From: "CSC" 
To: "Atm" 
Reply-To: "CSC" 


Splitting a double can be done with some serious abberations present.  The
resolution is not a defining test for optics. Putting a larger obstruction
in the system will increase resolution by making the Airy disk smaller. 
That pretty much ruins low contrast resolution which is one key test for a
system.  For hi contrast objects, like the edge of a crater, or the cassini
division, the airy disk size will define the resolution.

The star test is still the most definitive, qualitative, usable test I know.

Colin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-atm{at}shore.net [mailto:owner-atm{at}shore.net]On Behalf Of Joe
Mayenschein
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:30 AM To: ATM Mailing List
Subject: ATM Resolution



Hi All,

Here's an interesting thought and or test for ultimate performance. I
wonder what the difference would be?

Ok everyone knows of the "Star Test"  with the rings and all that.

Then the next step would be splitting of doubles, where you have two point
sources with their overlapping sets of rings and all that.

Now how's this,,

what is the smallest feature you can resolve on the moon?  crater, dome, rille, etc.

this would be the ultimate test of everything a scope could do,, for you
have literally millions of "Points" sources of light all
overlapping reducing contrast and all that.

we all know the theoretical (sp?) resolving power of two stars,  but how
about the moon?

plus not only in "of arc resolving power, but it would also be cool to
know what size the smallest object you can see on the moon is,

10 Km, 5? 1?  etc.,,

has anyone tried doing this before?

Joe

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4