Coude Spectrograph vs Cassegrain?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the comparison between Coude spectrographs and Cassegrain spectrographs, specifically focusing on the concept of flux throughput and its implications for performance. Participants explore the complexities of spectrograph design, including resolution, sensitivity, and the effects of stray light.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the clarity of the original question regarding flux throughput, suggesting that it may not be answerable without further context.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of understanding the signal-to-noise ratio in spectrographs, noting that more light collected leads to a stronger signal.
  • Concerns about stray light are raised, with a mention of methods to correct for it in spectrographs.
  • The relationship between resolution and the size of wavelength bins is discussed, indicating that smaller bins can lead to lower light levels in each bin.
  • Participants mention that early spectrographs used diffraction gratings and discuss the impact of focal length on resolution and stray light.
  • The use of double monochromators for improved resolution is proposed, along with the advantages of using detector arrays for simultaneous measurements.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the definitions of Cassegrain and Coude designs, with emphasis on the stationary nature of the Coude focus.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding flux throughput and its implications, with no consensus reached on the original question. Multiple viewpoints on the complexities of spectrograph design and performance remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that classical spectrograph design involves trade-offs between resolution, sensitivity, and spectral range, which may not be fully addressed in the discussion.

AlphaCrucis
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Explain how there can be a flux throughput advantage in using a coude spectrograph compared to a Cassegrain spectrograph?
What is Flux Throughput? Explain how there can be a flux throughput advantage in using a coude spectrograph compared to a Cassegrain spectrograph?

I'm confused on what this actually means when comparing the two. Is it asking what are the seeing advantages in terms of resolving powers of a Coude vs a Cassegrain?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I am not sure your question can be answered as it stands. Classical spectrograph design is a complex trade off between, resolution, sensitivity and spectral range. Its dimensions also scale with telescope aperture and focal length. Google spectroscopy design and look out for etendue which encapsulates throughput.

Regards Andrew
 
If you don't know what flux throughput is, there is little change you would understand an answer about flux throughput advantage.

For any spectrograph (or any measurement), you have to be concerned about the ratio of the signal versus the noise. For a spectrograph, the signal is easy to understand. The more light you collect, the stronger the signal.

One source of noise is the electronics of your detector. For astronomical devices, the detector is usually cooled which significantly reduces noise from the electronics.

A spectrograph sorts photons by wavelength. You parse light into different buckets that cover a range of wavelengths. This isn't a perfect process and some photons don't get sorted properly. This is known as stray light - that is to say light that is scattered inside the instrument. A properly designed spectrograph will have low stray light. There are very efficient methods of correcting for stray light in a spectrograph see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7254062_A_simple_stray-light_correction_method_for_array_spectroradiometers

You also have to consider the resolution. Detecting the signal in a 1nm bucket gives you a strong signal. Parse that light into 0.1 nm (1 angstrom) or 0.01 nm (0.1 angstrom) bins spreads that light out even more and the amount of light in each bin is lower. (It is also more difficult to sort the light so precisely).

Early spectrographs used a diffraction grating to sort light. A diffraction grating reflects (or refracts) light at different angles depending on its wavelength. A longer focal length increases the resolution, but may increase stray light. A longer focal length also increases the physical size of a spectrograph.

BTW: Cassegrain is a specific

Using a second diffraction grating (double monochromator) improves resolution since you are basically sorting the light twice.

A spectrograph can use a single detector and rotate the diffraction grating(s) to measure the signal vs wavelength. The slower the scan speed, the higher the resolution. This also means more time to collect a spectrum. Virtually all spectrographs these days use detector arrays which allows measurements of light at thousands of wavelengths simultaneously.

I hope this background helps you enough to let you find additional answers on your own.

BTW: Cassegrain is a specific type of optical design for a telescope. Coude (French for "elbow") refers to a focal point. The coude focus is stationary which makes it easier to install large or complex equipment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AlphaCrucis, davenn and BvU
Eric Bretschneider said:
If you don't know what flux throughput is, there is little change you would understand an answer about flux throughput advantage.

For any spectrograph (or any measurement), you have to be concerned about the ratio of the signal versus the noise. For a spectrograph, the signal is easy to understand. The more light you collect, the stronger the signal.

One source of noise is the electronics of your detector. For astronomical devices, the detector is usually cooled which significantly reduces noise from the electronics.

A spectrograph sorts photons by wavelength. You parse light into different buckets that cover a range of wavelengths. This isn't a perfect process and some photons don't get sorted properly. This is known as stray light - that is to say light that is scattered inside the instrument. A properly designed spectrograph will have low stray light. There are very efficient methods of correcting for stray light in a spectrograph see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7254062_A_simple_stray-light_correction_method_for_array_spectroradiometers

You also have to consider the resolution. Detecting the signal in a 1nm bucket gives you a strong signal. Parse that light into 0.1 nm (1 angstrom) or 0.01 nm (0.1 angstrom) bins spreads that light out even more and the amount of light in each bin is lower. (It is also more difficult to sort the light so precisely).

Early spectrographs used a diffraction grating to sort light. A diffraction grating reflects (or refracts) light at different angles depending on its wavelength. A longer focal length increases the resolution, but may increase stray light. A longer focal length also increases the physical size of a spectrograph.

BTW: Cassegrain is a specific

Using a second diffraction grating (double monochromator) improves resolution since you are basically sorting the light twice.

A spectrograph can use a single detector and rotate the diffraction grating(s) to measure the signal vs wavelength. The slower the scan speed, the higher the resolution. This also means more time to collect a spectrum. Virtually all spectrographs these days use detector arrays which allows measurements of light at thousands of wavelengths simultaneously.

I hope this background helps you enough to let you find additional answers on your own.

BTW: Cassegrain is a specific type of optical design for a telescope. Coude (French for "elbow") refers to a focal point. The coude focus is stationary which makes it easier to install large or complex equipment.
Amazing answer! Thanks so much; it definitely cleared up a few things for me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
3K