Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

Discussion of optical systems and their characteristics.
User avatar
Piet Le Roux South Africa
Jupiter Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 6:33 pm
4
Location: Bloemfontein, South Africa
Status:
Offline

TSS Photo of the Day

Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#1

Post by Piet Le Roux »


I am placing this in "Off Topic" because I just realise we don't have a "General Observing" sub forum!
I have come across this notion, in different forms about aperture and "seeing", here is one example:

"The larger the aperture, the larger the volume of air that the light rays coming into the scope must pass through. Thus scopes of larger aperture tend to be more sensitive to turbulent air ("seeing") than scopes of smaller aperture."

I don't understand the logic because it seems to insinuate that small aperture telescopes are less affected by bad seeing conditions than large aperture telescopes ?! I have a 4" and 15" reflector and I have never experienced a situation were I could ever observe more detail with the 4" than with the 15" under bad seeing conditions. When comparing telescopes I think it is important to do so at more or less the same magnification, for example if I want to compare my 4", with a 600mm focal length, to my 15", with a 1727mm focal length, I would have to use a 10mm eyepiece in the 4" and a 28mm in the 15", to make a fair comparison. With a 28mm in the 4" bad seeing conditions would definitely be less noticeable .....at a 21 magnification not much detail of anything would be noticeable. I basically use 3 eyepieces with my 15" telescope : 27mm, 13mm and a 7mm, with or without a 2X Barlow. The size of the object and seeing conditions would determine which. This year in June I experienced the best seeing condition while observing thus far : I observed Saturn with the 7mm and could, for the first time, see more detail as with the 13mm. I then added the 2x Barlow to the 7mm and the level of detail was about the same as with just the 7mm, it was the first time that I could use the 7mm with the 2x barlow and get a half descent view.

The part that with larger aperture the volume of air increases that the light has to travel through, to me, this is like saying resisters in parallel will have more resistance than a single resister or that stacking multiple images will result in less detail. If this notion was true I think we would have seen a lot more small aperture telescopes at professional observatories for those bad seeing days.
So what does the experts say? folklore or fact?
Main Equipment : Tele Vue 27mm Panoptic, 7&13mm Nagler, Big Barlow : 8" Meade LX90ACF with Meade 2.0" Enhanced Diagonal : Camera Fuji XT100
User avatar
Star Dad United States of America
Orion Spur Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:05 pm
4
Location: Norwich CT
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#2

Post by Star Dad »


Well, I am not an expert on this - but it would seem to me that light has to travel through the same amount of air no matter the aperture. The diameter of the aperture might allow a tad more air "currents", but the amount of air per length of tube (being the same, of course) is in fact the same. Now the micro climate in a newtonian reflector might have some influence until the temperature inside equalizes with the outside, but I don't see how the aperture would change the amount of air unless there is somehow a different density between the air in the two tubes. <shrug>
"To be good is not enough when you dream of being great"

Orion 203mm/f4.9/1000mm, converted TASCO 114mm/f9/1000mm to steam punk, Meade 114mm/f9/1000, Coronado PST, Orion EQ-G, Ioptron Mini-Tower and iEQ30, Canon 70D, ASI120MM,ASI294MC, Ioptron SkyHunter
User avatar
helicon United States of America
Co-Administrator
Co-Administrator
Articles: 584
Online
Posts: 12274
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 1:35 pm
4
Location: Washington
Status:
Online

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#3

Post by helicon »


I don't believe having more air in the tube impacts what one can see. Seeing conditions theoretically should be the same at varying apertures, since it largely is an atmospheric phenomenon. I can think of situations when a newtonian is not acclimated to the outside temperature as causing more turbulence, but this should dissipate once temperature equilibrium is achieved.
-Michael
Refractors: ES AR152 f/6.5 Achromat on Twilight II, Celestron 102mm XLT f/9.8 on Celestron Heavy Duty Alt Az mount, KOWA 90mm spotting scope
Binoculars: Celestron SkyMaster 15x70, Bushnell 10x50
Eyepieces: Various, GSO Superview, 9mm Plossl, Celestron 25mm Plossl
Camera: ZWO ASI 120
Naked Eye: Two Eyeballs
Latitude: 48.7229° N
User avatar
turboscrew
Inter-Galactic Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:22 am
3
Location: Nokia, Finland
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#4

Post by turboscrew »


I'm no expert either, but I think the "fair comparison", in this context, is usually between magnifications relative to the maximum. I also guess that a big aperture scope has better resolution, so it magnifies even problems that a smaller aperture scope doesn't "see". Kind of similar effect that when you look at a rasterized picture too close.
- Juha

Senior Embedded SW Designer
Telescope: OrionOptics XV12, Mount: CEM120, Tri-pier 360 and alternative dobson mount.
Grab 'n go: Omegon AC 102/660 on AZ-3 mount
Eyepieces: 26 mm Omegon SWAN 70°, 15 mm TV Plössl, 12.5 mm Baader Morpheus, 10 mm TV Delos, 6 mm Baader Classic Ortho, 5 mm TV DeLite, 4 mm and 3 mm TV Radians
Cameras: ZWO ASI 294MM Pro, Omegon veLOX 178C
OAG: TS-Optics TSOAG09, ZWO EFW 7 x 36 mm, ZWO filter sets: LRGB and Ha/OIII/SII
Explore Scientific HR 2" coma corrector, Meade x3 1.25" Barlow, TV PowerMate 4x 2"
Some filters (#80A, ND-96, ND-09, Astronomik UHC)
Laptop: Acer Enduro Urban N3 semi-rugged, Windows 11
LAT 61° 28' 10.9" N, Bortle 5

I don't suffer from insanity. I'm enjoying every minute of it.

Image
User avatar
Lady Fraktor Slovakia
Co-Administrator
Co-Administrator
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 9860
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:14 pm
4
Location: Slovakia
Status:
Offline

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#5

Post by Lady Fraktor »


We had a discussion about this here a while ago but I could not find it.
A air cell (average sized) is 6-8" so a smaller aperture in turbulent air will hold a slightly steadier image longer as the skies deteriorate.
See Far Sticks: Antares Elita 103/1575, AOM FLT 105/1000, Bresser BV 127/1200, Nočný stopár 152/1200, Vyrobené doma 70/700, Stellarvue NHNG DX 80/552, TAL RS100/1000, Vixen SD115s/885
EQ: TAL MT-1, Vixen SXP, AXJ, AXD
Az/Alt: AYO Digi II/ Argo Navis, Stellarvue M2C/ Argo Navis
Tripods: Berlebach Planet (2), Uni 28 Astro, Report 372, TAL factory maple, Vixen ASG-CB90, Vixen AXD-TR102
Diagonals: Astro-Physics, Baader Amici, Baader Herschel, iStar Blue, Stellarvue DX, Takahashi prism, TAL, Vixen flip mirror
Eyepieces: Antares to Zeiss
The only culture I have is from yogurt
My day was going well until... people
Image
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#6

Post by notFritzArgelander »


It is a scientific fact (not folklore) that large aperture scopes are more affected by seeing conditions.

Some of the "arguments" upthread are really depressing because of the defects in logic. Small aperture telescopes certainly are affected less by air currents than large aperture scopes. The logic for this is that poor seeing causes the disk of the star to expand. (It is the volume of air outside the tube that is relevant here. The only time the volume of air inside the tube is relevant is when thermal equilibrium isn't achieved.) Now if the seeing is so poor that stars are boiling 2 arc second disks then the 0.5 arc second resolution of a 10" scope isn't going to happen and neither is the 1 arc second of a 5" scope. You will not get a diffraction limited Airy disk if the atmosphere won't let it.

Networks of resistors are a really bad analogy for this and are irrelevant. What is happening is that differences in index of refraction in the air column causes waveform errors that prevent a diffraction limited image. You cannot resolve what the atmosphere won't let you resolve.

Resolution is not the only function of a telescope though. They also collect light. Even on a bad seeing night a bigger light bucket still collects more light. This is why large observatories still operate large telescopes on bad seeing nights. If you are feeding a spectrograph the slit of the instrument maintains the resolution since the spectrogram is imaging the slit, not the star. You can compensate for the poor seeing wasting more of the light outside the slit by taking a longer exposure.

Comparing the resolution of two telescopes should be done at the same exit pupil NOT the same magnification. A trained observer can get all the resolution a scope can provide at 2mm exit pupil. If you need a smaller exit pupil (higher magnification) to distinguish more details then you have not practiced observing enough to be proficient yet. It is a fact of human physiology of the eye that the resolution maxes out at 2mm exit pupil. It is a fact of human psychology that you need to practice a skill to attain that.

The path length os of course, the same, but the path volume is different and that larger volume has more turbulent eddies and more differences in atmospheric index of refraction happening.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
Piet Le Roux South Africa
Jupiter Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 6:33 pm
4
Location: Bloemfontein, South Africa
Status:
Offline

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#7

Post by Piet Le Roux »


"It is a scientific fact (not folklore) that large aperture scopes are more affected by seeing conditions." : this statement involves long exposures and the magnitude by which its affecting a large aperture telescope...not really what I am interested in. I am specifically referring to visual observations and the question, for me, is if a small aperture telescope could ever outperform a large aperture telescope, by showing more detail, of a object during bad seeing conditions, because this is what some people are deducting from these rather complex statements that are being presented by some academics.

The KISS answer to my question, for me, is still....no!
Main Equipment : Tele Vue 27mm Panoptic, 7&13mm Nagler, Big Barlow : 8" Meade LX90ACF with Meade 2.0" Enhanced Diagonal : Camera Fuji XT100
User avatar
turboscrew
Inter-Galactic Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:22 am
3
Location: Nokia, Finland
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#8

Post by turboscrew »


"The larger the aperture, the larger the volume of air that the light rays coming into the scope must pass through. Thus scopes of larger aperture tend to be more sensitive to turbulent air ("seeing") than scopes of smaller aperture."
I'm not sure but...
I don't think the scope can be affected by seeing. ;)
I think it's about the quality of image - whether drawn on film or retina.
It's just that better quality image doesn't necessarily mean more detailed image. It could also mean less detailed image that doesn't jump around.
- Juha

Senior Embedded SW Designer
Telescope: OrionOptics XV12, Mount: CEM120, Tri-pier 360 and alternative dobson mount.
Grab 'n go: Omegon AC 102/660 on AZ-3 mount
Eyepieces: 26 mm Omegon SWAN 70°, 15 mm TV Plössl, 12.5 mm Baader Morpheus, 10 mm TV Delos, 6 mm Baader Classic Ortho, 5 mm TV DeLite, 4 mm and 3 mm TV Radians
Cameras: ZWO ASI 294MM Pro, Omegon veLOX 178C
OAG: TS-Optics TSOAG09, ZWO EFW 7 x 36 mm, ZWO filter sets: LRGB and Ha/OIII/SII
Explore Scientific HR 2" coma corrector, Meade x3 1.25" Barlow, TV PowerMate 4x 2"
Some filters (#80A, ND-96, ND-09, Astronomik UHC)
Laptop: Acer Enduro Urban N3 semi-rugged, Windows 11
LAT 61° 28' 10.9" N, Bortle 5

I don't suffer from insanity. I'm enjoying every minute of it.

Image
User avatar
John Baars Netherlands
Co-Administrator
Co-Administrator
Articles: 5
Online
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 9:00 am
4
Location: Schiedam, Netherlands
Status:
Online

TSS Awards Badges

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#9

Post by John Baars »


If seeing is as large as 5 arc seconds, no amateur-telescope on earth will show details smaller than 5 arc seconds. The 4 inch telescope won't "outperform" the 8 inch telescope.

If seeing is expressed in diameter of the disturbing airbubble, the story changes. Two 5 centimeter air bubbles of different temperature that pass in front of a 4 inch telescope disturb the wavefront 4 times. The same in an 8 inch. If the disturbing air bubbles come in one long continuous row, the 4 inch telescope is still disturbed 4 times, and the 8 inch 8 times in the same time. It is obvious that the front in the 8 inch is more frequently disturbed per second.
The image in the 4 inch will be calmer, but resolution still not better.

The term "outperforming" is not specific enough.That is the problem.
Refractors in frequency of use : *SW Evostar 120ED F/7.5 (all round ), * Vixen 102ED F/9 (vintage), both on Vixen GPDX.
GrabnGo on Alt/AZ : *SW Startravel 102 F/5 refractor( widefield, Sun, push-to), *OMC140 Maksutov F/14.3 ( planets).
Most used Eyepieces: *Panoptic 24, *Morpheus 14, *Leica ASPH zoom, *Zeiss barlow, *Pentax XO5.
Commonly used bino's : *Jena 10X50 , * Canon 10X30 IS, *Swarovski Habicht 7X42, * Celestron 15X70, *Kasai 2.3X40
Rijswijk Public Observatory: * Astro-Physics Starfire 130 f/8, * 6 inch Newton, * C9.25, * Meade 14 inch LX600 ACF, *Lunt.
Amateur astronomer since 1970.
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#10

Post by notFritzArgelander »


Piet Le Roux wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:03 pm "It is a scientific fact (not folklore) that large aperture scopes are more affected by seeing conditions." : this statement involves long exposures and the magnitude by which its affecting a large aperture telescope...not really what I am interested in.


False. It also applies to visual observations see below.
I am specifically referring to visual observations and the question, for me, is if a small aperture telescope could ever outperform a large aperture telescope, by showing more detail, of a object during bad seeing conditions, because this is what some people are deducting from these rather complex statements that are being presented by some academics.

The KISS answer to my question, for me, is still....no!
Well, you're wrong. Factually scientifically wrong and you are pushing folklore against scientific facts.

What happens with a larger aperture and poor seeing for visual observations is that you are playing a lottery. Because turbulence is dynamic there are random times when the mean error in the wavefront due to the atmosphere is small. These are the "moments" of good seeing that skilled visual observers wait patiently for. Then and only then the eye and larger aperture scope can capture the resolution that the scope is capable of achieving. The wait time between moments of good seeing is longer for larger aperture scopes.

If that were not the case I would always take out the 12" scope. But on nights of average or worse seeing the wait times between those moments becomes unacceptable. I just will not bother with the 12" since for average seeing conditions it's a waste of effort. For average conditions I'll use something in the 4-8" class since the wait times between those moments of good seeing are acceptably brief and the scope is not so much work to set up.

I suppose if you are willing to bear any heavy burden of set up and willing to wait indefinitely for a moment of clarity you won't care what the facts are. I know from experience and the science that larger aperture scopes are more affected by poor seeing for visual use in that the wait times to get a stable image are longer. That's a fact. It's also the science.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#11

Post by notFritzArgelander »


turboscrew wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:38 pm "The larger the aperture, the larger the volume of air that the light rays coming into the scope must pass through. Thus scopes of larger aperture tend to be more sensitive to turbulent air ("seeing") than scopes of smaller aperture."
I'm not sure but...
I don't think the scope can be affected by seeing. ;)
I think it's about the quality of image - whether drawn on film or retina.
It's just that better quality image doesn't necessarily mean more detailed image. It could also mean less detailed image that doesn't jump around.
This is false. If the seeing is producing a 2" disk then resolution is limited to 2" by the atmosphere.

https://weather.gc.ca/astro/seeing_e.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
Solsearcher Canada
Orion Spur Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon May 20, 2019 12:24 am
4
Location: Ontario Canada
Status:
Offline

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#12

Post by Solsearcher »


My own personal experiences can easily back up the claim that a smaller aperture can bring better results in not so good conditions .
My main interest in astronomy is solar imaging , I have 3 Ha solar scopes , 60mm 90mm and 150mm . My 60mm scope is very forgiving and can give good results even in poor conditions , My 90mm is less forgiving in poor conditions but works very good in my average conditions . Now by comparison my 150 mm scope requires almost pristine conditions for me to use at all and I am lucky if I see these conditions more than a couple of times a year . The larger aperture not only resolves all of the fine detail I want to capture it also does a very good job of resolving the distortion between my scope and the target. I know this is not night time viewing but I do believe this one example of how a larger aperture can work against you .
Solar scopes (Coronado Ha) 60mm double stack , 90mm double stack , 150mm single stack .
W/L scope Williams Optic Megrez 110mm / Lunt herschel wedge .
Night scope Celestron 9.25 XLT
Mounts HEQ6 , HEQ5 , Losmandy G8
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#13

Post by notFritzArgelander »


Solsearcher wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:55 pm My own personal experiences can easily back up the claim that a smaller aperture can bring better results in not so good conditions .
My main interest in astronomy is solar imaging , I have 3 Ha solar scopes , 60mm 90mm and 150mm . My 60mm scope is very forgiving and can give good results even in poor conditions , My 90mm is less forgiving in poor conditions but works very good in my average conditions . Now by comparison my 150 mm scope requires almost pristine conditions for me to use at all and I am lucky if I see these conditions more than a couple of times a year . The larger aperture not only resolves all of the fine detail I want to capture it also does a very good job of resolving the distortion between my scope and the target. I know this is not night time viewing but I do believe this one example of how a larger aperture can work against you .
The physics of turbulence and its effects on optical performance doesn't care whether it is day or night. :)
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#14

Post by notFritzArgelander »


One final thought. It also depends on the observing target, for me anyway.

OTOneHand if the evening is devoted to DSOs there is no point to using the largest aperture available when the seeing doesn't permit. I like to wait for nights of good seeing for resolving globular clusters and close doubles.

OTOtherHand the Mars opposition is coming up. That is a rare window of opportunity. My approach to that will be to use the largest aperture I can manage and tough it out waiting for those random moments when the seeing is good for a split second.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
Piet Le Roux South Africa
Jupiter Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 6:33 pm
4
Location: Bloemfontein, South Africa
Status:
Offline

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#15

Post by Piet Le Roux »


I found this explanation on the "Sky and Telescope" website:

Sky & Telescope: BY: ALAN MACROBERT AUGUST 14, 2006
Large or slow-moving eddies cause slow seeing, but they don't stay large forever. No matter what size the eddies are when they originate, they break up into smaller and smaller ones. When these finally become small enough to measure in millimeters, they die out and dissipate their energy as heat via the air's fluid friction (viscosity).

A light wave from a star is distorted on many size scales by the atmosphere. When the wavefront enters a telescope, its 'tilt' determine's the star's apparent position, while its 'roughness' determines how fuzzy the star looks.
A light wave from a star is distorted on many size scales by the atmosphere. When the wavefront enters a telescope, its 'tilt' determine's the star's apparent position, while its 'roughness' determines how fuzzy the star looks. Generally a small telescope sees a relatively sharp star dancing around, while a large one sees a relatively steady but fuzzy star.

This complex situation belies an often-repeated piece of astronomer's lore: that seeing cells are 10 centimeters (4 inches) in size. In fact they come in all sizes. But cells in this middle range do have an important property: they affect a large telescope more seriously than a small one. If you have a 4-inch scope, cells 4 inches and larger passing through its line of sight will make an image move around while staying relatively intact. The same cells passing in front of a 12-inch aperture will superpose multiple images at once.

This fact has led to another piece of folklore: that when the atmospheric seeing is bad, a large telescope shows less detail than a small one. Therefore, supposedly, you can improve the view in poor seeing by stopping down a large aperture with a cardboard mask.

Technically there is a bit of truth in this, but in practice the improvement is nonexistent. I have never seen any improvement by stopping down a telescope when the problem was poor seeing. The most that can usually be said is that on a really rotten night, large- and small-aperture views will be equally poor. Even then, if you constrict the aperture you miss the chance for the momentary high-resolution views that the full aperture will provide if the air briefly steadies.

There are reasons why you may indeed see more sharply through a stopped-down telescope. Most of them are bad — and have nothing to do with the atmosphere. Maybe your eye was dazzled by a too-bright planet; in that case an eyepiece filter would solve the problem better than a reduced aperture. Maybe the aperture stop is masking off the optical errors of a flawed objective. Maybe it's just allowing a mediocre eyepiece to perform better by increasing the telescope's f/ratio. Poor collimation of the optical parts is also less damaging when the f/ratio is increased.

The whole article : https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-e ... he-seeing/
Main Equipment : Tele Vue 27mm Panoptic, 7&13mm Nagler, Big Barlow : 8" Meade LX90ACF with Meade 2.0" Enhanced Diagonal : Camera Fuji XT100
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#16

Post by notFritzArgelander »


Piet Le Roux wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:59 am
.......

This fact has led to another piece of folklore: that when the atmospheric seeing is bad, a large telescope shows less detail than a small one. Therefore, supposedly, you can improve the view in poor seeing by stopping down a large aperture with a cardboard mask.

Technically there is a bit of truth in this, but in practice the improvement is nonexistent.

........

The whole article : https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-e ... he-seeing/
As far as it goes, it’s correct but it is still incomplete. It never addresses the effect of aperture on the mean time between moments of good seeing. That’s what makes the wait time for good moments longer for larger aperture when seeing is poor.

I’m not a fan of the aperture mask technique, btw. I will cut my setup labor overhead and use a smaller aperture scope altogether. The rule I ordinarily apply is to use an aperture that can resolve the seeing disk by a factor of two. So a night of average seeing has 1-2 arc seconds of seeing and a 5-6” aperture is the most I’ll set up.

It’s not folklore that the wait time for a good seeing moment is longer for a larger aperture scope. It’s a pity that the author of the article neglected that effect. Of course if one enjoys a permanent observatory one might be a little spoiled by that and not consider setup and take down time. I prefer to continue enjoying the hobby. I don’t want to bother with 120 lbs of kit on a poor seeing night.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
turboscrew
Inter-Galactic Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:22 am
3
Location: Nokia, Finland
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#17

Post by turboscrew »


notFritzArgelander wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:15 pm
turboscrew wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:38 pm "The larger the aperture, the larger the volume of air that the light rays coming into the scope must pass through. Thus scopes of larger aperture tend to be more sensitive to turbulent air ("seeing") than scopes of smaller aperture."
I'm not sure but...
I don't think the scope can be affected by seeing. ;)
I think it's about the quality of image - whether drawn on film or retina.
It's just that better quality image doesn't necessarily mean more detailed image. It could also mean less detailed image that doesn't jump around.
This is false. If the seeing is producing a 2" disk then resolution is limited to 2" by the atmosphere.

https://weather.gc.ca/astro/seeing_e.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing
What's false in that? I don't think the scope itself changes in any way depending on seeing.
Or is it about image quality being all about details and resolution?
Or is it that sharp "dancing" image vs. steady fuzzy blob?
- Juha

Senior Embedded SW Designer
Telescope: OrionOptics XV12, Mount: CEM120, Tri-pier 360 and alternative dobson mount.
Grab 'n go: Omegon AC 102/660 on AZ-3 mount
Eyepieces: 26 mm Omegon SWAN 70°, 15 mm TV Plössl, 12.5 mm Baader Morpheus, 10 mm TV Delos, 6 mm Baader Classic Ortho, 5 mm TV DeLite, 4 mm and 3 mm TV Radians
Cameras: ZWO ASI 294MM Pro, Omegon veLOX 178C
OAG: TS-Optics TSOAG09, ZWO EFW 7 x 36 mm, ZWO filter sets: LRGB and Ha/OIII/SII
Explore Scientific HR 2" coma corrector, Meade x3 1.25" Barlow, TV PowerMate 4x 2"
Some filters (#80A, ND-96, ND-09, Astronomik UHC)
Laptop: Acer Enduro Urban N3 semi-rugged, Windows 11
LAT 61° 28' 10.9" N, Bortle 5

I don't suffer from insanity. I'm enjoying every minute of it.

Image
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#18

Post by notFritzArgelander »


turboscrew wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:31 pm
notFritzArgelander wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:15 pm
turboscrew wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:38 pm "The larger the aperture, the larger the volume of air that the light rays coming into the scope must pass through. Thus scopes of larger aperture tend to be more sensitive to turbulent air ("seeing") than scopes of smaller aperture."
I'm not sure but...
I don't think the scope can be affected by seeing. ;)
I think it's about the quality of image - whether drawn on film or retina.
It's just that better quality image doesn't necessarily mean more detailed image. It could also mean less detailed image that doesn't jump around.
This is false. If the seeing is producing a 2" disk then resolution is limited to 2" by the atmosphere.

https://weather.gc.ca/astro/seeing_e.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing
What's false in that? I don't think the scope itself changes in any way depending on seeing.
Or is it about image quality being all about details and resolution?
The atmosphere is part of the optical system. It’s a mistake to neglect that. Indeed when you include the atmosphere details and resolution are affected.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
turboscrew
Inter-Galactic Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:22 am
3
Location: Nokia, Finland
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#19

Post by turboscrew »


notFritzArgelander wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:52 pm
turboscrew wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:31 pm
notFritzArgelander wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:15 pm

This is false. If the seeing is producing a 2" disk then resolution is limited to 2" by the atmosphere.

https://weather.gc.ca/astro/seeing_e.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing
What's false in that? I don't think the scope itself changes in any way depending on seeing.
Or is it about image quality being all about details and resolution?
The atmosphere is part of the optical system. It’s a mistake to neglect that. Indeed when you include the atmosphere details and resolution are affected.
Yes, but in the text: "thus scopes ... tend to be more sensitive to turbulent air". (That's why the emoticon,)
- Juha

Senior Embedded SW Designer
Telescope: OrionOptics XV12, Mount: CEM120, Tri-pier 360 and alternative dobson mount.
Grab 'n go: Omegon AC 102/660 on AZ-3 mount
Eyepieces: 26 mm Omegon SWAN 70°, 15 mm TV Plössl, 12.5 mm Baader Morpheus, 10 mm TV Delos, 6 mm Baader Classic Ortho, 5 mm TV DeLite, 4 mm and 3 mm TV Radians
Cameras: ZWO ASI 294MM Pro, Omegon veLOX 178C
OAG: TS-Optics TSOAG09, ZWO EFW 7 x 36 mm, ZWO filter sets: LRGB and Ha/OIII/SII
Explore Scientific HR 2" coma corrector, Meade x3 1.25" Barlow, TV PowerMate 4x 2"
Some filters (#80A, ND-96, ND-09, Astronomik UHC)
Laptop: Acer Enduro Urban N3 semi-rugged, Windows 11
LAT 61° 28' 10.9" N, Bortle 5

I don't suffer from insanity. I'm enjoying every minute of it.

Image
User avatar
SkyHiker United States of America
Local Group Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 8:40 pm
4
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: Aperture size and "seeing" conditions

#20

Post by SkyHiker »


This is a good discussion for me since I was just contemplating getting a 10" or 12" F/4 Newt astrograph for AP. I was aware of the facts mentioned and I suppose they apply for AP straight so there is no point in going above 8". For visual observing of DSOs on average nights it may be different because a larger image affects the perception by the brain so that the loss in resolution is offset by the increased perceived brightness, and a few arc seconds more or less does not matter because you can't tell the difference anyway, for faint nebulosity. Not so for observing planets because brightness is not an issue, or for AP because the faint details do matter once enough light is collected.

Of course in my case where I am imaging with a DSLR where the pixels for each color are spaced further apart, a larger image projection may still result in better resolution because the pixel spacing is a limiting factor. Then there's the practical aspect of weight and how often I can set up drag it to the Sierras. The 12" has a Losmandy dovetail that I would like, but it weighs 50 lbs whereas the 10" weighs only 34 lbs. The 12" is probably too heavy for thieves to carry so I can safely leave it up on my driveway.
... Henk. :D Telescopes: GSO 12" Astrograph, "Comet Hunter" MN152, ES ED127CF, ES ED80, WO Redcat51, Z12, AT6RC, Celestron Skymaster 20x80, Mounts and tripod: Losmandy G11S with OnStep, AVX, Tiltall, Cameras: ASI2600MC, ASI2600MM, ASI120 mini, Fuji X-a1, Canon XSi, T6, ELPH 100HS, DIY: OnStep controller, Pi4b/power rig, Afocal adapter, Foldable Dob base, Az/Alt Dob setting circles, Accessories: ZWO 36 mm filter wheel, TV Paracorr 2, Baader MPCC Mk III, ES FF, SSAG, QHY OAG-M, EAF electronic focuser, Plossls, Barlows, Telrad, Laser collimators (Seben LK1, Z12, Howie Glatter), Cheshire, 2 Orion RACIs 8x50, Software: KStars-Ekos, DSS, PHD2, Nebulosity, Photo Gallery, Gimp, CHDK, Computers:Pi4b, 2x running KStars/Ekos, Toshiba Satellite 17", Website:Henk's astro images
Post Reply

Create an account or sign in to join the discussion

You need to be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute

Register

Sign in

Return to “General Optics”