NavList:

   

Reply

Greg, you wrote:
"Conclusion: Results are very close so if acuity has an effect then it
is subtle in nature. And I had a good vision day "

And Bill Morris, you wrote:
"Tentatively, I would suggest that the vernier acuity hypothesis is looking somewhat shaky."

Yes, you both tried just what I said, and your numbers show no evidence of 
vernier acuity at all. This leaves me with two puzzles:
1) I tried this last year and did see clear evidence of vernier acuity. So 
either that was some unusual set of circumstances that I don't understand 
yet, or it was just good (bad) luck on a short trial, or just plain wishful 
thinking. I'll look into this soon (I got busy with work a few days ago), and 
let you all know if I find anything interesting.
2) We have Robert Gordon's report using that method in which he says he found 
that he could get an IC without the telescope just as well as with his 
highest power telescope. But perhaps that is due to other factors like the 
apparently mediocre quality of the optics in his scopes.

Anyway, thank you both for trying it out, and I hope I didn't hurt your arms! 
I would have been happy with five in each run --30 trials is more than 
enough. :-)

-FER




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply