All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.3cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure1.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Comparison of the results from the Gaussian deconvolution and the second-moment deconvolution. The ratio of the angular diameters, $\Theta$ , derived from the two methods is plotted versus the ratio of the deconvolved FWHM, $\Phi _{\rm d}$ , to the resolution size, $\Phi _{\rm b}$ , obtained from the Gaussian fit. A constant emissivity sphere model has been adopted while deriving $\Theta$ in both methods.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.3cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure2.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Comparison of the results from the 10% contour measurements and the Gaussian deconvolution. The ratio of the angular diameters, $\Theta$ , derived from the two methods is plotted versus the ratio of the deconvolved FWHM, $\Phi _{\rm d}$ , to the resolution size, $\Phi _{\rm b}$ , obtained from the Gaussian fit. A constant emissivity sphere model has been adopted while deriving $\Theta$ in the Gaussian deconvolution.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.35cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure3.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: The same as Fig. 2 but using the deconvolved 10% diameter, $\Theta _{10\%,\rm d}$ , calculated from Eq. (2).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.3cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure4.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Comparison of the results from the 10% contour measurements and the second-moment deconvolution. The ratio of the angular diameters, $\Theta$ , derived from the two methods is plotted versus the ratio of the deconvolved FWHM, $\Phi _{\rm d}$ , to the resolution size, $\Phi _{\rm b}$ , obtained from the moment calculations. A constant emissivity sphere model has been adopted while deriving $\Theta$ in the second-moment deconvolution.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.35cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure5.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: The same as Fig. 4 but using the deconvolved 10% diameter, $\Theta _{10\%,\rm d}$ , calculated from Eq. (2).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{7.7cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure6.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Results of the 10% contour measurements on the degraded PN images. $\Theta _{10\%,\rm d}$ and $\Phi _{\rm b}$ are the deconvolved 10% diameter and the seeing size, respectively, measured from the degraded images. $\Theta _{\rm true}$ is the deconvolved 10% diameter from the original (non-degraded) images.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{7.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure7.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: The same as Fig. 6 but for the Gaussian deconvolution adopting a constant emissivity sphere model. $\Theta _{\rm true}$ is the deconvolved 10% diameter from the original (non-degraded) images.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{7.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure8.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: The same as Fig. 6 but for the second-moment deconvolution adopting a constant emissivity sphere model. $\Theta _{\rm true}$ is the deconvolved 10% diameter from the original (non-degraded) images.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.3cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure9.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: Comparison of the PN diameters from the literature compilation (see text) with the diameters from this work (geometric means from the two dimensions given in Table 2). Solid line: 1 to 1 relation.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.3cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure10.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 10: Comparison of the PN diameters from Aaquist & Kwok (1990) (crosses) and Zijlstra et al. (1989) (full circles - from 10% contour, open circles - from Gaussian deconvolution) with the diameters from this work (geometric means from the two dimensions given in Table 2). Solid line: 1 to 1 relation.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.35cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure3.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: The same as Fig. 2 but using the deconvolved 10% diameter, $\Theta _{10\%,\rm d}$ , calculated from Eq. (2).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.35cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure5.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: The same as Fig. 4 but using the deconvolved 10% diameter, $\Theta _{10\%,\rm d}$ , calculated from Eq. (2).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{7.7cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure6.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: Results of the 10% contour measurements on the degraded PN images. $\Theta _{10\%,\rm d}$ and $\Phi _{\rm b}$ are the deconvolved 10% diameter and the seeing size, respectively, measured from the degraded images. $\Theta _{\rm true}$ is the deconvolved 10% diameter from the original (non-degraded) images.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{7.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure7.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 7: The same as Fig. 6 but for the Gaussian deconvolution adopting a constant emissivity sphere model. $\Theta _{\rm true}$ is the deconvolved 10% diameter from the original (non-degraded) images.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{7.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure8.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 8: The same as Fig. 6 but for the second-moment deconvolution adopting a constant emissivity sphere model. $\Theta _{\rm true}$ is the deconvolved 10% diameter from the original (non-degraded) images.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.3cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure9.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 9: Comparison of the PN diameters from the literature compilation (see text) with the diameters from this work (geometric means from the two dimensions given in Table 2). Solid line: 1 to 1 relation.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.3cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{figure10.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 10: Comparison of the PN diameters from Aaquist & Kwok (1990) (crosses) and Zijlstra et al. (1989) (full circles - from 10% contour, open circles - from Gaussian deconvolution) with the diameters from this work (geometric means from the two dimensions given in Table 2). Solid line: 1 to 1 relation.
Open with DEXTER