Posts Made By: jess tauber

People have discussed this in other forums- its just an oddity of brain mechanics, I guess. Like the fact that although in using a binoviewer the beam splitter cuts the light (in a perfect idealized system) to 50% for each eye, the brain makes us think that we are actually getting much more than that (some people say as much as 75 or 80%). So its an illusion, but a good one.

Having ANYTHING in view in the eye not actually at the focuser probably activates the same enhancement/contrast system, even though the images in each eye are radically different. But remember that in our stereo view each eye isn't going to be getting completely identically distributed images (in terms of photons) anyway. Illusory depth perception is an added bonus using two eyes, even when there isn't any real contrast (as at infinity).

BTW, I've been toying with an idea to create a new type of beam-splitter, one that doesn't use a static 50/50 split but rather a chemical cycle that alternatingly throws light to one eye, then the other, faster than the eye can distinguish. It might give us the illusion of near 100% in each eye. Based on brand new nanotech that's being funded by the army.

Jess Tauber

I guess I didn't make myself too clear. I KNOW about using flats and traditional folding strategies. What I want to do is not have to use TWO flats having one throw the light cone off at an unusual angle and the other reparallelizing or righting it using the same angle or its complement.

If the cone is bent say 27 degrees by the first mirror and then 35 by the second in a different direction (and 3-D) isn't the image going to get stretched more in one direction than another?

If this isn't so, and no astigmatism is introduced by this, then I beg pardon. If it is true, then couldn't tilting the objective in the tube compensate- i.e. by balancing the lenses and mirrors so that the error introduced by the former and latter cancel, and have the last leg of the light path (before the diagonal) come out at a cockeyed angle without astigmatism?

Jess Tauber

RADIOACTIVE??? Just great- those stars you see are actually particles penetrating yer eye- just like the astronauts!

Somehow I imagine lead shielding would kinda sorta defeat the purpose here.

Who woulda thunk you'd have to calculate both focal length AND half-life! Good luck.

Jess Tauber

We ought all of us to chip in and get George a good astro setup- nice pair of binos, a telescope, a subscription to the Cliff Notes version of Astronomy Today. He thinks too much ('Can I please be excused, Teacher, my brain is full....').

Jess Tauber

There was this report done in 1899 or so (Sci.Am.?)- I'm sure the details I remember are off a bit- where extrapolating they claimed that in 50 or 100 years the amount of air pollution/fog in cities would be beyond belief due to the vast piles of horse waste they claimed would clog the streets by that time.

What makes anyone think that we'll even be using the same sort of technology we are now in 2050 for either lights OR air traffic if any. By then we all may be beaming up. And astronomers might use other forms of information instead of just photons.

BUT given human nature, by then we may also be reliving the Dark Ages in other ways, and burning each other at the stake. Starting with astronomers and other 'devilutionists' if trends continue. Who needs science??

Jess Tauber

It was all done with balloons- and lots of party favors (lit/fig)!

Jess Tauber

Semi-quote (from my fractured memory) from Jurassic Park:

'But John, when the Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the characters don't eat the tourists....'(Ian Malcolm)

I guess that nerves are still much more raw in 'newer' religions. Heck, cults suicide if they don't get their way.

But it is curious that where spirituality is the main thing (unlike materialistically redirected 'moderns') getting your nose tweaked seems to be a legitimate excuse to cut, hang, torture, burn, rape, and kill. After all, material bodies don't matter. I'm not limiting this to the 'big three' religions- one sees it in lots of them (not necessarily all).

Jess Tauber

If DAWN had been successfully canceled probably I could live with it (though I'm not sure about many others...).

Personally, I would be much more upset if they had canceled DUSK! ;-)

Jess Tauber

Next time you run into a tagged jellyfish or centipede, let us know.

Charles Darlin'

Is there any way of adapting the design used by older microscope binoviewers (the ones that instead of simply rotating about a center column like a traditional binocular rather have an x versus y axis exchange for the interpupillary distance adjustment- i.e. as IPD gets narrower the ep's rise up on the last leg of the light path)?

Obviously there is a beam splitter inside, but if the prisms were rotated 180 wouldn't they be able to take the converging beams from the two telescope tubes?

Since these normally have very small eps most folks would probably not prefer these for astro use- but the design should still work, with the prism rotation as mentioned.

If this didn't muck up image rotations wouldn't it much simplify things?

Jess Tauber