| |
[index]
[month]
[prev]
[next]
[thead-prev]
Subject: Re: [M]: Re: Advertised vs. real fields of view
From: Paul Markov
Reply To: mapug@shore.net
Date: Sat Jun 09 21:31:07 2001
|
While you're here, how about checking out the
Astronomy Book
List ? |
Michael,
it was a 10-inch f/10 with the standard Meade 2-inch SCT diagonal. How could my
scope have a f.l. of 2900mm?
Regards,
Paul.
Michael A. Covington wrote:
> Since all the eyepieces are off by (roughly) the same amount, I think it's
> actually the telescope focal length that is off, and it was about 2900 mm,
> not 2500 mm. That is very odd. Assuming the usual Meade diagonal was used,
> it shouldn't be *that* far out of spec.
>
> In fact it's in spec for a 12-inch LX200 (f.l. 3048 mm, and the Meade 2-inch
> diagonal probably puts the eyepiece a little closer in, thus reducing it).
> Really off-the-wall question... was that a 10-inch or a 12-inch telescope?
> :)
View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Dec bearing modification, JP Friedman
Next message: Re: [M]: Dec bearing modification, Paul Luckas
Previous message in thread: [M]: Re: Advertised vs. real fields of view, Michael A. Covington
|
|