Image of the day

Captured by
Erwin Forbragd

Horsehead Nebula

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Re: AP 130 vs TV 102--not a sure bet!

Started by ronbee, 09/29/2003 04:56AM
Posted 09/29/2003 04:56AM Opening Post
Hello there Dan,

How low you can split the double double, IMO, is entirely dependent upon quality of optics and seeing and possible the eye as well. Having said this, I've split the double double with my TV-102 at 73x (12mm Radian) when the seeing supports this. At 44x (20mm TV Plossl), I really can't say I split it but have noticed there're definitely not just two stars due to both being elongated. Another fella with a smaller TV-85 could split the double double at only 60x! So, I think not being able to split the double double at low magnification alone should be a cause to jump to the conclusion about the optics of the telescope (and eyepiece ;-). Who knows, maybe one excellent night, my TV-102 Light Cup and I maybe able to at 44x ;-).

Ron B[ee]
Posted 09/29/2003 11:16AM #1
Ron Bee wrote: I've split the double double with my TV-102 at 73x (12mm Radian) when the seeing supports this. At 44x (20mm TV Plossl), I really can't say I split it but have noticed there're definitely not just two stars due to both being elongated.
---

I was able to cleanly split the double double at about 80X the other night with my Orion Space Probe 130ST, a 130mm F5 Newtonian. At 45X it was elongated but no split. My eyes are not particularly sharp but the seeing was good.

Regarding the false color in the eyepiece, my first thought was the same as Alan's, lateral color in the eyepiece. There is far more to the optical train than just the objective so one has to be careful in determining the source of the aberation. As has been noted elsewhere, even the diagonal can introduce false color if it a prism diagonal.

jon
Posted 09/30/2003 12:58AM #2
A very point Dan. But let me see if I understand your point clearly. Are you saying that there exist a minimum magnification in which below this the double-double will not split? If so, I'm with you here. However, if we take this a little further, are you also saying that this so called "minimum magnification" varies from individual to individual because of the eye? If so, I'm with you here as well ;-).

If not, I beg you a thousand pardons but would like to get a clarification in this case.

Thanks,
Ron B[ee]