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

Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 30th 03, 06:09 PM
edz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars

In July 2003, an active discussion took place concerning the topic
"star magnitude and binoculars". This link goes back to the article,
which includes links to many sites and formula that relate to this
topic.

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&....astro.amateur

A great deal concerning the subject Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars
has been published by various noted individuals addressing theoretical
LM values that might be reached. Based on previous studies I
performed in July 2002 and again in winter 2003 relative to what can
be seen in binoculars and the influence of magnification and aperture
on various star fields, I questioned some of the results that were
being predicted. After many nights of recording field notes testing
binocular performance, I was not convinced these limiting magnitude
predictive formula were truly representative of results that could be
achieved in the field, at least not under all conditions.

Based on the questions remaining in my mind after this discussion, I
set out to find some answers. But without the proper data and
analysis, I could not clearly see where the differences might be. It
took a lot longer and a lot more work than I thought before I was
convinced I had enough information to answer these questions for
myself.

After the collection of the field data, it took considerable
additional effort to sort it all out and make sense of it. The end
result will soon be a published article on CN addressing Limiting
Magnitude in Binoculars.

Based on testing eight binoculars on many different nights
representing a range of conditions, this is some of what I found:

Binocular Limiting Magnitudes for a given size aperture are
significantly less, nearly one full magnitude lower, than a scope of
equal aperture. This is due, among other reasons, to the inability of
the aperture in binoculars to reach full potential because of low
magnifications in use.

Two-eyed viewing vs. one-eyed viewing contributes only a small
fractional gain in magnitude. There is no 40% gain realized because
you have two apertures of the same size versus a similar sized scope.
gain may be more like 15% to 20%.

Naked Eye Limiting Magnitude does not act linearly on Binocular
Limiting Magnitude. BLM does not increase in step equally as NELM
increases. For the tested range with a variance of 1.5+ mag NELM,
Binocular Limiting Magnitude varied by less than 0.5 mag.

When binocular magnification and binocular aperture are each tested
separately, for various sizes and powers of binoculars, magnification
produces results about twice what Carlin's formula predicts and
aperture produces results about half of what Carlin's formula
predicts.

When binocular magnification and binocular aperture are each tested
separately, by incremental changes in magnification and aperture, it
is found for each equal increment that magnification has approximately
three to four times the influence as aperture on increases in limiting
magnitude.

In binoculars much more limiting magnitude gain is realized from
increases in magnification than from aperture. This is also related
to the fact that aperture is under-utilized in binoculars. Unless
optimum magnification is employed, the abilities of the aperture to
put an image in the focal plane are never fully delivered to the eye.

Based on my results, for commonly used binocular magnifications in mag
6.5+ skies, I approximate the maximum limiting magnitude for a 100mm
binocular at mag 12.0, for a 60mm binocular at mag 11.0 and for a 40mm
binocular about mag 10.0. For mag 5.0 skies, all limits are about
0.5 mag lower.

The ultimate limiting magnitude reached for any given aperture is
significantly dependant on the magnification in use.

The full article that has been submitted should be available within
the next week or two.

edz
  #2  
Old September 30th 03, 09:30 PM
PrisNo6
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars


edz wrote in message . ..
snip
The full article that has been submitted should be available within
the next week or two.


Great work ed. Glad that you made and took the time to carry through with collecting some field data. Considering the popularity of
binocular observing, it will be an important contribution to amateur observing. Looking forward to seeing what data you
collected. - Kurt

Naked Eye Limiting Magnitude does not act linearly on Binocular
Limiting Magnitude. . . . The ultimate limiting magnitude reached for any given
aperture is significantly dependant on the magnification in use.


Both consistent with central conclusions of Schaeffer and Clark (ODM).


  #3  
Old October 1st 03, 11:50 AM
Victor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars

edz wrote:
The end
result will soon be a published article on CN addressing Limiting
Magnitude in Binoculars.


Pardon me, but "CN" has no meaning to me. Is it a journal, a website or
a magazine?

Based on my results, for commonly used binocular magnifications in mag
6.5+ skies, I approximate the maximum limiting magnitude for a 100mm
binocular at mag 12.0, for a 60mm binocular at mag 11.0 and for a 40mm
binocular about mag 10.0.


Am I correct to assume that 50mm binoculars were not included in your
study? If they were, were their performance closer to the 60mm or to
the 40mm instruments? Halfway?

Maybe I should just upgrade from a 50mm to a 60mm and save the money I
would have spent on a 100mm for something else, like a decent focusser
for my Dob! The mag 1 improvement from a 60mm to a 100mm instrument
makes one feel the extra weight and money is not worth it.

The full article that has been submitted should be available within
the next week or two.


I do look forward to your findings!

  #4  
Old October 1st 03, 02:12 PM
Jon Isaacs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars


Pardon me, but "CN" has no meaning to me. Is it a journal, a website or
a magazine?


CN= www.cloudlynights.com
The mag 1 improvement from a 60mm to a 100mm instrument
makes one feel the extra weight and money is not worth it.


1 magnitude improvement, a factor of 2.5, is about what one would expect when
moving from a 6 inch to a 10 inch telescope, proportionally the same change,
obviously a significant increase in capability. In my experience certainly
worth the effort and expense.

Note that going from 40mm binos to 50mm binos is a only a 1/2 magintude
improvement mathamatically but again, the difference is obvious.



jon isaacs


  #5  
Old October 1st 03, 03:13 PM
Victor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars

CN= www.cloudlynights.com

Oh yes of course! It should be compulsory reading for everyone on this
newsgroup.

The mag 1 improvement from a 60mm to a 100mm instrument
makes one feel the extra weight and money is not worth it.



1 magnitude improvement, a factor of 2.5, is about what one would expect when
moving from a 6 inch to a 10 inch telescope, proportionally the same change,
obviously a significant increase in capability. In my experience certainly
worth the effort and expense.


Yes, I see what you mean. The difference from a 6" to a 10" puts it all
in perspective.

The 100mm is back on my to-buy list and a 60mm Pentax PCF WP is
tempting, but I must be strong! ;-)

  #6  
Old October 1st 03, 05:11 PM
edz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars

Victor wrote in message ...

Pardon me, but "CN" has no meaning to me. Is it a journal, a website or
a magazine?

Am I correct to assume that 50mm binoculars were not included in your
study? If they were, were their performance closer to the 60mm or to
the 40mm instruments? Halfway?


CN is CloudyNights.com, an astronomy website for publishing articles
and equipment reviews. Hundreds of excellent articles there.

I included 10x50s and 12x50s in these tests. I used eight binoculars
from 8x42 up to 20x80. I tested all my binoculars above 50mm also
masked down to 50mm. So, in effect, I've included results for six
differnt 50mm binoculars.

My 60mm binocular was a 16x60. The 10x50 is closer to 8x42. The
12x50 is closer to 16x60. The 12x50 is more difficult to hand hold
than the 10x.

A 10x50 sees 50% more stars than a 8x42. A 16x60 sees nearly twice as
many stars as a 10x50.

Each jump in magnification from 8x to 10x or from 10x to 12x or from
12x to 16x produces far more significant increases in limiting
magnitude than the jumps from 42mm to 50mm or from 50mm to 60mm.

edz
  #7  
Old October 1st 03, 07:01 PM
edz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars


1 magnitude improvement, a factor of 2.5, is about what one would expect


The 100mm is back on my to-buy list and a 60mm Pentax PCF WP is
tempting, but I must be strong! ;-)


The jump from 60mm to 100mm aperture will provide only about 0.3 to
0.4 LM gain.

The jump from 10x to 16x and likewise the jump from 16x to 25x will
provide 0.4 to 0.6 LM gain each.

You will gain more from the magnification than you will from the
aperture. You don't need 100mm lenses in the binoculars to get the
gain.

edz
  #9  
Old October 2nd 03, 01:53 PM
edz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars

(Theo Ker) wrote in message . com...
So if that is true, what would be the difference for me when switching
from a 20x60 oberwerk to a 20x100 miyauchi fluo? Nearly none???? Hard
to believe!

TK


Theo,

Well first it would be necessary to isolate the influence and obvious
benefit of jumping to flourite lenses. The benefits due to increased
contrast and reduced aberations could be substantial.

Another important aspect of this comparison would be to clarify, are
those the pre-2003 Oberwerk 20x60 or the new 2003 version with
significantly improved coatings. I've already written a short paper
on the differences in Oberwerk coatings old vs. new and have hours of
testing to prove the substantial benefit. There is about a 0.3 mag
difference between the coatings in the 15x70 size old. vs new. The
old 15x70s perform at a level just below Pentax 16x60s. the new 15x70
are getting closer to performance (but not quality) provided by
Fujinon 16x70s.

So, looking at the pieces you would get 0.3 mag gain over older
version of coatings to newer, 0.3 to 0.4 gain from 60mm to 100mm and
I'm guessing maybe another 0.3 gain by going to flourite. That's a
total of 1 full mag gain. That would be outstanding.

To get that kind of gain from any other changes, you would have to
increase magnification in 10% increarments by a factor of 6 or 7,
or have skies imprve by a difference of at least mag2 in Naked Eye Lim
Mag.

If you've got the newer version of the Oberwerk 20x60, your gain would
be more on the order of 0.7 mag. Even an increase of 0.7 mag would
allow you to see more than twice as many stars in an equivalent fov.

Maybe you thought at first glance that the data doesn't support your
personal experience, but I think it supports it very well. Of course,
you haven't stated what Lim mag you've reached with either binocular.

I have answered arguments already from several individuals on differnt
forums that each have posed a very unequal situation as basis of
argument. When you take the problem apart and look at all the pieces
the answer is always right there.

edz
  #10  
Old October 2nd 03, 03:30 PM
Shneor Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limiting Magnitude in Binoculars

(Theo Ker) wrote in message . com...
So if that is true, what would be the difference for me when switching
from a 20x60 oberwerk to a 20x100 miyauchi fluo? Nearly none???? Hard
to believe!

TK



(edz) wrote in message . com...

1 magnitude improvement, a factor of 2.5, is about what one would expect


The 100mm is back on my to-buy list and a 60mm Pentax PCF WP is
tempting, but I must be strong! ;-)


The jump from 60mm to 100mm aperture will provide only about 0.3 to
0.4 LM gain.

The jump from 10x to 16x and likewise the jump from 16x to 25x will
provide 0.4 to 0.6 LM gain each.

You will gain more from the magnification than you will from the
aperture. You don't need 100mm lenses in the binoculars to get the
gain.

edz


The views through my 25x100 Burgess Binos are a drasmatic improvement
over the views through my 26x70 Kronos. I thing the purported
relationship between aperture and magnification relative to limiting
magnitude is non-linear, and as aperture increases, it assumes greater
significance. As most of the relationship has been established with
relatively small aperture binoculars, the existing formula makes sense
over that restricted range.

Next month, if the weather cooperates, comparisons by a number of
experienced observers will be done to measure the effectiveness of 22"
binoculars versus a 30". This is scheduled for October 25, and I
expect to report on the results within a couple of days of the event.

Clear skies,
Shneor Sherman
 




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
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 Ron Astronomy Misc 7 January 29th 04 10:29 PM
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 Ron Baalke History 2 November 28th 03 10:21 AM
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 1 November 28th 03 10:21 AM
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 Ron Baalke History 0 October 24th 03 04:38 PM
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 October 24th 03 04:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.