Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


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

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Eyesight dangers using telescopes
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2009 Jun 26, 00:38 +0100

    Douglas Denny wrote-
    "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."
    I don't follow that. I wonder if Douglas is familiar with B K Johnson's
    little book "Optics and optical instruments". I attach a relevant page with
    a ray-diagram. According to that, the exit pupil would be the size of the
    objective divided by the magnification, which would come out as 5mm, not
    2.2mm. It seems to make sense to me; but then I'm no expert on optics. If
    Douglas thinks that Johnson has it wrong, perhaps he will explain why,
    preferably with another ray-diagram..
    However, it doesn't matter, not a bit. I have accepted, for the purposes of
    this argument, that the pupil stays wide open, despite the bright light, and
    that every bit of the sunlight that enters the objective passes, with 100%
    efficiency, through the pupil and into the eye. What more could Douglas ask
    And assuming that, then with a magnification of 10x, the amount of light
    entering the eye will be 100x greater than if the Sun is seen with the naked
    eye. Does he accept that?
    It's what happens next that matters. Does Douglas agree that the image of
    the unmagnified Sun (32' across) on the retina, taking the focal length of
    the eye to be 25mm, will be about 0.24mm diameter? That would correspond to
    a disc of area .045 square mm.
    Now look throgh the telescope. With a magnification of x10, the angular
    divergence of light from the sun is increased from 32' to 320'. And the
    light from that 10x larger disc paints an illuminated area on the retina
    that 10x greater in diameter, so now, it's 2.4mm. In which case, the area of
    that disc is increased by 100x compared with the naked eye case, to 4.5
    square mm.
    So we have 100x as much light energy, falling on a disc that's 100x greater
    in area. Therefore, the energy density falling on any part of the disc is
    exactly the same as with the naked eye.
    Douglas appears to be unwilling to accept that analysis, so I ask him to
    identify which of those steps he disputes, and what he proposes in its
    contact George Huxtable, at  george{at}hux.me.uk
    or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
    or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
    Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
    To post, email NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, email NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com


    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    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 Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    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