Re: Expensive Small Aperture Refractor?
- From: "Richard F.L.R.Snashall" <rflrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:25:00 -0400
tony_flanders@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Shneor wrote:
Visually speaking, small, high quality refractors are great if you don't mind not being able to view 80% of what you can see ... with an 18".
Actually, I compute that as closer to 99%.
An 18" scope has 4.5x the aperture of a 4" scope, gathering 20.25x as much light, and allowing you to see equivalent objects 4.5x farther away. So for any given absolute magnitude of star or DSO, the 18" scope covers 4.5^3 = 91x times the volume. In other words, only one out of every 91 stars or objects visible in the 18" is visible in the 4" scope.
Doesn't that make it 1.1%??? .
- References:
- Expensive Small Aperture Refractor?
- From: Glen Ilacqua
- Re: Expensive Small Aperture Refractor?
- From: Shneor
- Re: Expensive Small Aperture Refractor?
- From: tony_flanders
- Expensive Small Aperture Refractor?
- Prev by Date: Re: Expensive Small Aperture Refractor?
- Next by Date: Bragging...
- Previous by thread: Re: Expensive Small Aperture Refractor?
- Next by thread: Re: Expensive Small Aperture Refractor?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|