Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Chris L Peterson <clp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:21:50 GMT
On 19 Jan 2006 21:04:40 -0800, "nick" <svla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>No? I'll give one. It tells you that any image you make at this f.l.
>will appear,
>in its original size, from 250mm distance, 10.8 times larger
>than the object itself.
Useless, since nobody seriously uses their OTA in this fashion. The
formula for the magnification of the virtual image is a curiosity only
to astronomers.
>> The correct answer remains the same for the OP: there is no such thing
>> as magnification with only an objective. The term is only meaningful in
>> a practical sense with a telescope.
>
>If you prefer ignorance, be my guest...
If you prefer to go around specifying a parameter for objectives that
almost nobody has any use for, be _my_ guest.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: nick
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- References:
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: nick
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: nick
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Stephen Paul
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: nick
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: nick
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- Prev by Date: Re: Stupid question about magnification
- Next by Date: Re: Magnitude of Sun from Pluto?
- Previous by thread: Re: Stupid question about magnification
- Next by thread: Re: Stupid question about magnification
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|