From: "mommoteandcoyote" 
To: 
Reply-To: "mommoteandcoyote" 


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00D9_01C2B960.BE3F1780
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott,

( In my last post I said):

 Since both Airy and Rayleigh were working with the knowledge that image
size is a function of focal length and that brightness and resolution = are
functions of aperture, and they knew to some degree the wave quality of light,
namely that the diffraction rings, when in phase would reinforce one = another
and out of phase they cancel as shown by the diffraction pattern of two
point sources very close together in a perfect, or near perfect optical
system... a system that both of their work was based on...What would =
happen
if you trained it on an extended object, like the surface of the moon, = made
up of an overlapping myriad of point sources radiating in all visible
wavelengths but not homogeneously, ranging in intensity from stellar =
bright
to deep space black?  Would the areas of wave cancellation act to = reinforce
the point sources behind them throughout the entire field giving rise to
detail  many times finer than that given as the minimum theoretical  =
limit,
all because we persevered to 1/32 wave?

( Then in your last post you said ):

    Now consider the surface of a planet.  The surface brightness must =
be
much lower than a star, as in photons per micro-arcsecond, if you will.
Stars are too small to see, but we see them because they're so bright.
Planets are too dark to see a spot of surface the size of a star, but we =
see
it because there are so many spots right next to each other.  So a = photon
from each point on the planet may show up anywhere within the = diffraction
pattern of that point, but "probably" will appear near the
center, an = area
much smaller than the Airy disc.  And this is why (I believe) we can see
such small high-contrast lines, but lower-contrast detail is blurred.
"Probably" isn't good enough here.  Does this make sense to
anybody?
    Again, it's just my theory.


Scott, this IS a "Quantum" level question that makes the old gray
matter churn.  Your on to something, but what is really at work here.  The
wave characteristics of light are a definite player, but  in what way.  I =
first
wondered about it 20 some odd years ago when,  ( if I may reiterate ), I = had
an experience with my 3 1/4" refractor and a little 4 1/4" Cassie
I had built.  When I compared the two, I marveled at what I was seeing. 
The = fully
baffled obstruction in the Cassie was 45 % of d!  That is pumping a heck = of
a lot of energy into the diffraction rings!  The clear aperture of both = was
roughly equal, and the focal lengths were 40" for the Cassegrain and
34 = 1/2"
for the refractor. I trained them onto a pole mounted power transformer
specification plate 1/4 mile or so away.

 Both were bumped up to about 30x per inch. The refractor showed sharp,
crisp, straight, contrasty lines and even tones, but no detail. The
reflector showed a hazier image not nearly as much contrast, but, it was
showing MUCH more real detail, as it turned out upon closer inspection,
much more than the calculated 0.3 arc second difference in resolution
between the two scopes could account for.

Essentially, the refractor was showing me the canals on Mars... The
reflector was showing me a low contrast Grand Canyon and Olympus Mons...

Coyot=E9






------=_NextPart_000_00D9_01C2B960.BE3F1780
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Scott,( In my last post I
said): Since both =
Airy and=20
Rayleigh were working with the knowledge that imagesize is a =
function of=20
focal length and that brightness and resolution arefunctions of =
aperture,=20
and they knew to some degree the wave quality
oflight,namely = that the=20
diffraction rings, when in phase would reinforce one anotherand
out = of phase=20
they cancel as shown by the diffraction pattern of twopoint
sources = very=20
close together in a perfect, or near perfect opticalsystem... a =
system that=20
both of their work was based on...What would happenif you trained
it = on an=20
extended object, like the surface of the moon, madeup of an =
overlapping=20
myriad of point sources radiating in all visiblewavelengths but
not=20 homogeneously, ranging in intensity from stellar brightto
deep space =

black?  Would the areas of wave cancellation act to =
reinforcethe point=20
sources behind them throughout the entire field giving rise =
todetail =20
many times finer than that given as the minimum theoretical  =
limit,all=20
because we persevered to 1/32 wave?( Then in your last
post you = said=20
):    Now consider the
surface of a planet.  =
The=20
surface brightness must bemuch lower than a star, as in photons
per=20 micro-arcsecond, if you will.Stars are too small to see,
but we see = them=20
because they're so bright.Planets are too dark to see a spot of =
surface the=20
size of a star, but we seeit because there are so many spots
right = next to=20
each other.  So a photonfrom each point on the planet
may show = up=20
anywhere within the diffractionpattern of that point, but
"probably" = will=20
appear near the center, an areamuch smaller than the Airy =
disc.  And=20
this is why (I believe) we can seesuch small high-contrast lines, = but=20
lower-contrast detail is blurred."Probably" isn't good
enough = here. =20
Does this make sense to anybody?   
Again, it's just = my=20
theory.Scott, this IS a "Quantum"
level question that makes = the old=20
gray matterchurn.  Your on to something, but what is
really at = work=20
here.  The wavecharacteristics of light are a definite
player,=20 but  in what way.  I firstwondered
about it 20 some odd = years ago=20
when,  ( if I may reiterate ), I hadan experience with
my 3 = 1/4"=20
refractor and a little 4 1/4" Cassie I hadbuilt. 
When I = compared the=20
two, I marveled at what I was seeing.  The fullybaffled
= obstruction in=20
the Cassie was 45 % of d!  That is pumping a heck ofa
lot of = energy=20
into the diffraction rings!  The clear aperture of both =
wasroughly=20
equal, and the focal lengths were 40" for the Cassegrain and 34 =
1/2"for the=20
refractor. I trained them onto a pole mounted power =
transformerspecification=20
plate 1/4 mile or so away. Both were bumped up
to about 30x = per=20
inch. The refractor showed sharp,crisp, straight, contrasty lines
= and even=20
tones, but no detail. Thereflector showed a hazier image not
nearly = as much=20
contrast, but, it wasshowing MUCH more real detail, as it turned
out = upon=20
closer inspection,much more than the calculated 0.3 arc second =
difference in=20
resolutionbetween the two scopes could account =
for.Essentially, the=20
refractor was showing me the canals on Mars... Thereflector was =
showing me a=20
low contrast Grand Canyon and Olympus
Mons...Coyot=E9
 
 
 
 

------=_NextPart_000_00D9_01C2B960.BE3F1780--

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP