Two Way Telescope

Well I know this will work,but what good would it do is very
questionable. It is a telescope that has both direct view,and reflected
light. Easy to make for it has a two way mirror.(mirror with
insufficient reflective material.) Could I call this type of telescope
a "Beam Splitting Telescope ?"
This makes two separate light beams than two people could use the same
telescope viewing the moon,or the sun. planets and stars would have
their amount of photons cut in half,and that would not be so good.
Anyone out there like this idea? Has it ever been tried? Well this
thinking is a lot easier than getting that oak tree off my wife's car. I
don't want to be around when she sees it. She might be a Wellesely
girl,but can she swear. She blames me for everything and claims my huge
self made electromagnetic detector in my back yard pulled hurricane
Charley closer to our house.(go figure) and that caused the tree to hit
her car. My car was in the garage,and I know what she is thinking about
that. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Well I know this will work,but what good would it do is very
questionable. It is a telescope that has both direct view,and reflected
light. Easy to make for it has a two way mirror.(mirror with
insufficient reflective material.) Could I call this type of telescope
a "Beam Splitting Telescope ?"
This makes two separate light beams than two people could use the same
telescope viewing the moon,or the sun. planets and stars would have
their amount of photons cut in half,and that would not be so good.
Anyone out there like this idea? Has it ever been tried? Well this
thinking is a lot easier than getting that oak tree off my wife's car. I
don't want to be around when she sees it. She might be a Wellesely
girl,but can she swear. She blames me for everything and claims my huge
self made electromagnetic detector in my back yard pulled hurricane
Charley closer to our house.(go figure) and that caused the tree to hit
her car. My car was in the garage,and I know what she is thinking about
that. Bert

When it comes to scopes, IMHO, I want every single photon that enters the
scope to hit my eye. The more photons the better. I expect a splitter would
defuse the brightness, and may even introduce abberations.

BV.

In message , Benign Vanilla
writes

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Well I know this will work,but what good would it do is very
questionable. It is a telescope that has both direct view,and reflected
light. Easy to make for it has a two way mirror.(mirror with
insufficient reflective material.) Could I call this type of telescope
a "Beam Splitting Telescope ?"
This makes two separate light beams than two people could use the same
telescope viewing the moon,or the sun. planets and stars would have
their amount of photons cut in half,and that would not be so good.
Anyone out there like this idea? Has it ever been tried?

When it comes to scopes, IMHO, I want every single photon that enters the
scope to hit my eye. The more photons the better. I expect a splitter would
defuse the brightness, and may even introduce abberations.

BV.


Oddly enough, something like Bert's idea has been made, and at one time
it was available on the government surplus market. It's called an
"anti-aircraft identification telescope", and it has two dissimilar
telescopes on the same mount, one to give a low power view for tracking
the aircraft and one to give a high power view for identification.
Unfortunately I can't find a single Web hit for this phrase! I'll post a
picture on my web site if no-one else finds one.
But as you both say, you're going to lose light. That wouldn't matter
for the sun or moon, though.

BV Your thinking is reality Bert

Johathan Thanks for your input,and interest in tracking this idea. The
only real good its doing is seeing the same objects(sun or moon) in two
different paths of photons. Like BV pointed out,why cut the flow of
photons in half. Bert

nightbat wrote

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message , Benign Vanilla
writes

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Well I know this will work,but what good would it do is very
questionable. It is a telescope that has both direct view,and reflected
light. Easy to make for it has a two way mirror.(mirror with
insufficient reflective material.) Could I call this type of telescope
a "Beam Splitting Telescope ?"
This makes two separate light beams than two people could use the same
telescope viewing the moon,or the sun. planets and stars would have
their amount of photons cut in half,and that would not be so good.
Anyone out there like this idea? Has it ever been tried?

When it comes to scopes, IMHO, I want every single photon that enters the
scope to hit my eye. The more photons the better. I expect a splitter would
defuse the brightness, and may even introduce abberations.

BV.


Oddly enough, something like Bert's idea has been made, and at one time
it was available on the government surplus market. It's called an
"anti-aircraft identification telescope", and it has two dissimilar
telescopes on the same mount, one to give a low power view for tracking
the aircraft and one to give a high power view for identification.
Unfortunately I can't find a single Web hit for this phrase! I'll post a
picture on my web site if no-one else finds one.
But as you both say, you're going to lose light. That wouldn't matter
for the sun or moon, though.

nightbat

Perhaps because any telescope always carries an inherent
liability, single or split scope. Imagine an amateur having picked up
one of those military surplus split scopes and using it to look at not
necessarily the moon but the sun. We know it wouldn't make much
difference, but the loss of eyesight to the hapless bargain hunter
would. So, perhaps the Government wanted no part of the possible
liability in case they fell into the wrong inexperienced hands, like
young kids especially.


the nightbat

Since distant stars are just like a pin hole of light in a black sheet
why not use this in making a telescope? The barrel of the telescope
with a diameter matching the size of the light pin hole. Inside this
tube a vacuum,and mirror walls. Before this star light gets to the film
plate the photons are increased by a photon pump.(mechanical laser)
Could it be possible that fiber optics could be used to build such a
device?(optical fiber telescope) Bert

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...
Since distant stars are just like a pin hole of light in a black sheet
why not use this in making a telescope? The barrel of the telescope
with a diameter matching the size of the light pin hole. Inside this
tube a vacuum,and mirror walls. Before this star light gets to the film
plate the photons are increased by a photon pump.(mechanical laser)
Could it be possible that fiber optics could be used to build such a
device?(optical fiber telescope) Bert


The whole idea of a telescope with a large aperture and lens is to
gather as much light as possible, so that distant objects can be seen
as brightly as possible. Photons from a distant star don't just come
at you through one pinhole in the sky. They come in parallel lines
over the whole surface of the planet, so that the more of these that
you can gather and focus them into a much smaller area, the better you
can see. A telescope with a pinhole aperture would only catch enough
photons to see the brightest objects, even if you amplified them.

When I was seeing in the morning sky this month, pondering why the
planet which looked so large did not reveal its phases to the naked
eye, I tried to look at it through a pinhole to see if I could
eliminate the aberration and see it more clearly. Surprisingly
through a pinhole it looked not only dimmer, but also much smaller.
Apparently its great brightness, combined with the optical aberrations
of both the atmosphere and the eye, cause the illusion of it being
larger than it is. That is why the phases are not easily seen.

Double-A

Thanks Double-A Very realistic thinking. had pin point hole photography
in my mind,and you don't need a lens. had amplifying of light to bring
up the number of star photons. Well nature produced the greatest
eye(squid),and man has passed the 200 inch "Mount Palmar" The Hubble is
still showing us the universe in a clearer light. My last idea is why
not reproduce the exact spectrum of the distant star by computer,and
make it as intense as needed. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Thanks Double-A Very realistic thinking. had pin point hole photography
in my mind,and you don't need a lens. had amplifying of light to bring
up the number of star photons. Well nature produced the greatest
eye(squid),and man has passed the 200 inch "Mount Palmar" The Hubble is
still showing us the universe in a clearer light. My last idea is why
not reproduce the exact spectrum of the distant star by computer,and
make it as intense as needed. Bert

Ahh because there is something special about seeing it and not seeing a
picture of it on a screen.

BV.