EthosPosted By Bill Burghardt |
IIRC, at NEAF, Al said with the various powermates available, not too many focal lengths would be necessary.
EthosPosted By Bill Burghardt |
Strehl best way to describe optical wavefront ?Posted By Bill Burghardt |
Doug Peterson said:
I think so.
Most people do not relate to waves peak-to-valley (PV) or waves RMS (much more meaningful, but numerically 3-5 times smaller).
The Strehl on the other hand--the actual peak intensity of a star (or point spread function if you want to impress people) as a fraction of the theoretical maximum--is something you can see at the eyepiece.
And numerically it is easy to relate to:
80% or 0.8 of 1.0 is nominally diffraction limited. Remember when 80-89% got you a B in school?
90-100% got you an A.
And 95% and above got you a A+.
Your thoughts on this most pressing matter?
Night encounters?Posted By Bill Burghardt |
DD-1 is hot!Posted By Bill Burghardt |
Porter garden telescope reborn--pricey?Posted By Bill Burghardt |
Night encounters?Posted By Bill Burghardt |
Incoming!!! (Black-chinned Hummingbirds)Posted By Bill Burghardt |
Mantis and MoonPosted By Bill Burghardt |
Low-ball offersPosted By Bill Burghardt |
Future of visual astronomy?Posted By Bill Burghardt |