--MichaelDark site scope: Meade 8" f/6 DobWeeknight scopes: C9.25/iEQ45M, C102/AT Voyager(I am looking for a 1980s Edmund Scientific 3" f/10 red-tube reflector, PM me if you have or know of one!)
Used acronyms: NEML=Naked Eye Magnitude Limit, SQM=Sky Quality Meter, TML=Telescope Magnitude Limit, CO=Central Obstruction, delta_m=difference in magnitudes between double star components, RoT=Rule of Thumb, pD_mm=proposed D_mm for resolving a binary (ident with earlier used pA=proposed Aperture), D_mm=Diameter (of scope) in mm, UCAC4=USNO CCD Astrograph Catalog 4th edition
Roberto Botero, Kent, UK
Tele Vue 102 #1321 on Vixen GPDX eq mount 35 mm & 24 mm Panoptic, 17 mm Nagler T4, 11, 9, 7 mm Nagler T6 1.8x and 2x TV Barlows
Grab-and-go: Tele Vue 76 #2003 on Gibraltar alt/az mount Pentax SMC 8-24mm zoom Nagler 3-6mm zoom
DJ Eastern Missouri, USA Bushnell 8x42's, SV80ed, Nexstar 130SLT, C5+, 8" LX200 Classic, 10" f/7 Cave, Orion XT10 w/Moonlite focuser
Quote:One question has come to mind -- and I may have completely missed this in my research -- is there a general formula or rule of thumb for the requisite magnification needed to split a double in a particular scope? That is, if I have x scope, I would need at least y magnification before having a chance at discerning that there are two stars and not just one? If such a rule is out there, I am sure it involves the diameter of the scope's objective as that determines, all things being equal, the resolution. Mine is exceptionally modest: 66 mm.