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
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2009 Jun 28, 11:39 +0100

    I will try again, about energy density falling on the retina, but without
    much hope of convincing Douglas Denny.
    
    Douglas Denny wrote, in [8850], (re: Star-star distances for arc error)
    "In optics the apparent luminance of an object using a telescope, divided by
    the apparent luminance of the object viewed directly,  is proportional to A
    / M^2  where a is the aperture area and M is magnification. ( N.B.  I use as
    a source for my references:  'Geometrical and Physical Optics' by R.S.
    Longhurst ).
    So the maths is clear, whatever the luminance of the object (L), ( and with
    the Sun it is very high indeed) the luminance seen through a telescope is
    equal to L times a constant, times the Aperture area, divided by the
    Magnification squared.   So "brightness" of the image is a function of two
    quantities: aperture and magnification."
    
    agreed (though unsure about the "constant", which ought to equal 1 under the
    assumptions we have made, I believe)
    
    "Increasing aperture does indeed increase luminance of the image in direct
    proportion.". Yes. To the AREA of that aperture, note, in the way that
    Longhurst framed it. There is confusion throughout Douglas' posting, between
    aperture-as-diameter, and aperture-as-area.
    
    "Increasing magnification decreases luminance squared." I don't understand
    that statement, which appears to be written backwards. If Douglas had
    written instead "luminance decreases as the square of the increase in
    magnification", I would go along with that.
    
    "What happens with aperture changes with constant magnification?
    If a telescope is used of unity magnification, the maths says increase the
    aperture area and the luminance of the image increases. If aperture is
    doubled then L doubles.  If aperture is quadrupled, then L is quadrupled.
    Use a telescope of unity magnification but aperture area double that of the
    pupil diameter of say 3mm and the luminance must double to 2L."
    
    No. That's where Douglas has it wrong. He has assumed the impossible.
    
    I think in a previous posting, Douglas eventually agreed with me (and with
    Johnson's book) that the ratio of entrance pupil diameter to exit pupil
    diameter of a telescope was equal to its magnification. (if apertures are
    consided as aperture-areas rather than diameters, then the ratio of those
    areas is the magnification squared). If he is still unconvinced, an
    astronomical telescope with a magnification of 1 (which does nothing but
    invert) has two lenses of equal focal length l, spaced 2l apart. It's
    completely symmetrical, and from that symmetry alone, it's obvious that the
    exit pupil must be exactly the same size as the entrance pupil.
    
    So, with such a telescope, provided its entrance aperture was no more that
    the 3mm which Douglas has assumed for the exit pupil, then all the light it
    collected in that tiny objective would enter the eye.
    
    But double that diameter, and the diameter of its exit pupil is also
    doubled. However, now most of the light in that larger 6mm exit diameter
    pencil of  now misses the hole in the iris, which remains at 3mm diameter.
    Only a quarter of the collected light now enters the eye. The  lenses can be
    made as big as desired, but the effective aperture of the system remains as
    3mm, the stop created by the iris.
    
    The only way to get more light into the eye, and take advantage of a larger
    objective, is by introducing magnification, which allows the light pencil
    diameter to be compressed, with diameter inversely proportional to the
    magnification. In that case, the useful diameter of the objective can be
    increased in proportion to the magnification, but not usefully more; its
    area then increases in proportion to the magnification squared, as does the
    energy entering the eye. Magnification and useful aperture are inseparably
    linked together.
    
    "So it is clear in my mind, for brightness of image in a telescope there are
    two parameters working in opposition: aperture increasing directly and
    magnification decreasing and by a square function."
    
    No, the possible objective area and the total input energy increase by the
    magnification squared, as explained, and as the resulting image is spread
    over a retinal area also proportional to the magnification squared, the
    energy density remains exactly the same, according to Longhurst as well as
    me.
    
    George.
    
    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
    -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    
    

       
    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