. . .
So, 25x70 = 7x37 (ep 5.3mm) = 8x40 (ep 5mm) = 10x44 (ep 4.4mm) are values that are far too "bright" for anyone. Mostly unnecessary and too heavy compared to the real need. ... in daytime hours
. . .
As implied by the above, Rico's equation for the comparison of binoculars is: A) magnification x B) objective diameter squared
[ the above comparisons use a value of 200, where the value is the result of B) ÷ A) ]
So in order from greatest magnification/ smallest exit pupil:
- 25x70 (EP 2.8 mm dia; 6.2 sq. mm area)
- 10x44 (EP 4.4 mm dia; 15.2 sq. mm area)
- 8x40 (EP 5 mm dia; 19.6 sq. mm area)
- 7x37 (EP 5.3 mm dia; 22.1 sq. mm area)
Rico,
A) The problem remains: while the relationships are numerically equal, they are not equal in practice
As with many such equations seeking to provide a universal solution, the problem is not too obvious when looking at closely related examples e.g. 7x37 verses 8x40
However, the greater the disparity between the magnification/ EP of two binoculars, the more the comparison breaks down
Which is no surprise when considering the two extremes in the example:
- 25x70 (EP 2.8 mm dia; 6.2 sq. mm area) verses
- 7x37 (EP 5.3 mm dia; 22.1 sq. mm area) - with nearly 3.6 times the EP area
So the real issue is what does the equation mean, if anything? (see B) below)
And it also begs the question: If the equation is useful, why is it not already widely in use? It's not as if others would have not explored multiplying the two values
(and obvious comparisons can be made to the numerically neat, but limited practical utility of other simple equations, such as those for Relative Brightness and Twilight Factor)
As is the case with many of your past assertions, you’ve again seized on a narrow technical point while ignoring any other factors (especially practical limitations),
and have excluded any larger context
B) Radical Assertion
You can make the radical assertion that magnification can substitute for brightness, but that does not make it true
And you can come up with the term ‘light power’ and a simple supporting equation, but again that does not make it so
At best, your equation may be demonstrating a relationship that while technically true - within a very narrow range of values - is for all practical purposes irrelevant
Significantly, the equation does not help anyone to make a better choice in their selection of binoculars - and as such it only has potential to confuse the issue
But it’s much more likely that your assertion about brightness is simply an example of the fallacy of reification
i.e. assuming that because something can be described or named that it is real (see the screen grab from Wikipedia)
C) The onus remains on you to clearly explain your assertion
You’re the one making a claim that no one is familiar with, and that is also contrary to everyone else’s knowledge and experience
And if people cannot understand what you’re stating, it’s not the failure of the readers but of the author - you’re the one attempting to communicate a novel idea
e.g. your original post is a classic example of how not to explain a technical matter, particularly to a diverse readership
John