What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Why couldn't a catadioptric or newtonian optical system be used in binoculars?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="OPTIC_NUT" data-source="post: 3166840" data-attributes="member: 121951"><p>"- WJC -----------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p>Yes, thermal cells make a difference, even in hand-held binoculars. Even so, while it is a topic to know about, it is certainly not one to fret, or waste words over—at least as far as bird watching is concerned.</p><p></p><p>“Scientists have been aware of optical turbulence since English naturalist Robert Hooke in 1665 attributed the twinkling of stars to "small, moving regions of the atmosphere having different refracting powers which act like lenses." Astronomer William Herschel was aware of optical turbulence and explicitly adopted measures to cope with it, and observational analyses of the problem appear in the late 19th century . . .</p><p></p><p>Observatory astronomers around 1900 had identified atmospheric turbulence as a ‘FACTOR OF PRIME IMPORTANCE’ . . .” </p><p></p><p>"---------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p>Well....it is important, but not relevent, your honor?</p><p></p><p>Was Robert Hook using binoculars??? NO It was a telescope he was referring to.</p><p></p><p>Those sections acting as lenses subtend areas that BOTH BINOCULAR PATHS SHARE.</p><p></p><p>Even more is know about it since "Star Wars" laser research and artificial stars and adaptive optics.</p><p>Those binocular FOVs share the same cell, except at edges.</p><p></p><p>Rant on if you like, but the two barrels are basically looking through the SAME CELL.</p><p></p><p>Imagine whatever hyperbole you like. </p><p> If I bring up technical detail and you imagine it is "lambasting"</p><p>I cannot help you. You bring out the emotional adjectives. </p><p>I'm just stating the science.</p><p></p><p>100 yards does not make a cell. And...the FOV overlap is already well underway.</p><p></p><p>I don't particularly care about my feelings or your ego.</p><p>Neither does the truth, whatever "truthiness" you gut-feel about things.</p><p>Optical Science and engineering are what they are, and so is atmospheric science.</p><p></p><p>The geometry of two barrels a few feet apart looking out hundreds of yards or light-years </p><p>is obvious and completely unavoidable.</p><p></p><p>There's too much folklore based on feelings that feel like science.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="OPTIC_NUT, post: 3166840, member: 121951"] "- WJC ----------------------------------------------------------- Yes, thermal cells make a difference, even in hand-held binoculars. Even so, while it is a topic to know about, it is certainly not one to fret, or waste words over—at least as far as bird watching is concerned. “Scientists have been aware of optical turbulence since English naturalist Robert Hooke in 1665 attributed the twinkling of stars to "small, moving regions of the atmosphere having different refracting powers which act like lenses." Astronomer William Herschel was aware of optical turbulence and explicitly adopted measures to cope with it, and observational analyses of the problem appear in the late 19th century . . . Observatory astronomers around 1900 had identified atmospheric turbulence as a ‘FACTOR OF PRIME IMPORTANCE’ . . .” "--------------------------------------------------------- Well....it is important, but not relevent, your honor? Was Robert Hook using binoculars??? NO It was a telescope he was referring to. Those sections acting as lenses subtend areas that BOTH BINOCULAR PATHS SHARE. Even more is know about it since "Star Wars" laser research and artificial stars and adaptive optics. Those binocular FOVs share the same cell, except at edges. Rant on if you like, but the two barrels are basically looking through the SAME CELL. Imagine whatever hyperbole you like. If I bring up technical detail and you imagine it is "lambasting" I cannot help you. You bring out the emotional adjectives. I'm just stating the science. 100 yards does not make a cell. And...the FOV overlap is already well underway. I don't particularly care about my feelings or your ego. Neither does the truth, whatever "truthiness" you gut-feel about things. Optical Science and engineering are what they are, and so is atmospheric science. The geometry of two barrels a few feet apart looking out hundreds of yards or light-years is obvious and completely unavoidable. There's too much folklore based on feelings that feel like science. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Why couldn't a catadioptric or newtonian optical system be used in binoculars?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top
