2023-02-06, 09:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 2023-02-06, 09:14 PM by theskyhound.)
"This suggests that seeing cells were causing the image through the 5" aperture to show the effects of "twinkling" - shifting the image. At full aperture the stellar image expanded." -- I think that's quite consistent with the reduction of aberrations, not to mention removing the central obstruction, which is also going to make a big difference. You could see more detail, but the movement of the star indicated that seeing wasn't affected that much.
That's a pretty good article! The best part is at the end with the advice to be patient when observing visually.
Here's my line of thinking: central obstructions, optical aberrations, tube currents, longer times to reach thermal equilibrium--these things are all measurable and documented. The seeing cell idea has no direct evidence as far as I can tell. Its just what someone thought made sense, and historically, that has often proven to be a red flag.
That's a pretty good article! The best part is at the end with the advice to be patient when observing visually.
Here's my line of thinking: central obstructions, optical aberrations, tube currents, longer times to reach thermal equilibrium--these things are all measurable and documented. The seeing cell idea has no direct evidence as far as I can tell. Its just what someone thought made sense, and historically, that has often proven to be a red flag.
Clear skies,
Greg
Head Dude at Skyhound
Greg
Head Dude at Skyhound