angryowl

It’s been a while since I’ve posted on here, so here goes. I’m currently using a RASA 11” with the Baader F2 HighSpeed filters (which I believe to have a FWHM of 10nm) and while they’re fine, I am based in Bortle 8 skies and have found that they pass just too much of the light pollution as well. This means I need rather high integration times to reach an acceptable SNR and even then, with so much LP the integrated masters are usually low in contrast. In doing research for a new set of narrower filters, I’ve discovered that finding filters with a small enough FWHM and a high enough transmissivity is difficult for such fast f ratios due to the centre wavelength shift at those extreme angles. While I believe most of the standard filters with a bandpass between 3 and 6nm for instance would produce an image, from my research I’ve come to believe that the signal loss caused by CWS at the steepest light rays would effectively mean one was no longer taking advantage of the telescope’s full aperture and would now operate at a higher focal ratio. I’ve narrowed it down to Chroma’s 8nm and Astronomik’s MaxFR 6nm filters. I spoke to Chroma and they’ve been very helpful and even sent me spectra graphs of their 3, 5 and 8nm filters at the 12.5-degree incidence angle for the RASA. The 3 and 5nm filters definitely suffer considerable transmissivity loss but the 8nm filter doesn’t look too bad. After seeing the graphs, I was seriously considering buying an 8nm Chroma filter to try out but then I found Astronomik’s new MaxFR range which are specifically designed for very fast optics. On the Astronomik website they claim their 6nm filter has a guaranteed transmissivity of about 90% at F2 and the 12nm one about 85% at F1.4. After speaking with them they confirmed that the filters are preshifted and backed up the transmissivity claims. The thing is I’ve only found about two people using the 12nm MaxFR filters but no reports or comparisons to other filters. However, I haven’t found anything on the 6nm ones. So on to my question, is anyone out there using the 6nm filters? How are you finding them, any issues? I’m not too concerned about reflections but rather performance differences in terms of SNR when compared to other filters such as the Baaders on fast scopes. I’m really tempted to just buy one and drop it in my filterwheel next to the Baader one and compare them during a session, but given their current price I’d like to hear from anyone that is using them before doing that. Any input is greatly appreciated as always

Thanks for the reply Mark I must admit I hadn’t thought of that but now that you mention it, it makes sense. I know I read somewhere that NB filters nowadays use several coatings sometimes more than ten per filter and the idea that one or multiple of these coatings are reacting differently to light emitted from this particular star is indeed interesting. Learn something new everyday...

Hi all, Whilst capturing data over the last clear nights on my latest object, NGC 7822, I noticed a star with an odd profile in the OIII subs but put that down to cosmic rays or some other weird artefact. But after my usual preprocessing, I’m still seeing this strange star in all of the OIII subs and much clearer in the stacked image. The OIII data is a stack of 54 300s subs making for a total of 4.5 hours and similar integration times for Ha and SII. What’s strange is that this only shows up in the OIII data and not the other channels. As can be seen, Ha and SII look completely normal. At this point I’m trying to understand what might cause this behaviour only in one channel. I have thought about things such as collimation, tilt, debris on the corrector plate, tracking/guiding errors, dew, shooting through branches and filter reflections. However, none of these fit as the star in question is roughly in the center of the FOV and there are other stars around it similar in size and brightness (judging from the other two channels) which logically should show the effects as well. These were captured using a Mesu 200, RASA 11”, Atik 414EX and Baader F2 High Speed filters. The subs were dithered and 2X Drizzle integration was used. I also rotate my exposures through the filters every imaging session. No other processing done apart from the usual preprocessing steps and an STF curve. Having a look at the Simbad, 2MASS, Gaia DR2 catalogues reveals the star has designation [D75] 7p (Simbad) and is close in magnitude to the star at the bottom of the images. http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-basic?Ident=[D75]+7p&submit=SIMBAD+search Can anyone shed some light on what might be happening here? Is this an artefact due to some component in my imaging train or something that I’m missing entirely? As this doesn’t show in any of my other stars in this image, or any other image I’ve taken with this setup before, I’m not concerned about this being an issue with my equipment at this point. I’d simply like to find out what might have caused this out of pure curiosity.

When I tried the OAG lent to me by @souls33k3r I did manage to get the spacing right and guiding gave me pinpoint stars in all exposures. So far the OAG is the only thing I tried that actually works and currently I’m in the process of building a DIY one. The reason I’m not going with a commercial one is that the guide camera body and USB cable get in the light path of the scope and cause weird diffraction spikes whereas with a DIY one, I’m hoping to avoid that. Chip moving inside the camera…wow that’s scary! Glad you got that one sorted as I can see it being hard to solve. Seeing as the images in my OTA and guidecam drift the same direction and amount I’m inclined to believe the guidecam/chip is securely attached and not moving relative to the main OTA. At least not by any significant amount anyway. But a really good suggestion, thanks.

Oh yeah, that I will do given the opportunity. Perhaps when Ahmed gets his one finished he'll let me throw it on top for a quick test ?

Managed to get out during a clear night last week and tried guiding with the refractor piggy backed on top of the RASA and also with the 60mm guider clamped onto the bottom dovetail of the OTA. I also cleaned up the residual adhesive on the tripod head and sanded the bottom plate of the Mesu down which resulted in a much larger contact area with the tripod head. The results are not really what I expected, but a lot better than before and guiding is more consistent. That being said, guiding with either the 60mm guider or the refractor still doesn’t produce round stars. The elongation is much smaller than before and looks like guiding is now actually correcting for most of it, but still not completely. Not sure why this is as the elongation direction and amount are now very similar in both guide and main images. The guided subs are now almost usable, but I’d still very much like to get as close to perfectly round stars and just don’t see this happening with the current guider. Therefore I’ve started designing an OAG using a right angle prism and will be using the bare CMOS board from a QHY5L-II-C camera to avoid obstructing the light path with either the camera body or the USB cable. I have most parts and it’s just a matter of finding a way to mount them. I won’t be troubleshooting this any longer as I’ve spent far too many clear nights on this and I now know that an OAG will certainly solve the problem. I really wanted to get to the bottom of this but it just seems like it’s not practical at the moment. Will update this thread once the OAG is complete Some examples of what elongation looks like now

Hi Jakub Welcome to SGL, you’ll find the very helpful and experienced people here will provide invaluable assistance and guidance when dealing with issues such as yours. Don’t yet have a final word on this, but so far it seems like the PTFE pads were only part of the issue and although I can now guide most of the elongation out, it’s definitely still present in most guided subs. In response to your question, I’ve tried anything from 1 second exposures all the way to a minute in most directions in the sky and no elongation whosoever was present in these short exposures. I find that in subs up to 3-5 minutes I usually see no sign of elongation wherever I’m pointed. That being said, the first thing I’d suggest is rotating your camera 90 degrees to see if the direction of elongation changes by 90 degrees. If it doesn’t, that could point to the camera not being completely orthogonal. This would explain seeing elongation during such short exposures and also remember when pointing at the zenith the gravity would no longer be pulling the camera/imaging train to one side to such an extent and would explain why stars come out fine. Apart from this, we’d need to know a lot more before anyone on here can offer any meaningful advice on troubleshooting this. Please let us know how you get on with this as I’m very much interested in what this’ll turn out to be.

That makes a lot of sense now, but didn't know any better two years ago when I built the tripod. Looked at the EQ8 and saw that the tripod they sell had PTFE pads and the mount is rated at 50kg, I thought adding 0.5mm thick pads on mine would be a safe bet. However, I'm thinking the EQ8 might have more contact area with those pads than my Mesu did which would make a difference.

Hehehe, thanks mate. Don't want to get too excited as I said it could be only part of the issue, but further testing should confirm.

Forgot to mention the subs above were taken with the mirror unlocked.

Thanks for the suggestion.I mounted the guidescope as close to the mount as I could during one of my latest sessions and it drifted in the same direction and the same amount as the main OTA. Turns out this may have been caused by the PTFE pads between the tripod and mount, but further testing is needed to confirm this.

Some more progress on this. Piggy backed the refractor on top of the RASA using a very solid adapter plate made of steel profiles welded together. I’m pretty sure the plate does not introduce any flexure in the mix. Started by guiding the RASA using the refractor and QHY camera. I also guided without sending corrections to the mount and just monitoring the guide star in PHD and this showed the star drifting in the exact same direction as it did in the main OTA. I wasn’t able to get a single sub to guide properly using the refractor as all subs showed substantial drift. I also ran the other test of taking short exposures with both refractor and RASA at 10 minute intervals to see the direction of elongation and amount in both scopes. The direction was always similar in both scopes and the drift amount in arc seconds was always lower in the refractor. At the same time I also had the 60mm guide scope mounted on the bottom dovetail bar of the OTA. This is as close I could get it mounted to the mount plate and still have the full weight of the RASA on the mount. Again I measured the drift which was the same in direction and amount and tried guiding through it with no success. I then moved the Atik camera to the refractor and took some unguided exposures and these also show elongation even at 5 minutes. It was clear that the issue was now pointing at either the mount or tripod. I started looking at the tripod. As I have the two plates on top, separated by six M10 bolts (not the best design I know) I thought I’d eliminate potential flexure coming from the bolts by sandwiching some washers between the two plates and tightening everything up. Although I tried this some months ago, I also placed some large wooden boards underneath the 70mm diameter tripod legs as I was thinking the legs may be sinking into the ground due to the additional weight of the OTA. Neither of these made any difference and the drift was very much the same. I took things inside and securely attached a small laser module on the mount head plate with the RASA mounted and balanced. Then I pointed in some positions I know the drift occurs and marked the laser position accurately as it was projected on a wall. After about 30 minutes, in almost all positions I tried, there was a relatively small but visible movement in the laser position. I started pressing and tugging on different parts of the mount and tripod and to my surprise the only thing that moved the laser point on the wall considerably was me squeezing the bottom plate of the mount to the top plate of the tripod. The only thing that would allow this compression is the 0.5mm thick PTFE self adhesive pads I had on. Upon inspection of the mount bottom plate and PTFE pads it was clear that the contact area of the mount plate is actually rather small only around the edge as can be seen in the images. Plus, when inspecting the PTFE pads, the self adhesive glue was almost completely dry and I was able to remove them easily with a thin blade. Additionally, it looks like when the adhesive dried the pads started lifting up slightly in places. After taking the pads off, I remounted the RASA and pointed the laser in the same positions only to find that even after an hour the position of the laser didn’t move at all. It was clear for a few hours last night so thought I’d test again and I only had time to take a few subs before the clouds rolled in. I still observed some elongation in unguided subs, but mainly when pointing West and the good news is I was able to easily guide it out using the 60mm guide scope mounted on top of the OTA. Also my PHD RMS numbers are higher now at about 0.7” compared to the 0.3” I was getting constantly when guiding before and still getting the drift. I sort of rushed things last night getting out so didn’t have time to completely remove the residual adhesive on the tripod head and I think I’ll also look at sanding the mount bottom plate so it has more contact area with the tripod plate. As it stands now, it seems like the issue could have been the PTFE pads all along. I added them when I built the tripod to allow for easy azimuth adjustment when polar aligning, but during PA last night I didn’t observe any difficulties or significant stiction when making adjustments. I’ll do more testing after cleaning the glue and levelling the mount plate but hoping that the ageing adhesive combined with the low contact area were the root of my problems. The PTFE pads Mount bottom plate Adhesive residue Unguided/guided 600s exoposures pointing West Unguided/guided 600s exoposures pointing SE

This is how I see the drift moving: Pointing South elevation 50 degrees E side of pier – both RASA and guider drift east similarly Pointing South elevation 52 degrees W side of pier – both RASA and guider drift west (although RASA drifts up in Declination a bit too) Pointing SE elevation 44 degrees W side of pier – RASA drifts mainly north and guider drifts NE Pointing West elevation 40 degrees W side of pier – RASA drifts north and guider drifts NW Not sure what to make of this as it could point to differential flexure or flexure in the OTA when guiding, but still doesn’t explain the drift during unguided exposures. What’s interesting is that the guider most times drifts roughly in the same direction as the main scope. Don’t know what else I could do to eliminate the mount as the test with Dave’s refractor proves that the mount can definitely produce good results unguided for 10 minute exposures. At this point I honestly don’t see the mount being the culprit here. Also, the arc shaped stars seen in one of my earlier tests and this time in the 5 minute shot pointing near Polaris are what concern me the most. @michael8554 – Thing is I too never had to search for a guide star and never needed to adjust them so the guider screws are screwed in as far as they would go effectively squishing the Teflon at the tips. But you’re right, even so flexure could still be introduced by these and I'm not ruling it out.

It just occured to me that I've not added any images of my setup so here are a few. I've removed the motorised focuser seen on the back of the RASA a few months ago as I thought that may have been causing the elongated stars due to radial imbalance. Also the 3d printed parts on the guider are there as I wanted the flip mirror functionality, but a few months ago I took them off and replaced them with the metal parts that came with the guidescope as I thought I couldn't guide properly due to flexure in the PLA parts. This wasn't the case and I got exactly the same results and graphs with the same amount of elongation in the main imaging camera.

Sunday night was clear but just managed to find the time today to sort through the images and results. apologies in advance for the lengthy post. With @Davey-T's refractor mounted on the mount, I monitored both servo motors when slewing and foung the average current draw to be 0.2A for both Ra and Dec. The values varied a bit when seen on the ServoConfig screen, with the minimum being 0.1A and manimum 0.5A. With the RASA mounted the current draw was pretty much identical with an average of 0.2A for both axes and never exceeding 0.5A. After slewing around for a bit I touched the servos and both were just really cold. Next some guided and unguided shots with the RASA and guider. The Atik was oriented as follows while on the East side of pier: South/up, East/Right And on the West side of pier: North/Up, West/Right The QHY5 was oriented as follows while on the East side of pier: North/up, East/Right And on the West side of pier: South/Up, West/Right Pointing South elevation 50 degrees, scope on E side of pier (600s exposures, first unguided, second guided) - forgot to lock the mirror during these shots Guiding enabled and disabled graphs Pointing South elevation 50 degrees, scope on E side of pier (5s exposures unguided 10 minutes interval) - forgot to lock the mirror during these shots RASA Guider Pointing South elevation 52 degrees, scope on W side of pier (600s exposures, first unguided, second guided) - since a meridian flip was done, both guide and main image are now flipped 180 and follow the orientation listed above Guiding enabled and disabled graphs Pointing SE elevation 44 degrees, scope on W side of pier (600s exposures, first unguided, second guided) Guiding enabled and disabled graphs Pointing West elevation 40 degrees, scope on W side of pier (600s exposures, first unguided, second guided) Guiding enabled and disabled graphs Pointing West elevation 40 degrees, scope on W side of pier (5s exposures unguided 10 minutes interval) RASA Guider Next with the scope pointing at the Zenith I racked the focuser up and down to try and measure the backlash in arc seconds. I did this from both directions, clockwise and anti clockwise several times. I measured an average movement of 64 pixels in Dec and around 7 pixels in Ra. Ignoring the Ra movement and using my image scale of 2.15 arc seconds per pixel this gives a total of 137 arc seconds. Looking at values others with SCT scopes have, I get conflicting results. Some sources say up to 30” is considered acceptable whilst others say up to 100” or even more is normal. Dave, I tried to do what you suggested in your earlier post, but as I said before I never saw any elongation during exposures lower than 180 seconds so I ran the tests you suggested, but using 60, 300 and 600 second exposures. Pointing South 20 degrees elevation (can’t go lower than this) exposures are 60s, 300s, 600s Pointing North 32 degrees elevation exposures are 300s, 300s, 600s Not sure what to make of the arc-shaped stars in the first 300s exposure near Polaris. As a final test I proceeded to point the scope west and run 3, 4, 5 and 10 minute exposures consecutively with the mirror unlocked and then locked to see where elongation really starts showing. Looks like in both cases elongation becomes apparent around the 5 minute mark.