more about Mars magnification

At present Mars should be over 1/2 degree at 100 X's, which is a full moon
disc. At 200 X's, Mars should appear
as the moon would at 100 X's. This just doesnt happen because the moon
takes up the whole field in the EP at 100X's

So there is some optical trick occuring that eludes me...

At 200x Mars would appear as wide as two full Moons, not 100. You've only
doubled the magnification.


"Mick" wrote in message
. ..
At present Mars should be over 1/2 degree at 100 X's, which is a full moon
disc. At 200 X's, Mars should appear
as the moon would at 100 X's. This just doesnt happen because the moon
takes up the whole field in the EP at 100X's

So there is some optical trick occuring that eludes me...

Mick wrote:

At present Mars should be over 1/2 degree at 100 X's, which is a full moon
disc. At 200 X's, Mars should appear
as the moon would at 100 X's.

Surely you mean "At 200 X's, Mars should appear as the moon would at 2 X's."
Check your math.

This just doesnt happen because the moon
takes up the whole field in the EP at 100X's

So there is some optical trick occuring that eludes me...

At present Mars should be over 1/2 degree at 100 X's, which is a full
moon
disc. At 200 X's, Mars should appear
as the moon would at 100 X's.

Surely you mean "At 200 X's, Mars should appear as the moon would at 2
X's."
Check your math.

This just doesnt happen because the moon
takes up the whole field in the EP at 100X's

So there is some optical trick occuring that eludes me...


What I mean is, at 100 X's Mars is to appear as the moon does unaided. The
two are supposedly equivalent. (1/2 degree)
Now, if you up the anti to 200, Mars should be equivalent of what the moon
would appear to be at 100 X's....in the EP.

Mick wrote:

What I mean is, at 100 X's Mars is to appear as the moon does unaided. The
two are supposedly equivalent. (1/2 degree)
Now, if you up the anti to 200, Mars should be equivalent of what the moon
would appear to be at 100 X's....in the EP.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I get it. Ok, at 200, Mars should look like 1 defree, double
the size of the moon with unaided eye. I.e. it will appear the same size as
the moon would appear at magnification 2X in the eyepiece.

- Alex

Mick wrote:

What I mean is, at 100 X's Mars is to appear as the moon does unaided.
The two are supposedly equivalent. (1/2 degree) Now, if you up the anti
to 200, Mars should be equivalent of what the moon would appear to be
at 100 X's....in the EP.

No it shouldn't. What others have said to you is correct. Read and
understand it; don't just dismiss it because you don't like it. It is a
tad disrespectful to ask a question then just dismiss the responses you
get in this manner. Restating your original error in different words
will not make it correct, no matter how many times you do it.

At x200 Mars will have an apparent diameter of about a degree. At x100
the Moon will have an apparent diameter of about 50 degrees. There is
exactly no way in which these can be equivalent.

Best,
Stephen

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Stephen Tonkin wrote:

Mick wrote:


What I mean is, at 100 X's Mars is to appear as the moon does unaided.
The two are supposedly equivalent. (1/2 degree) Now, if you up the
anti to 200, Mars should be equivalent of what the moon would appear
to be at 100 X's....in the EP.


No it shouldn't. What others have said to you is correct. Read and
understand it; don't just dismiss it because you don't like it. It is a
tad disrespectful to ask a question then just dismiss the responses you
get in this manner. Restating your original error in different words
will not make it correct, no matter how many times you do it.

At x200 Mars will have an apparent diameter of about a degree. At x100
the Moon will have an apparent diameter of about 50 degrees. There is
exactly no way in which these can be equivalent.

Best,
Stephen


Mick,

I think I see where wour error comes from. Somehow it seems to me that
you *add* and *subtract* magnification numbers instead of *multiplying*
and *dividing*. When you bring the magnification from 100x to 200x
the things will get twice bigger, not 100 times bigger.

- Alex

Mick wrote:

What I mean is, at 100 X's Mars is to appear as the moon does unaided. The
two are supposedly equivalent. (1/2 degree)
Now, if you up the anti to 200, Mars should be equivalent of what the moon
would appear to be at 100 X's....in the EP.

I believe your math is flawed.

Magnification is multiplicative, not additive ...

You double 100x mars magnification, you get 200x; you double 1x moon
magnification, you get 2x.

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
Mick wrote:

What I mean is, at 100 X's Mars is to appear as the moon does unaided.
The two are supposedly equivalent. (1/2 degree) Now, if you up the anti
to 200, Mars should be equivalent of what the moon would appear to be
at 100 X's....in the EP.

No it shouldn't. What others have said to you is correct. Read and
understand it; don't just dismiss it because you don't like it. It is a
tad disrespectful to ask a question then just dismiss the responses you
get in this manner. Restating your original error in different words
will not make it correct, no matter how many times you do it.

At x200 Mars will have an apparent diameter of about a degree. At x100
the Moon will have an apparent diameter of about 50 degrees. There is
exactly no way in which these can be equivalent.


Your first paragraph is far more "terse" than anything I have written so far
and unnecessary. You exaggerated your perception
of my communication...

However, your second paragraph exposes my error in logic...I really don't
care if I am wrong! I am just trying to get
at the answer..AND, the answer is this: My mistake is my perception of
magnification. To make Mars appear the same as a 100 X's magnification of
the moon I would have to take the 100 X's image of Mars and magnify the
image another 100 X's. This is not the same as 200 X's magnification. In
other words, I would need a 100 Xs ZOOM to achieve this.

Mick wrote:

"Alexander Avtanski" wrote in message
...

Stephen Tonkin wrote:


Mick wrote:


What I mean is, at 100 X's Mars is to appear as the moon does unaided.
The two are supposedly equivalent. (1/2 degree) Now, if you up the
anti to 200, Mars should be equivalent of what the moon would appear
to be at 100 X's....in the EP.


No it shouldn't. What others have said to you is correct. Read and
understand it; don't just dismiss it because you don't like it. It is a
tad disrespectful to ask a question then just dismiss the responses you
get in this manner. Restating your original error in different words
will not make it correct, no matter how many times you do it.

At x200 Mars will have an apparent diameter of about a degree. At x100
the Moon will have an apparent diameter of about 50 degrees. There is
exactly no way in which these can be equivalent.

Best,
Stephen


Mick,

I think I see where wour error comes from. Somehow it seems to me that
you *add* and *subtract* magnification numbers instead of *multiplying*
and *dividing*. When you bring the magnification from 100x to 200x
the things will get twice bigger, not 100 times bigger.

- Alex



Ya..this implies 2X's bigger...ie. twice..no?

Yes. Twice the naked-eye moon. I.e. the moon with 2X magnification.

- Alex