Re: PST vs Solarmax 40
From: William Hamblen (wrhamblen_at_comcast.net)
Date: 08/25/04
- Next message: Tom: "Is this anything?"
- Previous message: vic20owner: "Re: Adopt A Streetlight?"
- In reply to: David Knisely: "Re: PST vs Solarmax 40"
- Next in thread: Brian Tung: "Re: PST vs Solarmax 40"
- Reply: Brian Tung: "Re: PST vs Solarmax 40"
- Reply: David Knisely: "Re: PST vs Solarmax 40"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:40:13 -0500
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:09:31 -0500, David Knisely <ka0czc@navix.net>
wrote:
>Brian Tung wrote:
>
>> One definite difference is the bandwidth of the two. The PST is rated
>> at 1.0 Angstrom (0.10 nm), whereas the SM 40 (or the MS 40 that uses it)
>> is rated at 0.7 Angstrom (0.07 nm). That should make a noticeable
>> difference on disc contrast.
>
>The PST is rated at *less* than one angstrom. From comparing it to my 0.7
>Angstrom DayStar T-Scanner, I would have to say that it is definitely
>sub-angstrom in passband width. I saw the SM40 in use at NSP, and its
>performance was fairly comparable to that of the PST which I am reviewing.
>Clear skies to you.
I've got a Lumicon 0.1 nm solar H-alpha filter that shows practically
no details on the solar disk. You see a very strong filament
occasionally. If the PST shows much detail it means that it has a
pass band narrower than 0.1 nm.
- Next message: Tom: "Is this anything?"
- Previous message: vic20owner: "Re: Adopt A Streetlight?"
- In reply to: David Knisely: "Re: PST vs Solarmax 40"
- Next in thread: Brian Tung: "Re: PST vs Solarmax 40"
- Reply: Brian Tung: "Re: PST vs Solarmax 40"
- Reply: David Knisely: "Re: PST vs Solarmax 40"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
