View Single Post
  #72  
Old 22-11-2013, 07:30 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz View Post
That is undoubtedly true.

But ..when a system is finally working well enough that it outperforms the seeing, you have reached an absolute limit. It doesn't matter how much better the scope is than that minimum requirement - once it has enough resolution to be seeing limited, physics steps in and that's the best quality data you will get from it or from any scope in the conditions, regardless of pedigree.

So, getting back to the original post, having spot sizes that are 1/8 those of an RC is not likely to make the slightest difference to image quality, since a reasonable RC will most likely be big enough and of sufficient quality and image scale to be seeing limited - and that will be as good as it gets.

Good post,
the best seeing I've had so far in Melbourne is a FWHM of 2.6 arc seconds.
I am using a Newt. + corrector & it doesn't seem worth upgrading
if that is the best seeing I can get.
Reply With Quote