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: How does the AstraIIIb split mirror work?
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2004 Apr 24, 11:49 +0100

    What we have been considering is how an image of the Sun is seen in the
    UNSILVERED part of a split horizon mirror. So the question of whether the
    silvered part is at the front or back of the mirror, which Joel holds to be
    important, is really of little relevance.
    
    I think it's accepted (isn't it?) that from the clear, unsilvered part of
    the horizon mirror some fraction of the sunlight incident on it from the
    index mirror will be reflected by the glass surface into the telescope. And
    in roughly equal amounts from the front surface and the back. The argument
    put forward, which I wish to dispel, is that this would create two separate
    light beams, displaced vertically by some amount that depends on the
    thickness of the horizon glass, [and therefore to two separate images of
    the Sun as seen through the telescope]. The only part of the argument that
    I argue with is the final phrase, that I have put within square brackets.
    
    
    Today we had a bright sunny morning, and the low Sun was shining brightly
    on to my living-room windows, more-or-less broadside on. First, I shifted
    the secondary glazing out of the way. Then, by swinging the window about
    its vertical axis, I could change the angle of incidence of the sunlight,
    to roughly match the angle at which light from the index mirror strikes the
    horizon mirror (say 30deg from "normal" incidence).
    
    Then, from outside the house, close to the glass, I observed the view of
    the Sun as observed by reflection in that window from its two glass
    surfaces combined. Even though it's only a small fraction of the sunlight
    that is reflected in that way (most of the light passing straight through),
    it's still bright enough to dazzle, and maybe damage, eyes. To look at the
    Sun that way, you need VERY dark glasses. I used a shade from an old
    sextant.
    
    Question: what would you expect? Should I see two images of the Sun, of
    roughly equal brightness, displaced by some fraction of the thickness of
    the glass, or only one?
    
    Answer: I saw a single image of the Sun. Even though about half the light
    came from the back surface, and half from the front, the two images of the
    Sun coalesced, and were quite undistinguishable.
    
    But it depends somewhat on the quality of your window glass. If there is
    any significant ripple, or non-uniformity, in your window glass, then you
    will see two separate images of the Sun, that will dance about with respect
    to each other, as you shift your viewpoint to force the reflection to occur
    at different spots in the pane.
    
    The house I live in, with its glazing, is over 40 years old now, but even
    then, in Britain, the float-glass process, which was invented here, was
    being used for domestic glazing. At earlier dates and perhaps in other
    countries, window panes may be expected to show significant ripple.
    
    But just try it and see if you agree with me.
    
    Go back to the question of the sextant, now. I will restate what we are
    arguing about. If others differ about the terms of the discussion, I hope
    they will speak up.
    
    "I think it's accepted (isn't it?) that from the clear, unsilvered part of
    the horizon mirror some fraction of the sunlight incident on it from the
    index mirror will be reflected by the glass surface into the telescope. And
    in roughly equal amounts from the front surface and the back. The argument
    put forward, which I wish to dispel, is that this would create two separate
    light beams, displaced vertically by some amount that depends on the
    thickness of the horizon glass, [and therefore to two separate images of
    the Sun as seen through the telescope]. The only part of the argument that
    I dispute is the final phrase, that I have put within square brackets."
    
    I fully accept Bill Arden's $0.02 analysis of the amount of the parallel
    displacement between the two reflections of a beam of light from a slab of
    glass. What I will argue is that this makes no difference at all to the
    observed image.
    
    Here's the point. Parallel rays of light, incident on the objective glass
    of a telescope, are brought to a focus at a single point, no matter which
    part of the objective they enter. And when seen through the eyepiece, they
    all appear to be coming from the same direction, from a particular point in
    the sky. You can block off part of the objective, the top or the bottom,
    with a bit of black tape, and it will make no difference (except to the
    brightness, and perhaps a bit to the resolution). Ken Muldrew himself
    argues that when he blocks off part of the lens with his finger, it affects
    only the brightness of the image, nothing else.
    
    Even if you collimate the light falling on the telescope to a narrow pencil
    with a pinhole, the image will be the same, but dimmer. And then, moving
    that light-pencil about on the objective by shifting the pinhole, it will
    make no difference. What IS important is that the ANGLE of the parallel
    light beam remains unaltered. And so, it's clear that any vertical
    displacement between light-rays leaving the front surface and the back
    surface of the clear part of the horizon mirror won't have the slightest
    effect on the image seen through the eyepiece. The two will combine
    imperceptibly. The important proviso is that there's no ANGULAR
    displacement, so it's vital that the horizon glass should be
    plane-parallel, front and back: a rule that sextant-makers know well.
    
    The same argument applies just as well to direct viewing by the eye, with
    the telescope removed. The eye, after all, acts just like an imaging
    telescope. Parallel light passing through any part of the lens pupil forms
    an image at a common point on the retina (after allowing for some of the
    eye's optical deficiencies), and appears to come from the one direction.
    However, because of its small aperture compared with a telescope, lateral
    displacement of a narrow beam may cause light to miss the pupil completely.
    The analogy with the telescope isn't perfect, then, but it's pretty good.
    
    George.
    
    
    
    ================================================================
    contact George Huxtable by email at george---.u-net.com, by phone at
    01865 820222 (from outside UK, +44 1865 820222), or by mail at 1 Sandy
    Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
    ================================================================
    
    
    

       
    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