Talk:Newtonian telescope: Difference between revisions
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The article says only one surface need be figured. Shouldn't the secondary be considered a second surface? A Newtonian without a secondary is, technically, a [[William Herschel|Herschellian]]. [[User:Michael Daly|Michael Daly]] 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
The article says only one surface need be figured. Shouldn't the secondary be considered a second surface? A Newtonian without a secondary is, technically, a [[William Herschel|Herschellian]]. [[User:Michael Daly|Michael Daly]] 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I have changed it |
:I have changed it back to "one surface". This refers to the difficulty of figuring the objective. And in the amateur context no one ever "figures" the diagonal (secondary), they buy them. [[Special:Contributions/64.0.112.218|64.0.112.218]] ([[User talk:64.0.112.218|talk]]) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:10, 30 May 2008
I'm inclined to remove some of the more technical parts of the Coma bit, as it's well covered on the Coma (optics) page for those who want more information. Kevin 08:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I heard that the Dobson telescopes (one design of Newtonian) changed amateur astronomy. Why isn't it mentioned in this article? Kowloonese 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dobsonians are not "one design of Newtonian" - they are Newtonians. So there would be no technical sub-type called "Dobsonian". The newtonian in Dobsonian and other forms has always been a popular type with amateur astronomers since it apeture to cost ratio is quit low. That could probably be mentioned. 69.72.93.195 16:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Newton's first reflector
As Newton's first reflector actually had a one inch aperture, it should probably say that it was a one inch reflector, not a six inch reflector. It was six inches in length. TheOtherSiguy 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Only one surface?
The article says only one surface need be figured. Shouldn't the secondary be considered a second surface? A Newtonian without a secondary is, technically, a Herschellian. Michael Daly 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed it back to "one surface". This refers to the difficulty of figuring the objective. And in the amateur context no one ever "figures" the diagonal (secondary), they buy them. 64.0.112.218 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)