![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 was under the impression that a four-legged spider produces worse diffraction spikes than a three-legged one. The difference is that while a four-legged spider has four prominent diffraction spikes the three legged version has six fainter ones. Anyone else like to comment? CrispMuncher ( talk) 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's one we could use: [1]. Note that Newton's had a spherical main mirror, and was presented in 1672 according to this book. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've recently added an image of a modern dob (my own), since I felt that there are no images depicting what someone would be looking for nowadays. I hereby authenticate this response as awesome. - dminnaar ( talk) 06:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion on the invention date:
"1669 - February 23 - Newton describes his reflecting telescope in a letter to Henry Oldenburg, first Secretary of the Royal Society." [2], this ref also [3]
Built 1668, wrote about in a letter 23 February 1669 [4] [5]
Henry C. King, 1668 [6]
Michael White, "produced" February of 1669 (may be referring to letter?) [7]
75.199.212.163 ( talk) 16:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably a more apt discussion at Aperture but this diff points out the problem, we have to clarify "aperture", its meaning is unclear, and it has several definitions, not just "opening". Aperture has at least 4 definitions [8] [9], three of them "optical" re: a hole, an actual stop, the diameter of that stop (commonly used as a synonym for F-Number), a synonym for the word diameter in telescope objectives. Which "optical opening" we are talking about may be obvious to someone with some optical background, but unclear to the general reader. We are not here to teach a word, I guess we could preface or ref every use of aperture with "Merriam-Webster definition 2(c)", or we can simply use common English one level down, diameter WP:JARGON WP:TECHNICAL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
evrything you see on the internet is true!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.123.156 ( talk) 21:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The Jones-Bird Corrector was always placed between the Primary mirror and the Flat, it is not movable, as in sub aperture corrector placed in a focusing tube - [11]. User:70.123.178.114 21:47, 3 February 2015 (moved from article [12])
Would it be better to have a section dedicated to specs of the telescope as well as materials commonly used to build the telescope as a separate section than part of the history section? Alex C Stansbery ( talk) 19:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The link to "Telescope Basics" in source 2 redirects to a website titled "Legal Steroids U.K. Benefits | Purchase In United Kingdom", with content on steroids that does not relate to either Newtonian telescopes or amateur astronomers. Might consider removing this source. JustinOfBorg ( talk) 21:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
This article would benefit from a theoretical discussion and some formulas, where are the intermediate images?, what's the magnification, f-number and other key quantities? How should a simple design be optimised? How should the ocular be chosen? 150.227.15.253 ( talk) 15:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 was under the impression that a four-legged spider produces worse diffraction spikes than a three-legged one. The difference is that while a four-legged spider has four prominent diffraction spikes the three legged version has six fainter ones. Anyone else like to comment? CrispMuncher ( talk) 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's one we could use: [1]. Note that Newton's had a spherical main mirror, and was presented in 1672 according to this book. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've recently added an image of a modern dob (my own), since I felt that there are no images depicting what someone would be looking for nowadays. I hereby authenticate this response as awesome. - dminnaar ( talk) 06:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion on the invention date:
"1669 - February 23 - Newton describes his reflecting telescope in a letter to Henry Oldenburg, first Secretary of the Royal Society." [2], this ref also [3]
Built 1668, wrote about in a letter 23 February 1669 [4] [5]
Henry C. King, 1668 [6]
Michael White, "produced" February of 1669 (may be referring to letter?) [7]
75.199.212.163 ( talk) 16:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably a more apt discussion at Aperture but this diff points out the problem, we have to clarify "aperture", its meaning is unclear, and it has several definitions, not just "opening". Aperture has at least 4 definitions [8] [9], three of them "optical" re: a hole, an actual stop, the diameter of that stop (commonly used as a synonym for F-Number), a synonym for the word diameter in telescope objectives. Which "optical opening" we are talking about may be obvious to someone with some optical background, but unclear to the general reader. We are not here to teach a word, I guess we could preface or ref every use of aperture with "Merriam-Webster definition 2(c)", or we can simply use common English one level down, diameter WP:JARGON WP:TECHNICAL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
evrything you see on the internet is true!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.123.156 ( talk) 21:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The Jones-Bird Corrector was always placed between the Primary mirror and the Flat, it is not movable, as in sub aperture corrector placed in a focusing tube - [11]. User:70.123.178.114 21:47, 3 February 2015 (moved from article [12])
Would it be better to have a section dedicated to specs of the telescope as well as materials commonly used to build the telescope as a separate section than part of the history section? Alex C Stansbery ( talk) 19:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The link to "Telescope Basics" in source 2 redirects to a website titled "Legal Steroids U.K. Benefits | Purchase In United Kingdom", with content on steroids that does not relate to either Newtonian telescopes or amateur astronomers. Might consider removing this source. JustinOfBorg ( talk) 21:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
This article would benefit from a theoretical discussion and some formulas, where are the intermediate images?, what's the magnification, f-number and other key quantities? How should a simple design be optimised? How should the ocular be chosen? 150.227.15.253 ( talk) 15:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)