SL3telescopes

[T3D Peter Abrahams <telscope@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>My reading of Bill's post was that he was saying that because 
>of the increased depth acuity resulting from use of his system, 
>you would be able to tell that atmospheric haze/turbulence was 
>near and stars were far and so you could take out the haze/
>turbulence.

It has been reported by several or many observers that when conditions are
right, you can focus on a star, and rack the focus back a bit to image the
turbulence.  Presumably, this would be when the sun has set on land, and is
just about to stop illuminating the upper air levels.  A normal telescope is
capable of this, what is needed is a skilled observer (signals would be
faint) and proper lighting.  

>(No, he's not on this list.)  

You're kidding, right?  I have to re-post that last essay to p3d?

>> But to take a one foot scope & make a pair of two inch apertures 
>> out of it would enhance resolution only if viewing conditions 
>> were horrible, and the full aperture couldn't be used.  

>Wouldn't the two apertures fight each other due to 
>their looking through separate turbulence cells?     John B

Yes. I will christen the phenomenon "Dueling Apertures" before someone else
thinks of it. I was trying to cover too much ground in that post, comparing
a full aperture to reduced aperture and to a pair of reduced apertures.
Under turbulent conditions, the pair could improve the image as compared to
the whole, but would be at a disadvantage compared to the single.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////
  Peter Abrahams    telscope@xxxxxxxxxx
the history of the telescope, the microscope,
   and the prism binocular


------------------------------