It's really hard to say how valid your test is without any details.
Did you use Suiter? How big were the pinhole(s) and how
far away did you put them? What kind of scope were you
testing?

M.

> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 12:29 AM
> To: 'MAPUG'
> Subject: [M]: Artifcial Star Test
>
> I have just conducted an artificial star test on my ETX and LX-200 10"
>
> since I have nothing better to do due to the weather. Both tests
> provided
> nearly perfect patterns (according to the LX-200 manual).
>
> The test was conducted by poking small holes in a piece of aluminum
> foil,
> taping that foil to a piece of cardboard (with larger hole cut out),
> placing a bright light behind it and doing the test in the book. (I
> saw
> this test mentioned here and on a few peoples web site, but can't
> remember
> who, sorry if you are reading this).
>
> Now I am very excited about the results, but I was wondering how good
> of a
> test this is. I saw a few people that just commented about this type
> of
> test, but has anyone had an experience where this test showed
> contradictory
> results to other tests?
>
> I also wondered whether a person with an astigmatism would be able to
> conduct this test? Or would it depend on how bad their eyes were?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Peter

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: 12in LX200, David Gardner
Next message: [M]: RE: Meade 1.25 prism diag / was: funny field rotation..., Richmann, Michael
Next message in thread: RE: [M]: RE: Artifcial Star Test, Richmann, Michael
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: RE: Artifcial Star Test, Matt Considine