Mahlon wrote:
Title says it all. I found this in a site on amateur telescope making,
and
thought I would pass it on. I haven't actually tried this, but the
method seems
to make a lot of "horse sense" to me.
regards,
Mahlon
<snip>
Mahlon, This only implies very thin, i.e.. zero thickness. How thin is
required and what is the effect of additional thickness? How does the
size of the hole affect the position from the film plane for the
examples sited by Mr. Sinnot? (I vaguely remember a formula for aperture
vs. film plane distance)
Thanks in advance to all and thanks for bringing up another topic I have
learned in school, but failed to find a use for in daily life.
Mike Butler
Chief Mechanic / Engineer
Team FCAR
http://home.earthlink.net/~teamfcar/
Dublin, California
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|