Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Eyesight dangers using telescopes was: [8760] Basics of computing sunrise/sunset
    From: Douglas Denny
    Date: 2009 Jun 25, 12:47 -0700

    I still disagree with Mr. Huxtable except in his correction of my 
    miscalculation error of foveal area. Area is indeed 0.07 mm. not 0.28 mm. and 
    I am sure he will appreciate the effect of this if anything is to potentially 
    increase the I/R energy density at the fovea by a further four times, making 
    my simple calculation an underestimate by this amount. 
    
    He still seems reluctant, however,  to accept light energy can be focussed.
    
    If the flux density of light cannot be focussed from an objective lens and 
    hence increased by optical means onto a small area, then all of those people 
    in the Lawrence Livermore facility concentrating huge aperture lasers onto a 
    pinpoint of about one mm. for fusion research are going to be badly 
    disappointed.
    
    Although he now agrees that all of the light energy into an objective 
    (neglecting inefficiency of the optics) will emerge through the exit pupil of 
    the optical device, he seems determined not to let that light into the eye 
    from a telescope.  I do not think he is being realistic about this or is 
    familiar with the optics of the eye.
    
    One or two more points to try to shed light on the matter (sorry about pun):-
    
    The exit pupil of an astronomical telescope is the image size of the objective 
    lens itself which forms the aperture stop.
    
    Take my simple cheap binoculars. Magnification ten; objective aperture 50 mm;  
    focal length of objective 195 mm, focal length of eyepiece 19.5 mm. The 
    aperture of the exit pupil(x) is therefore:-
    
    x/19.5 = 25/214.5
    
    which  = 2.2 mm.  real, and at 19.5 mm. from the eyepiece.
     
    .....and hence is quite small enough to have the entrance pupil of the eye at 
    this point and allow all the light pencil into the eye for a full field of 
    view.  This is normal for astronomical telescopes.
    
    The Galilean eyepiece however, produces a virtual exit pupil so there can be 
    no field stop, no sharp boundary and the whole field cannot be seen at once, 
    but the limiting factor is eventually the objective diameter. 
    Magnification affects the field of view and illuminance at the image as normal 
    with inverse functions with both.
    --------------
    
    There is a simpler analysis for consideration with the eye however, for 
    magnification and image of the sun.
    
    It is a curious co-incidence of nature that the diameter of the Sun, and the 
    diameter of the Moon and the diameter of the fovea all subtend the same angle 
    of about half a degree.
    This means that the image of the Sun, or Moon, covers almost exactly the fovea in the naked eye.
    
    If a telescope has unity magnification (1.0)  then the energy entering the 
    objective is equal to that emerging frmo the eyepice; and as just indicated, 
    all of which can enter the eye.  The energy enering the eye is now increased 
    by the greater aperture of the objective compared to the eye pupil and is in 
    proportion to the different aperture areas.  The energy of that part of the 
    image which is the Sun is fully covering the fovea - and increased by the 
    larger aperture of the telescope compared to the eye pupil.
    
    Now consider the case if the magnification of the telescope used is say, two. 
    Then the angle of emerging rays at the telescope is doubled, and image size 
    on the fovea is doubled - but that is still half of the Sun's object size 
    occupying the foveal area - and as discussed,  the flux density of light from 
    the full aperture of the objective is placed there. It might be half of the 
    flux energy from the telescope if it had a magnification of one - but is 
    still enormous when the difference in apertures between eye pupil size and 
    objective lens aperture size are considered.
    
    Same argument if you increase the magnification of the telescope to four: you 
    then have a quarter of the Sun's disc on the fovea, but still a massive flux 
    increase in proportion to the objective aperture and eye pupil areas .. and 
    quite enough to burn a hole in the retina.
    
    Enough of that. I have made my point. It is reckless to use telescopes looking at the sun - anytime.
    
    ===============
    I shall make another posting shortly and that involves the other thread with 
    star distances and accuracy, but that will have to be later when I can find 
    time to write about it and scan some documents which should give further 
    interest/enlightenment.
    
    Douglas Denny.
    Chichester.  England.
    
    
    
    --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
    Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
    To post, email NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, email NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
    -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site