User talk:Izogi
Hello Izogi and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
Light Pollution
I obtained the information from my local library. I cannot recall the month it was released. Though I can assure you the information is legit. Unless ofcourse Backpacker magazine was inaccurate. When I find the time I'll confirm what month the edition was released, and I'll write down the article word for word. R Lee E 20:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Wellington Botanic Gardens
Cheers for fixing that dupe page, I think it just needs some more pictures now and we'll be totally sweet.
I guess you know Joel from the MSc CompSci ... its a small world! We really enjoy using our Wiki as a sort of collaborative website to dump stuff and write articles. Its great fun.
See ya round! Ppe42 14:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
FOV
G'day Izogi. You are correct most amateur astronomers do calculate it that way because eyepieces tend to be advertised that way. (Marketing 101, bigger sounding numbers are better <sigh>)Anyhow, what has happened is that you are coming to it backwards.
In order to calculate the magnification you divide the focal length of the telescope by the focal length of the lens(an approximation do to the small angles involved) as it said in the article you linked. You can then measure (often by measuring two stars of known separation) the actual field of view in your eyepiece. For example, if two known stars are 5' apart, and they appear one just inside one edge and the other just inside the other edge. Then your actual field of view is 5'. (timing star drift is another, albeit slow, method of measuring actual field). Finally, to find out how big everything looks like(or appears to be), you multiply the magnification by the actual field.
Basically I guess I'm saying that you must start from mathematically known or measurable quantities to come to the apparent field. The apparent field is not something you can directly measure. Again, marketing is the key to understanding why everyone talks about apparent views of view as a lot of assumptions go into those "measurements" including focal length of your telescope and how far away your eye is from the lens. Hope that helps? Would you like me to edit the FOV sections and try to add some of this clarification? Flehmen Work with me 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's making some sense now. If you have time, I'd appreciate it. I wonder if it's also worth noting the marketing thing, if only because a lot of the information out there gives the impression that that's the way to do it. I'd always guessed until now that the apparent field of view was some kind of measurement of the blurily visible field if looking through the eyepiece when not attached to anything. (Not to imply that it'd actually be useful to do that.) Izogi 07:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm.. well I've just had a go at it, which doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. Izogi 10:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
my Guy Fawkes revert
You asked why I reverted the anon's content on Guy Fawkes. That's actually a very good question. I just took a brief look at it and thought "well, while I'm reverting anyway ...", without really reading the additions. You're right that it needs refactoring, not deleting! Mea culpa, and thanks for pointing it out to me — I'd moved on without a second thought. I'll revert again. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neat, thanks. Izogi 00:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)