|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Note: The original version of this article can be found in the page history of seeing (astronomy). --Minesweeper 00:47, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)|
- 1 Material added from my thesis
- 2 Move (2005)
- 3 Grammar
- 4 Inconsistency
- 5 Mythology
- 6 Best conditions?
- 7 "Optical Turbulence" as a separate article vs added to Astronomical seeing vs both
- 8 Quibble about charge-coupled devices
- 9 Merger Proposal (2014)
- 10 Seeing, twinkling and turbulence
- 11 External links modified
Material added from my thesis
I've added some material from the introduction to my thesis:
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes/coast/theses/rnt/node2.html Rnt20 09:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does "seeing" really refer to the problem of atmospheric disturbance, or is "seeing" a qualitative term, i.e. "good seeing" or "bad seeing", which can be affected by the atmospheric conditions? This article suggests the former, but the latter seems to make more sense in English. 126.96.36.199 16:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Well the latter was my dim recollection, but then I didn't talk to real (optical) astronomers that often. Linuxlad 19:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Both forms are widely used. Rnt20 19:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that's fairly authoritative Dr Tubbs :-) Can I suggest we use the more intuitive form (as in poor seeing) at the introduction of articles at least. Bob aka Linuxlad
There's an inconsistency in the article - atmospheric seeing and astronomical seeing are used interchangeably without explanation - both terms should be explained at the start then one used throughout, but I'm not sure which is the more common term. I was under the impression in was "atmospheric seeing", but the article seems to redirect both to astronomical. ChowRiit (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a decent explanation on the Scintillation website... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillation_(astronomy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
"Optical Turbulence" as a separate article vs added to Astronomical seeing vs both
I plan on adding information about the more general problem of "Optical Turbulence" and I am looking for input on how best to relate this to the present article (i.e. add to Astronomical seeing vs new article vs combination of the two.)
The subject goes beyond just the problem of imaging astronomical objects approximately vertically through the atmosphere i.e. how is an optical field affected by turbulence (in general and atmospherical turbulence specifically). Applications will include both imaging through turbulence (such as in astronomy), but also other applications such as communication (which include ground to satellite, satellite to ground, and horizontal path). For more detail about what to expect, I will be drawing heavily from the following source (as well as a number of original sources in the scientific literature) "http://www.amazon.com/Propagation-through-Random-Second-Monograph/dp/0819459488/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312862088&sr=8-1" Punk physicist 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Quibble about charge-coupled devices
Quibble: In the section "The effects of astronomical seeing" we have this sentence: "Before the use of charge-coupled devices, there was no way of recording the image of the planet in the brief moment other than having the observer remember the image and draw it later." How about using photographic equipment, that is, cameras and film? [Charles Pergiel, October 30, 2011]
Merger Proposal (2014)
Seeing, twinkling and turbulence
(In response to Sections 7 and 9)
Seeing and twinkling are distinct phenomena. Seeing refers to image motion and image blur (i.e. tilt of wave-fronts), while twinkling is the naked-eye perception of scintillation, i.e. variations of intensity (brightness) caused by curvature of wave-fronts. Scintillation is caused by high-altitude turbulence (winds) while seeing is affected by turbulence at all altitudes down to ground. There is no general correlation between seeing and twinkling - they are different phenomena with different causes - but there is a dependency on aperture and integration time which produces an apparent correlation for naked-eye viewing: we see stars twinkling most when seeing is poor. Poor seeing does not cause twinkling.
Hence I would disagree with a merger of twinkling and seeing, but I would agree with an entry covering optical turbulence, to include image motion/blur and scintillation as distinct phenomena. Though I note that an entry on scintillation exists already.
Suggested reference: C.E. Coulman, Fundamental and Applied Aspects of Astronomical "Seeing", Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1985. 23: 19-57 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidolstar (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Astronomical seeing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824102803/http://www.mpia-hd.mpg.de/homes/tubbs/papers/spie_06/tubbs_spie_2006_pdf.pdf to http://www.mpia-hd.mpg.de/homes/tubbs/papers/spie_06/tubbs_spie_2006_pdf.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked= to true
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.