- #1

baseballfan_ny

- 92

- 23

Taken from MIT OCW 2.71: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechani...s-spring-2009/assignments/MIT2_71S09_ups3.pdf

Now I was kind of confused about how we could sort of cascade the ##M_T## from L1 with the ##M_A## from L3 to obtain ##MP##, but I think I made sense of it by thinking about it like a system in the diagram below, and realizing that ##M_T##, ##M_A## and ##MP## are all dimensionless. But I'm still not sure if my interpretation is right. I'm thinking that the Final image on the retina is an image of I2, which was just I1 angularly magnified by ##M_A##. And then ##M_A## was just O laterally magnified by ##M_T##. So then to obtain the total magnification of the object we would say I2 is I1 angularly magnified by ##M_A## and I1 was laterally magnified by ##M_T##, so we just sort of intuitively multiply these together?

My main confusion is about this ##M_A## term and what it really is. One thing I read was that ##M_A = \frac {1} {M_T} ##. If that's the case, does that mean a really high angular magnification from L3 on the retina is a really small lateral magnification of the object on the retina? Ie if an object has a high angular magnification on our retina (not sure if that means breadth or something) will it appear to be really small in height on our retina? And just because it appears small on the retina, does our brain actually register it as small? Or is it just appearing small because the way our retina is curved?