Quote:
Originally Posted by ngcles
Hi PGC & All,
Well don't I feel a fool!
|
lol don't worry, didn't have a flamin clue myself when I saw it on another forum recently, had to google it to see what the heck they were on about
Quote:
|
I stupidly imagined "IIRC" must have been some new, exotic brand of Ritchey–Chrétien or some-such telescope with ion-milled focus knobs etc.
|
Quote:
I also imagined the observer in question making this claim would similarly boast that it was at least the equal of any other sort of 'scope twice it's aperture in resolution or contrast and with whom I was likely to have a de-facto fundamental disagrement over the physical laws as they relate to optics in a visual-use telescope.
Hanging my head in shame ...
Best,
Les D
|
I wouldn't have a problem believing his claim, it's the fact that he say he did it with an 11" scope. Can't see an 11" resolving detail on Neptune, the mag required to get it large enough in angular size to attempt it would likely render the planet too fuzzy and dim to attempt to differentiate between the very subtle markings you'd find on the planet.