|
35s5 Heart of Gold
redbeard wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message ... Wilbur Hubbard wrote: Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not alone. Tell these guys: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/38/10A/042 http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7289597/claims.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9679582 60 http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/...ch/xray_lenses http://www.ifg-adlershof.de/linsen.htm When my dentist points that lens-looking think at my mouth and it buzzes it directs the x-rays just where they need to go. It might not be a GLASS lense but there's got to be a lense of some sort in there. No, that type of x-ray picture doesn't use a lens. Think about it. Here's a hint: if the thing the dentist points at you bounces around during the exposure, it doesn't affect the picture. Not so. The xray machine is the source of illumination and the xray plate is a stationary receiver and not attached to the machine. IIf the plate moves during the exposure, the picture is fuzzy, just like a camera. Once again, Wilbur is correct. If the x-ray did not have a "lens", why is it aimed at all? Here's a lens part number for a GE dental xray machine: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4063732AATtXgz Not so. If you move your head (or the x-ray machine head) but hold the little photographic plate firmly against your teeth, the exposure will be fine. The tube simply creates an un-focused, though somewhat columinated, blast of x-rays. The sharp image is the result of the detector plate being close to the teeth. (Actually the x-rays are created in the head, the tube is there prevent too much scatter and to keep the target a safe distance from the source.) |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 4 Sep, 01:03, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
Actually, you are missing the point that amateurs are using the very latest technology. You do not understand that technology in optics has made enormous advances in recent years. My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. I hope that you have found my post useful. I don't want you to look so stupid again. No, Donal, they are not. I can assure you that even the most expensive optical systems geared to the high end amateur does not represent state of the art in optical design or execution. True, a new high end refractor will be better than older models, but again they are still amateur instruments. The most expensive scope I've owned was a Celestron 14 on a custom built pier, but it was still a toy. You are absolutely correct! It is indeed a toy. You need to re-collimate the instrument every time that you adjust the focus!!!! Why don't you compare the Celestron with a RCOS? You obviously have extremely good taste in boats and hi-fi. Why do you not understand the world of high quality optics? Regards Donal --- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than 20 years. I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads. Ahhhh..... You can't afford a Tak? I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Regards donal -- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than 20 years. I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads. Wrong!! I've taken some photographs! My coments are based on personal experience. Your comments are based on personal ignorance. Before you argue this point, perhaps you will tell us more about your photo of M31. You pretended that you took it from your back yard. I live about the same distance from London as you do from NY. Do you want me to show the same thing from here? Regards Donal --- |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT), said: I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Jeez, Donal, that was a low blow. You're hitting them both where it hurts. He's hitting them in their ast? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT), said: I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Jeez, Donal, that was a low blow. You're hitting them both where it hurts. He's hitting them in their ast? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Always the homosexual references! -- Gregory Hall |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Regards donal Aston Martins are horrendously expensive in Oz..... OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
35s5 Heart of Gold
"jeff" wrote in message . .. redbeard wrote: "jeff" wrote in message ... Wilbur Hubbard wrote: Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not alone. Tell these guys: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/38/10A/042 http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7289597/claims.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9679582 60 http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/...ch/xray_lenses http://www.ifg-adlershof.de/linsen.htm When my dentist points that lens-looking think at my mouth and it buzzes it directs the x-rays just where they need to go. It might not be a GLASS lense but there's got to be a lense of some sort in there. No, that type of x-ray picture doesn't use a lens. Think about it. Here's a hint: if the thing the dentist points at you bounces around during the exposure, it doesn't affect the picture. Not so. The xray machine is the source of illumination and the xray plate is a stationary receiver and not attached to the machine. IIf the plate moves during the exposure, the picture is fuzzy, just like a camera. Once again, Wilbur is correct. If the x-ray did not have a "lens", why is it aimed at all? Here's a lens part number for a GE dental xray machine: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4063732AATtXgz Not so. If you move your head (or the x-ray machine head) but hold the little photographic plate firmly against your teeth, the exposure will be fine. The tube simply creates an un-focused, though somewhat columinated, blast of x-rays. The sharp image is the result of the detector plate being close to the teeth. (Actually the x-rays are created in the head, the tube is there prevent too much scatter and to keep the target a safe distance from the source.) You're right. I was thinking of xrays of broken arms, etc. In dentistry the plate is held motionless relative to the teeth. Here's an actual x ray of my head: http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploa...mpson_xray.jpg |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Sep 4, 6:07 pm, wrote:
On 4 Sep, 01:03, "Capt. Rob" wrote: Actually, you are missing the point that amateurs are using the very latest technology. You do not understand that technology in optics has made enormous advances in recent years. My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. I hope that you have found my post useful. I don't want you to look so stupid again. No, Donal, they are not. I can assure you that even the most expensive optical systems geared to the high end amateur does not represent state of the art in optical design or execution. True, a new high end refractor will be better than older models, but again they are still amateur instruments. The most expensive scope I've owned was a Celestron 14 on a custom built pier, but it was still a toy. You are absolutely correct! It is indeed a toy. You need to re-collimate the instrument every time that you adjust the focus!!!! Why don't you compare the Celestron with a RCOS? You obviously have extremely good taste in boats and hi-fi. Why do you not understand the world of high quality optics? Regards Donal --- I've looked through some expensive stuff, Donal. Have you ever compared a new C8 with a Tak 7 inch refractor costing 12K? I have. You might be surprised how well the C8 compares. Oh, and there's the little item of actually using the scope. By the time you set up a RCOS CF tube I'd have acquired and viewed a hundred objects. You have a lot to learn. The best scope is the one that's used the most. That's why I own two GPS GOTO scopes instead of a big dob for now. You have a long way to go if you don't get that and need to name drop pricey scope builders, Donal. R. |
35s5 Heart of Gold
On Sep 4, 6:13 pm, wrote:
On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote: My 4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector. Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than 20 years. I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads. Ahhhh..... You can't afford a Tak? I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin. Regards donal -- I could buy a Tak tomorrow, but it would be inferior to my CPC scope since it would be tougher to setup and would get less use. I'm planning on a GT-R, which is better than an Aston Martin. R. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com