Re: [Utah-astronomy] Where is power needed?
More like getting a magnifying glass out to look at the 1600X1200. The detail is there, you jst need to make it bigger to see. Brent --- Jim Gibson <xajax99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brent
It's kind of like when I can't read the text on a computer screen set to 1600X1200 I have no problem when the resolution is set to 600X800; no additional detail just easyer for my old eyes.
Jim
Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:Jim,
High power above the maximum can sometimes compensate for resolving power difficulties of a person's eye. There will not be more detail there, but sometimes the high power will make it big enough to see. Also, the seeing on vrareeare occasions will allow a "peek" at higher resolution than you might otherwise think.
One word of caution. High power also brings out the defects in the eyeball. You have to be very careful about what you see, and whether it is an artifact or not. Please look up Hershel's use of high power, and his reports of moon creatures. (A famous hoax)
Brent
--- Jim Gibson wrote:
Question for Rich Tenny (or anyone else)
I saw the new Televue products (41mm eyepiece etc) you mentioned last night at SLAS at:
http://www.televue.com/WSP2003/NewProdsJan2003/New_at_WSP2003.htm
I dont currently have any hi-power stuff like the 3.5mm or the 2.5mm Nagler. I ran this little
program
at: http://www.csgnetwork.com/telescopemagcalc.html for a 12 mirror with an f7 focal length and a 2.5mm eyepiece. One of the calculations states that for this setup the Maximum Useful Magnification is 600x; however, the 2.5mm would provide 853x. I also recall from a previous conversation we had that someone told you in reference to the Mars opposition that it could take all of the power you could crank. How does all this square? Does the Maximum Useful Magnification mean that everything over 600x (in this case) will go soft? If (big if) I bought a 2.5mm Nagler, could I use it for anything else? I am thinking that such power would only be good for bright planets.
Jim Gibson
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Remember, guys, that it does take an exceptionally smooth figure to go beyond normal limits. If your primary is not top-notch quality, you may actually lose detail instead of make it bigger. This is one of those cases where a figure "better than 1/4 wave" or "beyond the diffraction limit" pays-off. C. --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
More like getting a magnifying glass out to look at the 1600X1200. The detail is there, you jst need to make it bigger to see.
Brent
--- Jim Gibson <xajax99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brent
It's kind of like when I can't read the text on a computer screen set to 1600X1200 I have no problem when the resolution is set to 600X800; no
additional
detail just easyer for my old eyes.
Jim
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
participants (2)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards