[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A Comment on the Lenses (part 2)

To: tass@listserv.wwa.com
Subject: Re: A Comment on the Lenses (part 2)
From: Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:22:43 -0600
In-Reply-To: <3DC7ECB3.7070600@nofs.navy.mil>
References: <5.0.0.25.2.20021104231429.01ccfb20@pop.earthlink.net><004c01c284ba$b872f400$0100a8c0@AZULEJARIA><5.0.0.25.2.20021105095038.02e669b0@pop.earthlink.net>
Sender: owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com

One more bit of information for this discussion.

Even after putting a 3" stop in front of the first lens, the I camera 
produces more detections than the V camera.  I will have to look to see if 
the V camera has detections that the I does not, now that it is stopped down.

Sine we are requiring a simultaneous V and I detection, it may be possible 
to stop the I camera down further.

Tom Droege

References:
- jA Comment on the Lenses
  - From: Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>
- Re: A Comment on the Lenses (part 2)
  - From: "dave garnett" <dave.garnett@metapurple.co.uk>
- Re: A Comment on the Lenses (part 2)
  - From: Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>
- Re: A Comment on the Lenses (part 2)
  - From: Arne Henden <aah@nofs.navy.mil>

Prev by Date: Re: A Comment on the Lenses (part 3)
Next by Date: Re: A Comment on the Lenses (part 3)
Prev by thread: Re: A Comment on the Lenses (part 2)
Next by thread: Re: A Comment on the Lenses (part 2)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread