Exactly, jimlux, this is readily possible. I find it interesting that no one has commented, one way or the other, on the uncontrollable environmental variables I mentioned. Is this just about technology and not about validity?
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM, jimlux <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Bob Camp wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Ok, I mis-understood the question. >> >> In my experience, you can have big buck (as in many thousands of dollars) >> optics and not see .2" holes at 800 yards. The bull's eye is a *lot* bigger >> than the hole the bullet made. >> >> 0.2" at 2400 ft is about 0.08 milliradian.. or 0.3 minutes of arc. Your > eye can resolve about 1 minute of arc... I'm not questioning your > experience, but it seem that even a moderate power scope should allow you to > see the holes. As I recall, the Rayleigh limit for resolution is something > like 0.7 milliradian/mm of aperture, so 10-15 mm aperture would be in the > right ballpark.. > > I can imagine needing more aperture than 3", though.. you're not interested > in resolving a star, but something more akin to separating dots. > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
