à dérouler vers le bas
© Yann POTHIER
article published in Webb Society Quaterly Journal no 108 (Avril
Comparing Deep-Sky observations is not a new problem. However, it is
only one more problem among others in different Amateur Astronomy fields:
planetary surfaces, comets, variable stars, etc. What follows is a new
approach suggesting the use of an instrumental criterion in order to improve
comparison, especially that of either written or drawn observations of
the Deep-Sky and generally between observations from all amateurs' fields
of interest (photography, ...).
The observer is a system which is hard to calibrate: there is no easy
and popular test among amateurs that is able to describe precisely the
sensibility of the eye to low-light levels, and its variations between
individuals. Such a variable factor is thus hardly comparable. Transparency
and seeing can be estimated with several well-known techniques: estimating
the eye's visual limiting magnitude, the visual aspect of the Milky Way
or various Deep-Sky objects obtained with the eye alone (M31, M33, M13,
etc.), as well as estimating the seeing derived from single and double
stars' twinkling with or without telescope, etc. Yet these methods depend
on the characteristics of one's eye, and we have already stated that the
eye is really hard to evaluate in that regard. So, we can only assert that
the quality of an observer's eye and the quality of an observing site are
so dependent on each other that they are impossible to separate !
Concerning the telescope, there seems to be no problem: it is the diameter
of the main collecting lense or mirror that tells best the collecting power
of the instrument. The latter is easy to define and compare: a refractor
of 100mm in diameter will perform 33% less than a telescope of 150mm (always
from the light-collecting point of view). This is not always the case.
In fact, knowing the diameter of an instrument is not knowing its collecting
power. Let's analyze the light-path through the objective of a refractor:
light goes through two lenses (in a classical design) and then passes through
the multiple lenses of the ocular before arriving at your eye. For a reflector,
a certain amount of light is stopped by the secundary mirror (in most classical
systems), and the rest reflects itself on the primary and secundary mirrors,
and then goes through the ocular before reaching the eye.
One must know that light doesn't reflects on a mirror or doesn't refract
through a lens without a part of it being absorbed and/or dispersed. A
lense provokes a lightloss every time the light beam passes from air to
glass and vice versa (it is the concept of air to glass surface). There
is also absorption within the glass itself (2% per centimeter of thickness).
A mirror absorbs some light with its so-called "reflecting surface".
All these losses from lenses and mirrors depend on the quality of the glass
and coatings for refractors, and on the quality of the mirrors' reflecting
coatings for reflectors.
An air to glass surface of an uncoated lens reflects (stops) 4,5% of
the light. If this surface is "anti-reflection coated" (ARC)
with magnesium fluoride, losses are reduced to about 1,5%, and even go
down to 0,5% if the lens is "multi-coated" (MC). New coatings
called "wide band" (WBMC) are now introduced on certain series
of oculars and losses appear to be less than 0,2% per air to glass surface.
To test your binocular, refractor or ocular, just check the reflections
of white clouds on the glass surface: if the reflections are white and
bright, there is no coating at all; if the reflections are blue and light
blue, the coating is ARC, if they are greenish, brownish or reddish, the
coating is MC, and if they are deep blue or very dark, the coating is WBMC.
If you count the air to glass surfaces of your refractor of binocular objective,
you will know exactly the amount of light loss in the studied design. A
typical refractor has 3 to 4 air to glass surfaces that are ARC with a
1 centimeter thickness , a fluorite refractor has 2 to 4 air to glass surfaces
that are MC with 2- or 3- centimeter thickness. A binocular has 10 to 14
air to glass surfaces: models between £40 and £150 ($100-300)
are ARC and models beyond £150 ($300) are MC. In any case, do check
for yourself !
A=absorption et R=reflection.
A silver mirror surface (AG) absorbs 7,6% of the light but the commonest
kind of surface mirror, that is protected aluminium (ALp), retains 11,0%
of it. Some "Schmidt-Cassegrain" and other designs are proposed
with "enhanced coated" mirrors that absorb only 4,9%. For the
reflectors, one must keep in mind that there is another interesting thing
for the collecting power, which doesn't apply to refractors or binoculars.
The obstruction of the secundary mirror is of major interest because it
conditions the amount of light likely to reach the primary mirror.. There
are two ways of considering it: you can calculate the obstruction by dividing
the secundary mirror's diameter by the primary one's, and also by dividing
the secundary mirror's surface by the primary's. The latter solution is
the most adequate for the collecting power, which is much better expressed
in terms of surface than of diameter.
You can calculate easily the obstruction using the following simplified
where O, d and D stand respectively for obstruction in %, secundary's
diameter and primary's diameter expressed in the same unit (centimeters
For example, a Schmidt-Cassegrain of D=203mm has a secundary of d=65mm;
the obstruction is 652/2032=0,102 being 10,2%, -which means 10,2% of the
primary mirror remains unused.
The last optical system, the most critical one for light loss, is the
ocular. Without going any further into detailed descriptions of the numerous
designs, it is sufficient to know that 2 to 8 lenses are to be found in
classical and commercialised oculars. That means that 4 to 16 air to glass
surfaces should be coated, which often they are not, only the external
lenses being coated. The coatings can be external ARC, all surfaces ARC,
external MC or total MC, etc.
Here is a list of oculars with their barrels in inches and transmission
||91% (98% for the best ones)
||91% (98% for the best ones)
||78 - 85% according to the coating
|SUPER WIDE ANGLE
|ULTRA WIDE ANGLE
So far we have been concerned with light losses and absorption.
It is convenient to convert the given data in order to express them in
term of transmission: a lens or a mirror that loses 5% of the light is
actually transmitting 95% of it. We shall now combine all the collected
transmission data into a total transmission capacity (CT) of the optical
system used (in percentage). This CT can be calculated by multiplying the
unobstructed percentage of light (UPL) by all the transmission values of
the system, Tobj being the objective's transmission (primary and secundary
mirrors, lenses, ...) and Toc the transmission of the ocular used. The
whole can be summed up in the following formula:
CT = UPL x Tobj x Toc
For example, we shall take the author's Dobsonian (D=445mm, d=107mm).
The surface obstruction here is 5,8% (UPL=94,2%) and the mirrors are aluminized
normally (transmission of 89% by air to glass surface), so Tobj is thus
equal to 79,2% (=0,89x0,89). The use of a Nagler eyepiece corresponds to
a Toc of 96%. The cumulated effects of UPL, Tobj and Toc are giving a CT
of 0,942x0,792x0,96 = 71,6%. With the following formula, you can then determine
the virtual aperture (AV) of your instrument, -which would apply to an
hypothetical instrument without any obstruction, light loss and perfect
reflecting or refracting surfaces.
where OV is the virtual aperture and D the diameter of the instrument,
both expressed in the same unit. For the Dobson, OV is 377mm.
As a conclusion, I would like to share with you the results that can
be obtained from the first example I mentioned in this article, dealing
with a comparison between a refractor of diam.100mm and a reflector of
diam.150mm: the refractor is a Fluorite with a MC objective and the reflector
is a Newtonian obstructed at 6%, and they are both used with the same ocular.
For the refractor: CT=96%, OV=98mm. For the reflector: CT= 74.4%, OV=129mm.
Comparing 150 to 100mm and 129 to 98mm is not the same story. The fortunate
owner that can compare several instruments, or the club afficionado that
has a vast experience of looking through various types of instruments,
doesn't need the above formula to "feel" the collecting power
of an instrument compared to another one. But the beginner or simply the
observer that wants to compare his notes or drawings with others' can find
the virtual aperture an easy and handy tool. The arbitrary notion of diameter
must not remain the only way to compare the collecting power of astronomical
back to articles menu