A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Optics question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old June 19th 04, 03:46 AM
Mike Ruskai
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Optics question

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:16:00 +0000 (UTC), Brian Tung wrote:

Craig Franck wrote:
It does not strike the mirror in a symmetrical fashion. It hits it
slanted, or "off axis." (I'm not sure this answer will help you, since
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking.)


Is it off-axis because the lens or mirror has a curved surface? That makes
sense. But I don't understand why it favors a tail on one side.


That's right; the lens or mirror has an axis of symmetry, and the off-axis
light rays are tilted with respect to that axis. That means that light
rays don't get refracted in a symmetric way by the lens, so that they don't
come together to a point.


Except for spherical mirrors with the entrance pupil at the radius of
curvature. There're no such thing as off-axis rays in that situation,
which is why the Schmidt camera is so incredibly aberration free (ignoring
the presence and correction of spherical aberration).

To see why it favors a tail, I think you would have to do the math, or see
a ray-trace diagram, or something like that. I'm not sure there's a good,
simple, first-order explanation in words alone.


A rotatable 3D diagram would probably be required for an intuitive grasp.

It is interesting that the airy disk gets smaller with larger aperture.
Is that because the wave length of light gets smaller in comparison to
the overall area of the objective?


Hmm, the wavelength of light does get smaller in comparison to the size
of the objective (you can't really compare a length with an area), but I
hesitate to say that that is the *cause* of the trend. The math does work
out that way, though.

It's sort of like being better able to triangulate a position when you
have a longer baseline. I don't know if I can come up with a hard physical
analogue, however.


It's aperture width, not area, that makes the difference. It is, in fact,
a comparison of linear values.

A very complicated diagram would probably be required to get an intuitive
grasp of why the relationship is there.


--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More about light gathering - big aperture & mediocre optics? gswork Amateur Astronomy 26 February 22nd 04 07:51 AM
Question about alignment & pointing north, level Mike Amateur Astronomy 8 September 7th 03 12:04 AM
Rookie question. How dark is MY sky? justbeats Amateur Astronomy 4 August 3rd 03 12:08 PM
StarMax 127 question Skip Freeman Amateur Astronomy 5 July 16th 03 04:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.