NavList:

   

Reply

For those that might prefer a less expensive alternative to the SNO-T
inverting scope,... my SNO-M inverting scope has all the same
adjustments as my SNO-T inverting scope.

HTH,

Courtney



Alexandre Eremenko wrote:

> Frank,
> We already discussed these SNO inverting scopes
> a lot on this list, so let me try to summarize:
>
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Frank Reed wrote:
>
>
>>If I have it right then, the feature that you
>>like about the inverting
>>scopes is not that they're inverting
>>but he fact that they have adjustable
>>alignment (which would make good sense). Yes?
>>
>
> That it is inverting is not a "feature":-)
> It is just an accidental property, irrelevant
> for astronomical observations. But relevant in binoculars,
> designed for looking at objects on the earth,
> that's why they never make inverting binoculars.
> But from the pure optical point of view, Kepler scopes are
> superior to everything else.
>
> The features are:
> 1. They let maximal amount of light through.
> Because they have the
> minimal possible number of lenses (2) and no prisms or mirrors.
> Probably this is the main advantage. This is also the
> reason astonomers prefer them.
> 2. They have no prisms and thus are much smaller and
> lighter than comparable prismatic scopes.
> 3. At the same time they have larger field of view
> in comparison with Galileo scopes of equal diameter
> and magnification.
> 4. They have wires (you cannot mount wires in a Galileo scope).
> The usefulness of wires was discussed a lot on the list,
> so I do not repeat the arguments. I remember that Frank
> was not convinced in their usefulness.
> 5. They have collimation adjustment.
> I don't know why most modern sextants do not have it,
> maybe because for this adjustment you need wires, and it is
> impossible to put wires in a Galileo scope:-)
>
> Alex.
>
>


--
s/v Mutiny
Rhodes Bounty II
lying Oriental, NC
WDB5619

   

Reply