Jupiter Movie from Celestron 14" & Webcam

(May 2006)--Jupiter Movie from Celestron's C14 Telescope using Phillips ToU Webcam

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Jupiter
• C14
• Telescope
• Webcam
• movie
• Astronomy
• Pakistan

[TheFifthApes]

Just to clarify, the more aperature, the more magnification you can use effectively. You could use a 60mm scope to get 500x magnification, but it will be so blurry you won't be able to see any detail. Invest in a 3x barlow and try it.

[mmjurczak]

Some people just don't understand that seeing affects all instruments, and that sharp images take lots of processing.

But regardless, that's a great view! Almost as good as through the 24" Cassegrain I use for research.

[Neueregel]

@Prospekt0r That formula I mentioned applies for a specific wavelength (400 nm - blue) only. The general formula is θ=λ(wavelength)/D(mm) in radians. So for 400 nm, θ = 400/ 150*π ~ sth less than 1 arcsec. For the red color (700nm) it should be around 1.5" for the same 150mm scope.

[Prospekt0r]

@Neueregel You haven't refuted anything. I know very well that it's proportional to the aperture - I didn't say it wasn't. What I'm saying is that part a certain point, the increase in resolution you gain from a large aperture only really improves the resolution of the atmospheric turbulence. I mean, the object you're trying to view DOES increase in resolution but this is meaningless if it's behind a rippling blanket of air. Also, your formula for angular resolution is incorrect.

[Neueregel]

@Prospekt0r Angular resolution is actually PROPORTIONAL to the aperture. For aperture D (in mm) the Angular resolution is θ (in arcseconds) = 115/D , so for a 5-6 inch scope (125-150mm) it's somewhat below 1 arcsecond. Your argument is totally refuted, have a nice day/night.

[Prospekt0r]

@Neueregel I'm talking about angular resolution... not light gathering power. Obviously a larger aperture "collects" more light but that wasn't the topic of the discussion. My argument still stands.

[Neueregel]

@Prospekt0r 230mm ?? Really? Then, why many amateur people lately are rushing to get 12", 14" ,16" or even 20" inch Dobs? If 230mm was more than enough then anyone would stay at 10 inches max.The larger the aperture the better the light gathering capability. Question: What about Pluto (magnitude 14.5), can you see it clearly with an 8 inch?? The answer is no, but had you have a 20" baby with a 4000mm Focal Length then everything would be perfectly okay for magnitude-15 objects

[Prospekt0r]

@Neueregel Even in the best possible seeing conditions, 230mm is around the maximum, you never get better. So regardless of where you live, there's always a point where aperture wont make any difference. Lets just say 200 +/- 30 depending on the seeing conditions.

[Neueregel]

@Prospekt0r not really. It depends where you live

[Prospekt0r]

To add to the discussion. One of the things we learn in physics is that a 200mm aperture is pretty much as good as you can get before atmospheric tubbulence and poor seeing kick in. After this point a 200mm scope and a 2m scope dont make a difference in the image clarity  (unless of course you have adaptive optics). The only difference is the amount of light you gather.

[calebp9503]

this actually isn't that good for a C14 and a ToUcam, seeing conditions or focus or collimations is off because your setup is capable of capturing better quality than this.