The formula that shaped known telescopes over the centuries of development is pretty basic, well known, and proven- bigger is better. This is the same as saying that larger aperture provides brighter image, while longer focal length provides greater magnification. Even so, is this formula written in stone? Let's put the formula to the test. Can large magnification be obtained without long focal length objective? The answer is yes. Microscopes provide very large magnification with relatively short focal length objective. Is it possible to collect light without very large aperture size? Again, the answer is yes. Microscope also demonstrates this. Then why is it that microscopes provide great magnification with adequate brightness at a relatively small size, while telescopes cannot? This shows that it isn't the law of magnification nor brightness, but it the instrument's design limitations that insist on the concept that bigger is better. A basic Keplerian design telescope operates as a microscope when viewed through the other end of the tube. From the fact that telescopes are basically an inverted microscope, one can see the close relationship between the two.
Company Resource: Big Porro Binoculars, Compact Porro Binoculars
Read more: http://www.nbbinoculars.com/blog/
Add your comment to this post
You have not login, please login! |