NavList:

   

Reply

I too have an inverting scope and would be pleased to learn about it's
use and qualities and if I can contribute to this process please let me
know.

Cordially,
Courtney Thomas


Bruce Stark wrote:

> At 22:10 on the twenty-second of last month Fred wrote:
>
> "Bruce recently acquired an inverting telescope; perhaps he'll jump in
> here if he's
> back from his trip to compare it's virtues to those of the modern prism
> monocular."
>
> Although I wasn't back then, I am now, and am beginning to skim a
> month's worth of postings. My SNO-T, (or SNO-T) sextant is stamped 1974.
> Optics of both scopes are excellent. The inverting scope, interestingly,
> has at least as much light-gathering ability as a 7X35 Tamaya monocular.
> That in spite of having a smaller objective lens. Perhaps it's that the
> light passes through fewer glass surfaces.
>
> The star scope is far better at gathering light than the other two, of
> course.
>
> The wire reticule is fixed at the back of the objective tube, just as
> Alex describes it. The wires are nearly 2 degrees apart in the field.
> Two vertical, two horizontal. Why the horizontal ones, I don't know. But
> they do make it easy to measure the angular distance between wires.
>
> If all you want to do is measure altitudes above the sea horizon, don't
> bother with an inverting scope. Same if you only measure short lunar
> distances. But if you want to accurately measure the longer lunar
> distances, or do accurate work with an artificial horizon, you'll find
> the inverting scope invaluable. Just don't let the thing drive you crazy
> at first. With experience you'll learn to like it a lot.
>
> My guess is, a right-side-up scope with a reticule would be far more
> expensive. That is, one with comparable optics.
>
> Bruce
>


--
s/v Mutiny
Rhodes Bounty II
lying Oriental, NC
WDB5619

   

Reply