Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?
From: Jon Isaacs (jonisaacs_at_aol.com)
Date: 11/06/04
- Next message: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Previous message: Chris.B: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- In reply to: Ernie Dunbar: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Next in thread: Hilton: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 06 Nov 2004 11:00:14 GMT
> But because of this, and the fact that I got mine
>at London Drugs and not Vancouver Telescope, I'm lucky because I'm not
>getting the horrible chromatic aberration that I would get from a
>cheap refractor.
The "typical cheap refractor" is a 60mm F11.7 achromat and does not have
"horrible chromatic aberration."
One rule of thumb for acceptable color in a achromat is that the focal ratio be
5 times the objective diameter in inches. (Another less conservative rule is
3X.) 60mm=2.36 inches x 5= 11.8
This means that the scopes are nearly color free. Most often the objectives
are pretty good. Its the rest of the scope that is lacking.
jon
- Next message: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Previous message: Chris.B: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- In reply to: Ernie Dunbar: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Next in thread: Hilton: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]