Talk:List of largest optical refracting telescopes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I'm sorry but the last edit make the table look ugly.

The article that Paris 1900 Exposition links to (Exposition Universelle (1900)) dose not talk about the telescope: could someone knowledgeable about the topic fix this? --Canageek 19:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Paris 1900 refractor

If I remember well, this instrument was a DOUBLE refractor - the lenses optimized for visual and photographic use, resp. Source: Sky & Telescope somewhen in the sixties - perhaps J. Ashbrook's column "Astronomical Scrapbook".
In addition I seriously doubt that (vertically mounted) lenses were designed to sag into correct figure. --ECeDee 19:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

See also 1911britannica - there is a hint in favour of double refractor --84.178.136.47 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The double refractor was at Meudon (Paris Observatory). The Paris 1900 Exposition instrument was a simple refractor and was horizontal (see article), it was a total failure I think the glass was deformed by its own weight. Ericd 14:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I remembered not very well. Today finally I got hand on my source: J. Ashbrook's column "Astronomical Scrapbook" in Sky & Telescope, Aug. 1958, p. 509. The Great Paris Refractor (Exposition instrument) in fact was single, but had two lenses (see article). This agrees with the Britannica information. --ECeDee 22:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bigger?

Surely somone has made a bigger optical refracting telescope in the last 100 years? Some of the stubs i've worked on have 5 meter diameter telescopes, the radio telescopes can get up above 50 (of course they aren't refracting optical)--Rayc 23:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

5 meter ? Reflector not refractor.... Ericd 21:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lick ranking

The folks at Lick claim the 36 inch is actualy the 2 largest in the world. This claim is also repeated in the DVD sold at the gift shop. Who's right? Jwissick(t)(c) 23:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"sorted by lens diameter." if we consider focal length Lick is bigger than the Swedish telecope. Ericd 00:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I spoke with the folks at Lick and they were not aware of the Swedish scope and have made the change to the tour dialog... Felt bad to be the bearer of bad news for them... Oh well. Jwissick(t)(c) 15:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually the Swedish Solar Telescope is an unusual catadioptric made of a singlet lens objective followed by an adaptive mirror and a re-imaging lens (http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/publications/prints/scharmer03meter.pdf page 3) so the Lick refractor remains the second largest TRUE refractor in the world. LC 8:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pulkovo Refractor

The 30-inch Pulkovo Refractor is a famous and important telescope, build by Clark (lens) and Repsold (mount). It was destroyed in World War II, but it should be featured or mentioned here.

[edit] Belgrade Refractor

How can this instrument be the same that the small refractor of Berlin when they heve different focal length ? I know both are Zeiss instruments. Was one modified later ? I know there is a 50cm at Nice that was improved with a better Zeiss lens given as reparation for war. Ericd 14:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Paris 1900 Refractor.jpg

Image:Paris 1900 Refractor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)