Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: "nick" <svla@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Jan 2006 07:38:49 -0800
William C. Keel wrote:
>
> What I think Cerdic was talking about is the possible use of a refractor
> with the human eye acting as the eyepiece as well as detector.
The eye has a serious problem in acting as an eyepiece: too small field
lens.
The closest it can get to any image with proper focus is ~250mm. So, in
order
to collect all the light from, say, 10mm diameter image produced by an
f/10 system,
it would have to have minimum 35mm clear diameter. With, say, 5mm pupil
opening,
it would only catch 4% of energy of the axial cone and not mor than
2-3mm of sufficiently illuminated field diameter. It would be much
worse with a fast system and smaller pupil.
Being close to the image, an eyepiece requires much smaller field lens
in order to efficiently handle diverging light cones.
Vlad
.
- References:
- Stupid question about magnification
- From: Cerdic
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: William C. Keel
- Stupid question about magnification
- Prev by Date: Re: SAA's Founders
- Next by Date: Re: Stupid question about magnification
- Previous by thread: Re: Stupid question about magnification
- Next by thread: Re: Stupid question about magnification
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|