might be a
tiny kink in the Ronchigrams bands, the interferometer shows a little zone too, and the star test reveals some light is focusing short. The kink can
be reasoned away, perhaps that interferometer report is a test stand problem and maybe the mirror wasnt cooled sufficiently during the star test but all three?
All mirrors have defects. If I can find them then I know the resolution of my testing. Consider a mirror test that shows no errors. W hat is more
likely: that the test isnt sensitive or is the mirror is truly perfect? Only twice in half a century have I been unable to see any defect in a mirror and
Ive tested many hundreds of mirrors, professional and amateur. So I test, test, test until the same errors consistently appear. W hen defects
become a small fraction of the wavelength of visible light, testing like this takes considerable time and mental effort.
One reason why there are so many types of mirror tests is that testing to a small fraction of the wavelength of visible light is hard: each test
tends to illuminate a different type of defect and have trouble revealing other types of defects. For instance, Foucault, Caustic and other zonal
reading tests show correction for spherical aberration nicely, but might miss a narrow zone, surface roughness or astigmatism. Subjective tests
like the Ronchi show smoothness nicely, but gauging precise correction is hard and slight astigmatism even harder to see. Interferometry is caught
up in testing technique in order to remove test stand and mirror support errors and can have trouble revealing very small scale surface roughness
plus difficulty with very fast mirrors. The star test quickly reveals small errors but can be caught up in cooling night time temperatures and
uncertainly whether the error is in the primary mirror or perhaps in the secondary mirror, the mirror support or a thermal issue in the optical path.
W hat standard do I use? W hen do I say my mirror is done? My standard is an 'indistinguishable from perfect' star test at high power; when I can
no longer improve the mirror's figure. Besides mastering the technique of mirror making and mastering multiple mirror tests, I find myself playing
'wackamole' with the mirror's zones, particularly on my large thin mirrors; a Zen master of zones if you will. Fix one zone and another goes
catawampus. Pacifying all the zones simultaneously is an advanced skill that must be honed. In this final stage I will take many minutes to hours
to prepare for a figuring session that lasts 30 seconds to a minute, that is half to a single walk around the barrel. Then it is many minutes to
hours of testing. Repeat until I am unable to make further progress.
Fight psychology and testing difficulty by using at least two different types of tests until the same defects emerge. Once you reach mirror reality
then you can decide whether the defects are significant and work must continue or whether the defect is immaterial for the telescopes intended
purpose.
Some final words: a journey ends, another begins...

Many watch, few observe. Keep a log or notes.
Enjoy each level of expertise that you climb through: apprentice, craftsman, master. No matter how much you learn, you will discover more that
you do not know, and what you thought you learned needs revising. Don't rush the end, it only retreats further away. The way to learn mirror
making is to waste time making mirrors. Never hide in pride or arrogance; it only makes you more afraid and angry of truth; keeping in mind that
those who know are usually the quiet ones. As mirrors slide through your hands into telescopes, you will come to love glass and it will reward you
beyond words.
"I have looked further into space than any human being did before me." - Sir W illiam Herschel
"At the last dim horizon, we search among ghostly errors of observations for landmarks that are scarcely more substantial. The search will
continue. The urge is older than history. It is not satisfied and it will not be oppressed." - Edwin Hubble
"I was interested in telescopes and the way they worked because I had an intense desire to see what things looked like, so I learned how to use
telescopes and find things in the sky." - Clyde Tombaugh
"For my confirmation, I didn't get a watch and my first pair of long pants, like most Lutheran boys. I got a telescope. My mother thought it would
make the best gift." - W ernher von Braun
Do not forget to savor nights under the stars with your wonderful mirror that you made with your own hands and brain. Just think of it, using
simple testers and humanity's marvelous invention, glass, you can make the invisible and unfathomably distant Universe visible by shaping to
astonishing accuracy the telescope mirror.
And attend or conduct mirror making classes and share your experiences and observations on mirror making.
My 10.5 inch mirror log
References...
- My mirror making articles at http://www.bbastrodesigns.com/tm.html
- Advanced mirror makers who are also experienced observers
- Jeff Baldwin's telescope making pages http://www.jeffbaldwin.org/atm.htm

- Bell's The Telescope
- Richard Berry's Build Y our Own Telescope
- Richard Berry and David Kriege's The Dobsonian Telescope
- John Brashear's The Production of Optical Surfaces from Summarized Proceedings and a Directory of Members, 1871, http://tinyurl.com/pn3crhl
- Sam Brown's All About Telescopes
- W illiam J. Cook's The Best of Amateur Telescope Making Journal
- John Dobson's How and W hy to Make a User-Friendly Sidewalk Telescope
- Myron Emerson's Amateur Telescope Mirror Making
- GAP 47's machines summary
- David Harbour's Understanding Foucault
- Albert Highne's Portable Newtonian Telescopes
- Neale E. Howard's Standard Handbook for Telescope Making
- Albert G. Ingall's Amateur Telescope Making, Volumes 1-3
- H. Dennis Taylor's The Adjustment and Testing of Telescope Objectives
- Henry King's The History of the Telescope
- Karine and Jean-Marc Lecleire's A Manual for Amateur Telescope Makers
- Allyn J. Thompson's Making Y our Own Telescope
- Allan Mackintosh's Advanced Telescope Making Techniques - Optics, Advanced Telescope Making Techniques - Mechanical
- Daniel Malacara's Optical Shop Testing
- George McHardie's Preparation of Mirrors for Astronomical Telescopes
- Robert Miller and Kenneth W ilson's Making and Enjoying Telescopes
- James Muirden's Beginner's Guide to Astronomical Telescope Making
- Donald Osterbrock's Ritchey, Hale, and Big American Telescopes
- Henry Paul's Telescopes for Skygazing
- Robert Piekiel's Testing and Evaluating the Optics of Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescopes, Making Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope Optics, ATM's Guide
to Setting up a Home Optics Shop, Tips for Making Optical Flats
- Norman Rember's Making a Refractor Telescope
- Sherman Shultz's The Macalaster Four-Goal System of Mirror Making and the Ronchi Test, Telescope Making #9
- John Strong's Procedures in Experimental Physics
- Scientific American's The Amateur Astronomer
- H.R.Suiter's Star Testing Astronomical Telescopes
- Telescope Making magazine (no longer published)
- Jean Texereau's How to Make a Telescope
- Bill Thomas' Split Image Test (http://www.yubagold.com/tests/index.php)
- Stephen J. Tonkin's Amateur Telescope Making
- John W alley's Y our Telescope, a Construction Manual
- W ilkins and Moore's How to Make and Use a Telescope
- Stellafane Amateur Telescope Making pages http://stellafane.org/stellafane-main/tm/atm/ (comprehensive collection of links to web articles)
(end of parabolizing)
For more see
Introduction
Rough Grinding
Fine Grinding
Polishing
Star Testing
Star Testing a Telescope

by Mel Bartels
Introduction...
Star test rigs...
Learning how to star test...
How accurate is the star test...
Star test criteria...
Star testing for overall telescope performance...
Separating mirror from mount from secondary...
Star testing optical quality...
The at focus test or snap focus test...
Conclusion...
Introduction...
W ant to test your telescope's optics for yourself? Then the quick and easy star test is for you.
W ant to know when your telescope is cooled down, when the atmosphere is steady, when the telescope is
optically aligned? Then the star test is for you.
W ant an end-to-end test that examines all elements? Then the star test is for you.
W ant to separate primary mirror from mirror mounting from secondary mirror from telescope issues? Then the
star test is for you.
Do you roll back and forth through focus a couple of times before settling in on best focus? Then you are
performing a version of the star test. By stopping to inspect the slightly out of focus star discs you can
conduct a full star test.
The star test needs no additional equipment: just a high power eyepiece and experience.
W ith the star test you can tune your telescope for top performance and judge the quality of the optics.
Star test rigs...

Normally one simply tests a telescope under the stars with a high power eyepiece on a night of decent
seeing. The star test can also be used to parabolize or figure a mirror. In this case the telescope tube and
mounting does not have to be finished. Instead a temporary testing rig can be quickly assembled.
T he Outdoor Star T est
Here are images of my outdoor star test rig for the 6 inch [15cm] and 10.5 inch [27cm]
Here are images of my outdoor star test rig for the 13.2 inch [34cm] F/3.0
For those of us in the northern hemisphere, Polaris makes a perfect star test target. It's a good magnitude,
not too bright and not too dim, easy to find, and almost motionless in the eyepiece. A simple holder that
allows the high power eyepiece to be slid back and forth comparing the outside of focus and inside of focus
discs of light is best.
Some back of the envelope calculus suggests that a good elevation to star test at is 48 degrees. This angle
incorporates seeing effects, portion of the sky at differing elevations, telescope and mirror cell imperfections
and ignores the extreme horizon. The angle is relatively insensitive.

Here's the outdoor star test rig for my 30 inch [76cm].
T he Indoor Star T est

The indoor star test has the wonderful attribute of steady air in a controlled temperature room. However, it
calls for a high quality larger aperture telescope. Difficult to discern here, but this image shows the 13 inch
star test rig laid horizontally on a bench aimed at my 20.5 inch [52cm] F/5. The larger scope has illuminated
pinholes placed at its focus. The smaller pinholes yield better star tests but are dimmer to see.
Learning how to star test...

I recommend that every amateur learn the star test. W ith it you can diagnose optical quality, optical
alignment, telescope and atmospheric conditions, and be in a position to make improvements and understand
how best to use the scope given nightly conditions.
Learning to star test takes time at the eyepiece under the stars. Any mirror, particularly large fast mirrors, will
have multiple defects which confound the analysis. Then there are environmental factors that confuse the test
such as the mirror mount, the mirror's instability in the cooling night air, local seeing at the telescope, bad
seeing in the upper atmosphere, questions about the eyepiece and correcting lenses, and your eye. Judging
the star test takes a great deal of experience. How impactful is that defect? How this other defect - does it
matter?
Particularly tragically comedic is someone attempting to learn the star test using a large scope. It's an
unfolding disaster. Instead, you must learn the star test on small long focus mirrors. This is the only way to
learn the subtleties of the star test. Small long focus mirrors tend to have fewer confounding defects, are
more easily mounted, tend to be less affected by cooling night air and with medium high power eyepieces,
keep the eye's afflictions out of the picture. Scopes with 4 to 10 inches [10-25cm] aperture and a focal ratio
of F/6-F/10 are best.
Learning how to judge the star test is best done while figuring a smaller longer focal ratio mirror, star testing
at each step of parabolizing. Y ou quickly learn how the mirror's defects as discerned by the star test affect
the at-focus image. There is no such beast as a perfect mirror; every mirror will show some trivial defect or
worse. The question you must learn to answer is what is the impact on the at-focus image?
A critical star test takes minutes to hours to separate mirror defects from seeing issues and other confounding
factors, involves more than one high power eyepiece and needs to be executed on nights of good seeing. Y ou
will likely need to make adjustments to the telescope's optical alignment, active cooling scheme and focuser.
W ith proper instruction the star test is immediately useful. Conversely it takes years to become an expert,
spending time reading star tests while parabolizing mirrors and observing through a variety of telescopes.
There is no better time than today to begin learning the test and no better time than today to start that 4-10
inch [10-25cm] F/8 mirror project!
How accurate is the star test...

Allow me to offer an unsolicited testimonial from well-known telescope maker and interferometrist Dale
Eason. "A few years ago I met Mel in person for the first time at a Star Party in W isconsin. W e had
communicated for year on the net. I had my 16 F/5 telescope whose mirror I made and knew very well from
the interferometry data. The telescope itself was still a work in progress and I think the mirror was not yet
coated. The telescope had no tracking and was very unstable. It jiggled when you toughed the eyepiece. Mel
wanted to star test it so I let him. He did not know the interferometry data from it. He took about one minute
and then he proceeded to describe its faults that I knew from interferometry and described their position on
the mirror. That man can star test" --- Dale Eason
Did you know that Jean Texereau, master professional optician and author of the influential, "How to Make a
Telescope", used the star test to re-figure the McDonald Observatory 82 inch telescope? He performed 17
figuring spells, star testing in the night after every daily spell. He lowered the wave rating from 1 wave to 1/8
wave.
W hile subjective, the star test is capable of revealing subtle spherical aberration, the most common optical
defect, down to 1/50 wavefront, similar to other tests; zonal defects, turned edge and astigmatism similarly
cannot hide. Surface roughness is harder to detect.
Star test criteria...

T elescope and Optics Cooled
The telescope should be cooled to the night time temperature, be optically aligned (collimated) and tested on
nights of good seeing. The test star should be accurately centered. Testing a star off center, or testing a
scope not accurately aligned (collimated) or testing a scope that has not cooled to the night time air
temperature can produce spurious results. Remember that the star test is a complete test that includes optics
and telescope. Here, Jerry Oltion's mirror has cooled in the freezer, ready for star testing later in the cold
winter night.
A Suitable Star
Star tests require a star that is at least halfway up the sky and that is not too bright. Bright stars and their
scintillation dazzle and make testing problematic. For an un-aluminized mirror being parabolized, Polaris
makes a good target for much of the northern hemisphere; otherwise pick a fainter star slightly above your
pole. If picking a star elsewhere in the sky then a tracking scope is di rigor, otherwise off-center aberrations
will distort the results.
Use High Power
Part of the star test judges how the light snaps to a pinpoint at focus. This should be conducted so that this
pinpoint, actually a dot called the Airy disk, is resolvable, the Airy disk being the minimum sized dot that light
can focus into because of the diffractive nature of light. W hile the eye can resolve the Airy disk at 2mm exit
pupil, best star testing is done at 1mm exit pupil. For a 1mm exit pupil, pick an eyepiece who's focal length in
millimeters equals the focal ratio of the telescope. For instance, if the telescope is f/6, then use a 6mm
eyepiece, if the telescope if f/4.5, then use an eyepiece close to 4.5mm size. Using low power simply tests
your eye, which has considerable spherical aberration and for some, astigmatism. For example at low power
my eyes have considerable undercorrection; amazingly the stars focus to a sharp point. Even at medium
magnification, my eye has a touch of undercorrection.
Coma corrector settings
Be sure to verify any coma corrector settings too. A wrong setting introduces some spherical aberration.
Optical design
Be aware that Maksutovs and some APOs optimize by balancing aberrations. This can leave higher order
aberrations that don't affect the in-focus image but will cause a diagonal shadow breakout test to fail.
Star testing for overall telescope performance...

The performance check under the stars is all about local seeing or thermal disturbances in and near the
telescope, seeing conditions in the upper atmosphere, optical alignment and pinched optics along with focuser
operation. Since nothing can be done about the optical quality of the primary and secondary mirrors, this test
is not concerned with the optical quality of the mirrors themselves.
Checking thermal disturbances in and near the telescope
Checking seeing. There are two types of seeing to check for. The first is local seeing characterized by a
chimney, flare or spike pattern and slow wavy undulations as if you are viewing from the bottom of a
swimming pool. The last is high altitude seeing. Rack the focuser out so that you focus on the upper
atmosphere. Look for very rapid parallel waves rippling through the star test pattern.
Checking optical alignment. W hen defocusing, the diagonal shadow is not centered. Be sure you do this test
with the star precisely centered in the eyepiece. Defocus only a small distance otherwise the diagonal offset
in very fast Newtonians may confuse the issue.
Checking focuser operation. There should be no play or change in optical alignment as well as no anomalous
shadows or edges as the star is defocused in both directions. Check optical alignment with a laser collimator
with the focuser racked well in and well out.
Separating mirror from mount from secondary...

The star test is a combined end to end test. W ith experience one can learn to separate out the various
issues. Here are some examples.
Checking pinched optics including slings. The defocused star test pattern will display flat edges and other
weird discontinuities.
Bad secondary or bad secondary holder. I've rarely seen this but it can be puzzling because it is seldom
suspected. Tell-tale signs include dramatic large scale errors like flares. Another clue is that astigmatism or
pinching is aligned with the diagonal axis. Angles can be confusing at the eyepiece. Insert an obstruction like
a piece of black cardboard in line with the diagonal.
Sling problems are aligned vertically and show up as differences between the upper part of the star test
image and the lower section. Here is an example where the sling is pinching the mirror (perhaps it does not
cover 180 degrees of the mirror's edge, or it has stretched with differential forces around the mirror's rim, or
perhaps a thick sling is keeping the mirror's edge from cooling as fast as the mirror's uncovered top edge.


Analyzing the primary mirror means separating deleterious effects from optical deficiencies. These deficiencies
include turned edge, over and under correction (residual low order spherical aberration), zones, astigmatism
and surface roughness.
Make sure you run the check for overall telescope performance that night under the stars and that you can
account for every factor listed there. Otherwise the primary mirror quality check will be invalid.
John Dobson
John Dobson wrote in the Celestial Observer, 1973, published in San Diego, California, "The bright spot ... is
thrown out of focus first one way then the other by pushing the eyepiece in and out. The two resulting discs
of light should be the same. If they are not the mirror needs to be dug in those areas that bundle too much
light when the eyepiece is too far out."
Remember his simple words. He knows what he's talking about. I've star tested his 24 inch [61cm] f/6.5
mirror and it is very good. He won an optics award at the Riverside Telescope Makers Conference in 1971. He
gave me confidence that the star test was a serious, discerning and demanding test. So I learned the art of
star testing. The quality of the view through the eyepiece is subjective. Stirring in numbers like peak to valley
wavefront rating, r.m.s. wave error and Strehl ratio confuse as much as they clarify. The beauty of the star
test is that you get what you see. And it is all done with a simple high power eyepiece on a night of good
seeing. I try to star test every telescope I look through. The experience of seeing hundreds of mirrors and
their defects is invaluable. Every mirror will show errors or deviations in the star test, some greater that are
injurious to the view, some hard to see and completely inconsequential.
It is a simple rule of thumb: rack the eyepiece outward. Those areas of the mirror that appear excessively
bright or have bright rings need more polishing. Rack the eyepiece inward. Those areas of the mirror that
appear excessively bright or have bright rings need less polishing.
T esting A Finished Mirror versus T esting a Mirror In Progress
By the way, if you are testing a finished mirror, then do not worry excessively if it is under or over corrected. A
deviation is a deviation. Of course if you are testing to finish parabolizing a mirror, then it is critical that you
understand perfectly. Also, resist the temptation to gauge whether the deviations are tenth wave or quarter
wave. It doesn't matter. A slight deviation has a small impact on the image and a very slight deviation
essentially no impact. Serious deviations mean that the in-focus image is significantly compromised and not
usable at high powers. Concentrate on the seriousness of the deviation. I recommend a thoughtful reserved
style of thinking. Avoid loud, brash thinking and a rush to judgement. Set aside your initial impression and
take the time to do a thorough star test. That means many back and forth eyepiece movements when
deviations are slight. W hen you seek advice, listen to those who ask thoughtful questions so as to get a
complete picture.
Mirror Makers' Unique Fingerprints
I've come across an interesting phenomenon. Each mirror maker has a characteristic star test. Mirror maker
'X's mirrors are recognizable and distinct from mirror maker 'Y '. Our personalities impact how we make mirrors.
Our processes and techniques vary. That's because there are many variables in mirror making. Each mirror
makers chooses to control some factors and vary others in order to achieve the desired result.
T he Perfect T est
Slide or rack the focuser with a high power eyepiece giving 1-2mm exit pupil back and forth about an eight of
an inch [3mm]. If the mirror is nearly perfect, you will see a bright ring emerge from the focused star image
followed by an inner ring that is the diagonal shadow. Between these two bright rings are fainter thinner
interference rings. As you slide the eyepiece further out of focus these rings turn into a smooth disc of light
with a centered diagonal shadow.
Uncorrected And Overcorrected

A mirror that is not sufficiently parabolized is called undercorrected. A mirror that is overly parabolized is
called overcorrected. A spherical mirror without any correction is gravely undercorrected.
Here's what a mirror that is gravely undercorrected looks like as the eyepiece is moved from focused to above
focus. Incidentally, a mirror grossly overcorrected looks the same, but the eyepiece is moved from focused to
below focus. Most importantly, the light does not focus to a single point; there is no focuser position that
gives perfect focus; there is always some fuzzy light around the star.
W hen the mirror is somewhat under or overcorrected then the diagonal shadow will break out at unequal
distances on either side of focus. Here the diagonal is breaking out too soon in the lefthand star test and is
hardly breaking out at all in the righthand star test. If the diagonal breaks out quickly while moving inside of
focus and the diagonal breaks out slowly while moving outward of focus then the mirror is undercorrected.
Conversely the diagonal shadow breakout is slow inside of focus and quick outside of focus when the mirror is
overcorrected. I've shown a touch of brightening around the diagonal breakout when it breaks out quickly and
a touch of brightening inside the mirror's edge ring when the diagonal breaks out slowly. This indicates a
great degree of under or over correction. If the diagonal is too small, then enlarge its shadow with a
cardboard mask. A mask 1/3 the diameter of the primary is ideal.
W hen undercorrection or overcorrection is very slight such that the diagonal shadow breakout is the same on
either side of focus then the very slight under or overcorrection will be seen as a difference in brightness
between the diagonal shadow ring and the mirror's edge ring. Note in the first image that the diagonal
shadow ring is slightly brighter than the mirror's edge ring. If the first image occurs when the eyepiece is
defocused outward slightly and the second image occurs when the eyepiece is defocused inward slightly then
the mirror is slightly undercorrected. If the focus positions are reversed then the mirror is slightly
overcorrected. At this point, the mirror is diffraction limited in that the diffraction effects due to the nature of
light overwhelm the impact on the image of very slight under or over correction.
Remember that mirrors look overcorrected when cooling and undercorrected when warming up. Testing a mirror
in the morning almost guarantees an undercorrected result. It's best to test after midnight unless you can
blow lots of air at the mirror to cool it down as quickly as the night sky is cooling.
Using a 1/3 obstruction mask
Small diagonals may help with high fidelity detail, but they cause trouble in the star test particularly when
testing for spherical aberration, the most common mirror defect. Central hills and depressions brighten and
dim the diagonal rim's ring, mimicking spherical aberration. W hen conducting tests on the impact of central
obstruction, I saw that increasing the obstruction to about 1/3 the size of the primary mirror masked the
central defects, allowing spherical aberration to shine through. A mask of 1/2 the primary hid too much of the
mirror's central zones. I make a black cardboard mask, sticking it onto the diagonal holder's mounting bolt.
Astigmatism
Astigmatism (low order) manifests itself as you begin to defocus. The star has an oval shape that when you
defocus in the other direction rotates 90 degrees. If bad, the star will focus to a short line, not to a point or
dot. Causes in the order of likelihood: the optician figuring in astigmatism due to bad support or preferential
area polishing; a mirror support like a sling; flexing due to wedge (one side of the mirror is a tad thinner than
the other side); differential cooling. Bad glass (poorly annealed glass) is blamed more than it deserves. In
vogue today is the idea that glass has a 'grain'. I've thought so once or twice but always it was traced to the
true cause.
T urned Edge
Turned edge (TDE stands for Turned Down Edge) causes a hairy ring inside of focus and a bright hard ring
outside focus.
A Cocktail of Errors
Particularly with larger or faster mirrors, zonal errors mix with correction errors. Let's analyze the case of an
undercorrected 60-80% zone, a common occurrence. An overcorrected 60-80% zone, also common, will appear
exactly the same except that the defocus directions are reversed.
The circle of least confusion occurs at line 'C', which if smaller than the Airy disk, diffraction effects dominate.
If the circle of least confusion is much smaller than the Airy disc, then the mirror will perfect excellently, if the
circle of least confusion is close to the size of the Airy disc, then the mirror will perform adequately.
As we defocus outward, we notice a bright ring that quickly enlarges in diameter from the central star dot. At
line 'B', the circle appears to implicate the mirror's 40% zone, but that is only because the zone's expansion
lags.
Even at line 'A', the bright ring still does not quite reach the 60-80% zone. A difficult to discern telltale sign is
the dark ring to its outside.
Defocusing inward to line 'D', a bright ring appears on the rim with a dark area inside it.
This gradually subsumes into a more uniform disk of light at line 'E'.
Note that the diagonal breakout shadow shown in red occurs late when defocusing outward indicating
undercorrection; however, after additional defocus, the diagonal breakout shadow becomes approximately the
same size at equal distances from best focus (positions 'B' and 'D') with a brightening of the ring surrounding
the diagonal shadow outside of focus. This illustrates the impact of a mirror's under/over corrected zone on
the diagonal breakout shadow.
The first is what a slightly undercorrected (or overcorrected if the defocus positions are reversed) 60-80%
zone star test looks like. The star is barely defocused. This mirror is very good.
W orse undercorrection/overcorrected in the 60-80% zone looks like this star test. Note the larger defocus
when under/over corrected zone is worse. This mirror is fair.
Determining a zone's location on the mirror's face.

Contrary to common belief, it is possible to determine a zone's location on the mirror, as long as there are not
other errors that confuse the star test. Let's take the case of an undercorrected 60-80% zone. As the star is
defocused outward, a bright ring will appear at the edge of the diagonal's shadow. As defocusing continues,
the ring will propagate outward and dim slightly. As defocusing outward becomes extreme, taking up a good
portion of the eyepiece's field, the ring will widen and dim, settling into position, revealing the location of the
zone. Defocusing inward will show the opposite - a dark zone that expands and settles into position.
A Forest of Fine Errors at High Power

As the star test is used at every smaller exit pupils and higher powers approaching 50x per inch of aperture
(2x per millimeter), the star test becomes more difficult as more zones come into play. Zones that were
subtly off and not noticed in coarser star tests now make their appearance as the star test is conducted closer
to perfect focus where diffraction effects dominate. The most common issue besides turned edge is a low or
high mid-range zone in the 50-70% radius of the mirror. This causes the diagonal breakout ring to be brighter
on one side of the star test even though the diagonal breakout is equal on both sides of focus. Masks to cover
parts of the mirror can help tease out the offending zone. As the mirror becomes closer to perfect, zones
further from the mirror's center begin to cause a slight brightening of the diagonal breakout ring. Take comfort
in the reality that you are working and testing a mirror that is indistinguishable from perfect and that is better
than the vast majority of mirrors.
Separating Errors
How can we tell what zone is under or overcorrected? There are two approaches. The first uses cardboard
masks placed over the mirror to isolate zones and the second uses the Ronchi test with close inspection of
the bands to see where they curve too much and where they curve too little. Here are masks that I used for
the 13.2 inch [34cm] f/3.0 mirror. I've found that two masks are sufficient, sized half the mirror's diameter so
that the masks stop and start at the mirror's 50% zone. Avoid too small of mask like a 25% mask because
the center's focus becomes too difficult to resolve since the effective aperture is stopped down too much. By
using one mask then the other, I can isolate the under/overcorrected zone to inside the 50% zone or outside
the 50% zone. In my experience and observing others, the 70% zone is hardest to correct properly. The small
central mask shows a problem in the star test whereas the outer ring mask shows no problem. The smaller
curved segment helped isolate a particular narrow overcorrected zone. I varied its placement on the mirror
until differences in the outside and inside star test image disappeared behind the segment. I did not use the
more elaborate second mask very much. Incidentally this version of the star test is mentioned in Taylor's book
of 1891, "The Adjustment and Testing of Telescope Objectives". Taylor viewed the star test as the best and
most discriminating test for diffraction limited optics.
Important clue: when the hint of under or over correction becomes difficult to map to the mirror's surface,
then the mirror is diffraction limited - you have left the geometric world. At this point there is real value in
the mirror; risk aversion awakes in the guise of, "Should I risk ruining the parabolization for a slight gain?"
The optician will be executing corrective polishing spells for only 30 seconds to a couple of minutes. I
recommend continuing in order to learn how to make zonal improvements without hurting nearby zones.
Eventually the zones will feel like wiggly Jello; you have reached the limits of your skills, glass and testing
setup.
Surface Roughness
Surface roughness is difficult to see in the star test. It is best to have a high quality scope for comparison.
The slightly defocused star image will have sharper interference rings between the diagonal breakout shadow
and the mirror's edge ring. Also there will be no fuzz off the outer ring or interior to the inner ring. It is best
to test for surface roughness using a Ronchi or knife-edge tester where the entire mirror's surface can be seen
at once.
A smooth surface is a product most of technique: smooth even strokes of constant pressure using a large lap
with a microfaceted, not channeled, surface and starred or scalloped edges. Premium polishing compounds can
help sometimes but cannot make up for poor technique or too small of lap run for too long.
The at focus test or snap focus test...

Focus to a point test ensures that the telescope will be diffraction limited and give pleasing high power views
of stars. Diffraction limited here means that diffraction effects dominate the view compared to optical defects
in the mirror. Pleasing views mean that the stars focus to a sharp point at high power.
In the 1800's Dawes determined empirically that the resolving power of a telescope is 4.6 arcseconds divided
by the aperture in inches. A 6 inch [15cm] telescope can theoretically resolve 0.8 arcseconds, assuming two
equally bright stars of apparent magnitude 6. Rayleigh determined theoretically that the resolving power is
5.5 arcseconds / aperture in inches. Of course, in a 6 inch telescope, we can see some objects that are
narrower (though we can't resolve them) such as Saturn's Cassini division which is 0.5 arcseconds wide.
Since the eye resolves about two arcminutes, then we need to magnify a 6 inch telescope 120 arcseconds /
0.8 resolution limit =~ 150x. Generalizing, this is ~ 25x per inch of aperture. In metric, the required
magnification is simply the aperture in millimeters (!)
If it is an f/8 telescope of 48 inches [120cm] focal length, then an eyepiece of 8mm will suffice to reach the
telescope's resolution limit. Note the relationship between the focal ratio of f/8 and the eyepiece's focal
length of 8mm. Using an eyepiece whose focal length in millimeters is the same number as the telescope's
focal ratio yields the necessary magnification to reach the telescope's theoretical resolution.
To test that the telescope will give a pleasing high power view of stars and resolve to its theoretical
resolution limit, in other words, that diffraction effects dominate the image, use an eyepiece equal to the
focal ratio of the telescope, e.g., a 6mm eyepiece if f/6, a 4mm eyepiece if f/4.
Conducting the "At Focus" Star T est
Inspect the star image by sliding the high power eyepiece back and forth through focus very slowly. The star
disc should shrink evenly into a bright point surrounded by blackness then expand again into a disc on the
other side of focus. The bright spot should occur at a single focus position and not be present over a range of
eyepiece movement. This is sometimes called the 'snap focus test' today. If this is not the case, for instance,
a bit of fuzz remains when the light comes to a bright point, the fuzz disappearing into the bright point as the
eyepiece slides further along while the bright point begins to expand either into a fuzzy disc or a ring, then
the mirror fails the test.
Here the image on the left is perfect, the image on the right is quite poor.
Focus means finding the eyepiece's location where the spot of light is tightest, sometimes called the circle of
least confusion, or blur spot. This is the smallest circle that encompasses all the rays of light being reflected
from the primary as they join together before they separate again. This is sometimes the geometric view or
the ray trace view. However, once the light rays come together in a space that's a fraction of the wavelength
of light, then diffraction effects occur.
These effects manifest themselves, for circular apertures like telescope optics, as a disc of light surrounded
by rings of decreasing brightness. Y ou can see these effects vividly. Cut out a cardboard mask that covers the
end of your telescope and make a one to two inch hole midway to the edge in it such that it avoids the
diagonal and position it so that it avoids the spider vanes. Aim the scope at a very bright star. Y ou can take a
moment and suspend small circular dots simulating the additional diffraction effects that the secondary
diagonal causes. Y ou'll see that once the diagonal shrinks to 1/5 the size of the opening that the diffraction
effects are not noticeable.
Diffraction
These diffraction effects dominate the high power star image of a mirror accurate to quarter wave. A
practically indistinguishable from perfect diffraction pattern occurs when the mirror can form an image accurate
to an eight of a wave. For our testing purposes, if the high power star can be focused to a bright spot then
the mirror is likely quarter wave or better. By inspecting the distribution of light by defocusing the star image,
we can test to very small fractions of a wavelength. Spherical aberration or overall correction can be tested to
1/20 wavefront, for instance, well beyond what is needed for a high quality mirror.
Conclusion...
It is a low-tech, zero-cost, easy to conduct test that can be done with any optical system. Insert high power
eyepiece and center up a star.
It is an extremely demanding test, so go easy when you see defects that are not outrageous.

The Joy of Mirror Making Mel Bartels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Joy of Mirror Making Mel Bartels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Joy of Mirror Making

Compare mirror making to rock climbing.

Reaching the Goal

Generate the curve (rough grinding)

- Sam Browns All About Telescopes

The Joy of Mirror Making

(end of fine grinding)

The Joy of Mirror Making

Pouring and Shaping the Lap

Mirror on T op or T ool on T op?

T he I nitial Flash Polish

Polish for 15 minutes to gain an initial shine.

Here is the URL to my online Ronchi testing program. Ronchi

The Joy of Mirror Making: Parabolizing

Testing The paraboloid...

Control and variation...

Sub-diameter and oversized laps...

The four parabolization methods using full sized tools...

T he 70% Zone is Special.

Parabolizing sessions and polishing speed...

The six factors of polishing or cutting speed

The Ronchi and star test tandem...

The Ronchi test...

Ronchigrams outside and inside of radius of curvature

Dr. Sherman Schultz's Ronchi T esting

10.5 inch [27cm] F/2.7

Jerry Oltion's 12.5 inch [32cm] f4.5 Mirror

He labored late into the night,

Fixing common maladies

How to know you are finished...

Some final words: a journey ends, another begins...

- Jeff Baldwin's telescope making pages http://www.jeffbaldwin.org/atm.htm

Star Testing a Telescope

Star test rigs...

and ignores the extreme horizon. The angle is relatively insensitive.

T he Indoor Star T est

Learning how to star test...

How accurate is the star test...

Star test criteria...

Star testing for overall telescope performance...

Separating mirror from mount from secondary...

Star testing optical quality...

Star testing optical quality...

Uncorrected And Overcorrected

Determining a zone's location on the mirror's face.

A Forest of Fine Errors at High Power

The at focus test or snap focus test...

You might also like