Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_4.gif.6a323659519d12fc7cafc409440c9dbf.gif

jnp

Members
  • Content Count

    338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

2 Followers

About jnp

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Astronomy, spectroscopy, ATM, bodging.
  • Location
    Reading, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Vast improvement in the new procedure to not stipulate that an XP machine is required. I managed to get it to work eventually , there were some issues that I have mentioned below in case it helps others: 1: The system would not autodetect the QHY16000Driver when reconnecting the device after adding my hardware id to the QHY16000.inf file. The step did work when I manually specified the driver location in the C:\Program Files (x86)\QHYCCD\QHY16000Driver\driver folder. 2: The screenshot in picture 3 only shows 7 of 8 byte values. I assume hidden last value was 00. 3: Kept
  2. Thanks Martin and Julian. Wont get a chance to do this today, but will let you know
  3. Thanks again Marci, useful to know, but I have an XP machine running. The new problem is that the files are corrupted on download from the QHYCCD post. The post url is http://qhyccd.com/bbs/index.php?topic=2702.msg16130#msg16130 . (If link doesn't work search for "qhy5 reports usb device when plugged in" on http://qhyccd.com/bbs/index.php?board=10.0 ). Here are download urls from the post: http://qhyccd.com/bbs/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2702.0;attach=2756 http://qhyccd.com/bbs/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2702.0;attach=2757 http://qhyccd.com/bbs/index.php
  4. Thanks for that Marci. I have found this procedure http://qhyccd.com/bbs/index.php?topic=2702.msg16130#msg16130 that I will try first once I get an old XP machine running . Fingers crossed
  5. My old QHY5 just died. It now won't work on either of my laptops (Win7 64bit and Win732bit). It shows as 'device unknown' in Device Manager. The hardware id's are: USB\VID_EA18&PID_0901&REV_0000 USB\VID_EA18&PID_0901 Swapped cabled and tried reinstalling software and drivers, but no joy. I am hoping that flashing the eprom will sort it but cant find any info on how its done. (There is a link in the thread below but it doesn't work anymore). Help appreciated! thanks John
  6. Hi Chris, The instructions are in this PDF link https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/87095951/Spectro/BASS Project/0.0.1.0/0.0.1.9/1.9.4/BASS Project Installation Notes 1.9.4.pdf in your case, download the 1.9.0 Msi file and run. You then overwrite the executable with 1.9.4. Regards John
  7. Hi Tim, Nice results. Don't underestimate the achievement of detecting gases from the outer planets, historically this was once thought to be impossible. If I understand correctly then you are using an eyepiece and 50mm lens to collimate the spectra, but without a slit? In this case the smaller angular size of Neptune could account for the better resolution despite the fact that Neptune is fainter. The reason for the differences could be with: shift in focus, staking/processing (check the individual subs for Uranus to see if more detail is there in some shots), different binning re
  8. I run the Yahoo group fine on my iPad (Safari) with no issues. Have you made sure cookies are enabled? As William suggests, try Firefox or Chrome on your MAC. Incidentally, how are you running the BASS app on your mac, emulation? Sometimes web sites have temporary glitches, yesterday I couldn't create Dropbox links with Chrome, today it's fine. John
  9. Hi Chris, I'm the author of BASS Project. I haven't been on SGL for quite a while. What browser (& version) are you using. If you haven't already, try Chrome? Not sure what links Ken provided. Let me know if you still need direct links to the documentation and software. The latest version is 1.9.4. Drop me a line, with more details on the issues, if you are still stuck. You can also try post to the group by sending your email to astrobodger@yahoogroups.co.uk regards John
  10. The top spectrum calibration looks OK judging by the H alpha and H beta emissions. The others will be ok if you used the same dispersion (grating spacing & orientation and use zero order as reference etc). Stacking and/or longer exposures would reduce noise. They look pretty good for "first serious shots". regards John
  11. There is also the Bulk Image manipulation screen in BASS to do flips and math operations to multiple fits. You are spoilt for choice!
  12. Hi Steve, This could also be affected by how tilt and active binning was applied. cheers John
  13. Robin - "normalising so that the continuum equals 1 at all wavelengths is commonly called rectification" Thanks - managed to avoid or forget that one. Must not take electronic parallels of AC/DC rectification too literally, I don't think negative peak areas under the continuum (akin to DC level) are made positive. However, it wouldn't surprise me if someone did just that to sum all 'energy' absorbed and emitted excluding the continuum. Steve - you seem to be having a lot of fun with the profiles, but you got there . Just a tip in BASS. By default profiles autoscale to fit the chart area. Th
  14. Indeed "normalisation" confusion comes up too frequently. Within BASS there is a 'Normalise Flux scale' screen - this keeps the shape of the profile unchanged but adjusts the values so that flux=1 at a small range you specify (don't confuse this will the profile range). For example if the average flux was "5" between 600 to 602 nm (or wherever you can avoid a peak/line/trough). Then the original values will all be divided by 5/1 = 5. One reason we do this is to be able to get an idea of the size of a feature/line at a glance. You could see the top of BetaLyr change from 5 to 10 for example. P
  15. Hi Steve, Interesting, thanks for posting, That's more movement than I expected over the 2 consecutive nights. Comparing spectra over successive nights can be a challenge. Different conditions, perhaps different position on the slit etc. may affect the results, especially using the same instrument correction. Removing the continuum and normalising the flux to 1 on the flat continuum is a reasonable and simple way to present this type of data. thanks John
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.