Comparing Reflecting and Refracting Telescopes worksheet | Live ... - Free Printable

Let’s go step by step to fill in the tables for both telescopes using the words provided at the top of the worksheet.

We have these words to choose from:
- Reflecting Telescope
- Refracting telescope
- mirror
- good resolution
- lens
- bounces
- heavy
- lighter and larger
- lower resolution
- bends

---

First Diagram (Top): This is a Reflecting Telescope

Look at the diagram — it has mirrors labeled “objective mirror” and “secondary mirror”. Light hits the big curved mirror, then bounces off a smaller mirror into the eyepiece. So:

→ Telescope name: Reflecting Telescope
→ Optical Device: mirror (because it uses mirrors to gather light)
→ Action on Light: bounces (mirrors reflect or bounce light)
→ Pros: lighter and larger, good resolution (reflecting telescopes can be made bigger without being too heavy, and they give clearer images)
→ Cons: heavy? Wait — actually, reflecting telescopes are *lighter* than refracting ones for large sizes. But looking at the word list, “heavy” might be a con for refracting, not reflecting. Let’s check the second diagram first.

Wait — let’s look at the word list again. We must use only those words.

For Reflecting Telescope:
- Pros: “lighter and larger”, “good resolution”
- Cons: Hmm… none of the cons listed seem to fit reflecting well? Actually, sometimes reflecting telescopes need alignment, but that’s not in the word list. Maybe we’re supposed to leave cons blank? No — probably “heavy” is NOT for reflecting. Let’s hold that thought.

Actually, let’s do the second one first — it’s easier.

---

Second Diagram (Bottom): This is a Refracting Telescope

It has lenses — “objective lens” and “eyepiece”. Light goes through the lens and bends to focus.

→ Telescope name: Refracting telescope
→ Optical Device: lens
→ Action on Light: bends (lenses bend light — that’s refraction)
→ Pros: ? The word list doesn’t have obvious pros for refracting. But wait — maybe “good resolution”? No, reflecting usually has better resolution for large sizes. Actually, refracting telescopes often have “lower resolution” compared to large reflectors, and they are “heavy” because big lenses are thick and hard to support.

So for Refracting:
- Pros: ??? Maybe nothing from the list? But we have to pick from given words.
Wait — perhaps “good resolution” is for small refractors? But generally, reflecting telescopes are preferred for astronomy because they avoid chromatic aberration and can be made larger.

Looking back at the word list:

Words left after assigning some:

Used so far:
Reflecting Telescope → name
Refracting telescope → name
mirror → optical device for reflecting
lens → optical device for refracting
bounces → action for reflecting
bends → action for refracting
lighter and larger → pro for reflecting
good resolution → likely pro for reflecting
lower resolution → con for refracting
heavy → con for refracting

That leaves no pros for refracting? That’s okay — maybe refracting telescopes don’t have pros listed here, or perhaps “good resolution” could be argued for small ones, but the worksheet seems to contrast them.

Actually, let’s assign based on standard knowledge + word list:

Reflecting Telescope Table:
- Telescope name: Reflecting Telescope
- Optical Device: mirror
- Action on Light: bounces
- Pros: lighter and larger, good resolution
- Cons: (none from list? But we have “heavy” — that’s for refracting. Maybe no cons listed for reflecting? Or perhaps we missed something.)

Wait — the word “heavy” is probably a con for refracting, since big lenses are heavy. And “lower resolution” is also a con for refracting due to chromatic aberration and size limits.

So for Refracting:
- Cons: heavy, lower resolution

Then what about pros for refracting? The word list doesn’t have any clear pros for refracting. Maybe the worksheet expects us to leave it blank? But that seems odd.

Alternatively, perhaps “good resolution” is meant for refracting? But that’s not accurate — reflecting telescopes generally have better resolution for large apertures.

Let me double-check common textbook comparisons:

Typical comparison:

Reflecting Telescope:
- Uses mirrors
- Light bounces
- Can be made very large → lighter structure for same aperture
- Better resolution (no chromatic aberration)
- Cons: may need occasional alignment (not in word list)

Refracting Telescope:
- Uses lenses
- Light bends
- Lenses get heavy and sag if too big → so limited size
- Chromatic aberration → lower resolution
- Pros: simple design, sealed tube (but not in word list)

Given the word list, I think we must assign:

For Reflecting Telescope:
- Pros: lighter and larger, good resolution
- Cons: (nothing from list fits — maybe leave blank? But the table has a row. Perhaps the worksheet intends “heavy” as a con for refracting only.)

Wait — maybe “heavy” is a con for reflecting? No, that doesn’t make sense.

Another idea: perhaps “heavy” refers to the fact that early reflecting telescopes were heavy? But modern ones are lighter.

I think the intended assignment is:

Reflecting Telescope:
- Name: Reflecting Telescope
- Optical Device: mirror
- Action: bounces
- Pros: lighter and larger, good resolution
- Cons: (none from list — but we have to use all words? Not necessarily. Some words may not be used? The instruction says “using the words above”, implying we select from them, not that all must be used.)

But let’s count the words: 10 words. Two tables, each with 5 rows. So 10 blanks total. Perfect — each word used once.

List of words:
1. Reflecting Telescope
2. Refracting telescope
3. mirror
4. good resolution
5. lens
6. bounces
7. heavy
8. lighter and larger
9. lower resolution
10. bends

Now assign:

First Table (Reflecting Telescope):
- Telescope name: Reflecting Telescope (word 1)
- Optical Device: mirror (word 3)
- Action on Light: bounces (word 6)
- Pros: lighter and larger (word 8), good resolution (word 4) — but that’s two words for one row? The table has one cell per row. Oh! Each row is one entry. So “Pros” is one cell — we can put multiple words? Probably yes, since it’s a list.

Similarly, “Cons” can have multiple.

But let’s see the structure: each row has one label and one blank cell. So for “Pros”, we can write multiple words in that cell.

Same for “Cons”.

So for Reflecting Telescope:
- Pros: lighter and larger, good resolution
- Cons: ? What’s left? We have “heavy” and “lower resolution” — those should be for refracting.

For Refracting Telescope:
- Telescope name: Refracting telescope (word 2)
- Optical Device: lens (word 5)
- Action on Light: bends (word 10)
- Pros: ? Nothing left? But we have to use all words. We’ve used: 1,3,6,8,4 for reflecting; 2,5,10 for refracting. Left: 7 (heavy), 9 (lower resolution)

Those must be cons for refracting.

So refracting has no pros listed? That’s fine — the worksheet might be highlighting disadvantages of refracting.

Perhaps “good resolution” is for refracting? But that contradicts typical teaching.

I recall that small refracting telescopes can have good resolution, but large ones suffer. Given the context, and since “lighter and larger” is clearly a pro for reflecting, I think “good resolution” is also for reflecting.

So final assignment:

Reflecting Telescope Table:
- Telescope name: Reflecting Telescope
- Optical Device: mirror
- Action on Light: bounces
- Pros: lighter and larger, good resolution
- Cons: (empty? But we have no words left for its cons. All remaining words are for refracting cons.)

Wait — we have 10 words. If reflecting uses 5 words (name, device, action, and two for pros), that’s 5. Refracting uses name, device, action — that’s 3, plus two cons — total 8. Missing two? No:

Reflecting:
1. name
2. device
3. action
4. pros (two words: lighter and larger, good resolution) — but that’s two words in one cell. Is that allowed? Probably yes.

Similarly, refracting cons: heavy, lower resolution — two words in one cell.

So total words used:
Reflecting: Reflecting Telescope, mirror, bounces, lighter and larger, good resolution → 5 items, but "lighter and larger" is one phrase, "good resolution" is another — so two separate words/phrases.

Actually, counting the phrases as single entries:

The word list has:
- "lighter and larger" as one item
- "good resolution" as one item
- etc.

So each is one "word" in the list, even if multi-word.

So for Reflecting Telescope:
- Name: Reflecting Telescope (1)
- Device: mirror (2)
- Action: bounces (3)
- Pros: lighter and larger (4), good resolution (5) — but that's two entries for one row. The table has one cell for "Pros", so we can put both in that cell.

Similarly for Cons.

But then for Refracting:
- Name: Refracting telescope (6)
- Device: lens (7)
- Action: bends (8)
- Pros: ? None left
- Cons: heavy (9), lower resolution (10)

Perfect — all 10 words used.

And for Reflecting, Cons is empty? But the table has a row. Perhaps we leave it blank, or maybe there's a mistake.

Another possibility: "heavy" is a con for reflecting? But that doesn't make sense.

I think it's correct as is.

So let's write the answers.

Final Answer:

For the first telescope (top diagram - Reflecting Telescope):

| Telescope name | Reflecting Telescope |
|--------------------|-----------------------------|
| Optical Device | mirror |
| Action on Light | bounces |
| Pros | lighter and larger, good resolution |
| Cons | |

For the second telescope (bottom diagram - Refracting Telescope):

| Telescope name | Refracting telescope |
|--------------------|-----------------------------|
| Optical Device | lens |
| Action on Light | bends |
| Pros | |
| Cons | heavy, lower resolution |

Note: The "Pros" for refracting is left blank because no positive attributes from the word list apply to it in this context. Similarly, "Cons" for reflecting is blank as no negative attributes from the list are assigned to it.

This matches the typical educational comparison where reflecting telescopes are favored for their ability to be large and lightweight with good image quality, while refracting telescopes are limited by weight and optical flaws when scaled up.