andrew s

Certainly worth doing. Whyever not? Nice scale and framing.

Regards Andrew 

I suspect t it is normal and due to telegraph noise. This is non Gaussian and inherent in CMOS based cameras. It may just looks worse as there is less amp glow.

Regards Andrew 

23 minutes ago, Mr niall said:

I really don't understand the economics of binoculars!

I think as with many astronomy or sports item it is a market minus pricing strategy rather than cost plus. 

Brand reputation (deserved or not) carries a premium as does demonstrated quality and customer support.

Regards Andrew 

The Royal Society print shop have a number of astro prints which when framed are in the right ball park price wise.

Regards Andrew 

10 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I've got one as well - what if complex plain is not "complex" at all - but just a two component vector that has addition and other operations defined in a slightly different way. Thinking in complex numbers produces that sort of feeling - and it's not proper number at all - it contains imaginary part!

I had similar thoughts but you can have multi component vectors who's members are real or complex. In addition we have quaternions which generalise complex numbers.  However, as an algebra with specific operations then I can't argue with that as they are isomorphic. 

Regards Andrew 

Enjoy, I hope it performs just as you hope. I look forward to seeing your progress.

Regards Andrew

One thing I find fascinating is that classical physics uses the simplest probability a + b + c ... =1 where  a,b,c.. are the individual probabilities of the individual possible outcomes and QM has a^2 + b^2 + c^2 ... = 1 i.e. the next  most complex "generalised" probability where a^2,b^2,c^2... are the probabilities of the individual  possible outcomes and the a,b,c... the possible states.

I know, a somewhat geeky fascination.

Regards Andrew

Don't forget other issues come into play with increased aperture comes, cost, increased weight, longer focal length etc. There is always a balance to be stuck.

Image restoration is in practice a compromise with artifacts appearing if pushed too far with realistic images.

Do all you can to get good images ,collimation, cool down, high SNR etc. Then enhance if needs be.

Regards  Andrew 

9 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Great post Vlaiv, I understand the first visual part and I'm intrigued to learn your ideas in the second- the idea of restoring lost frequencies due to CO,collimation errors, optical quality etc in processing. I would be very interested in seeing images that bear this out.

An easy one might be to image slightly de collimated and then restore the frequencies lost across the whole spectrum. Thoughts?

A lot of work was done on the when the fault with the HST was found and before a hardware fix was available. Google "HST inage restoration" for some examples.

Various forms of deconvolution were tried.

Regards Andrew 

...and optical quality given the above.

Regards Andrew 

14 minutes ago, Gina said:

I think I shall try a tray beside the rain detector so that water runs off onto the sensor.  This would still allow rain to fall directly onto the sensor as well.  I'll try some ideas in the next few days of showers.

Dew forming on the tray may be an issue if it drips off onto the detector.

Regards Andrew 

As @George Jones implies we know how to crush the number in QM but we have no real understanding as to why it works the way it does.

There are several interpretations of QM all different all give the same results so there is know way of telling which is right. We kick out the ones that don't give the right results!

In classical physics we can have an intuitive feel for its idealised objects. Point masses with velocity and position etc. However, this is not true in QM and when we impose our classical ideas it leads to contradictions and paradox.

Still well worth the effort of getting an understanding . I found I had to completely relearn it as it had moved on from my 1970's uni days.

Regards Andrew 

Edmund optics do 108mm f4.1 parabolic mirrors but the they are not cheap. 

Regards Andrew 

Perfect PA is a myth. Depending on where you are imaging the effective pole moves due to refraction. The best you can do is aim at the mean refracted pole.

As long as your field of view is not too large so that field rotation is an issue, then either guiding or model based "guiding" will compensate for the error in PA.

Some professional wide field telescope raise or lower the RA axis depending on where they are imaging.

Regards Andrew 

Not ever thought along these lines. The inverse problem is studied in Quantum Chaos but again I have not studied it.

My first thoughts would be that in QM we don't have evolving states as such but an evolving probability distribution for the system as a whole.

Clearly a prepared state will have some uncertainty (e.g thermal broadening of a spectral line) but you are proposing something  deeper.

Will ponder more on this.

Regards Andrew 

Certainly not new but black masking tape for sealing those annoying light leaks.

Regards Andrew 

Very good image @Olly I particularly like the diffraction spikes especially on the central star.

Regards  Andrew 

Plus the cost of a rotator if you want to do imaging.

Regards Andrew 

Not sure how new but free and/or online plate solving seems to have been a big help to some.

(Not used myself as I have it built in with THe Sky X)

Regards Andrew

For me it's my Paramount ME II. With The Sky X  it just does all you could possibly want. Accurate, powerful,  scriptable and perfect for remote operation.

Regards Andrew 

@Peter Drew sorry can't  resist saying thanks Pete to "DUD"

You have to be a certain age.

Regards Andrew 

I have been surprised by how many scopes some folks have. Is this really due to them performing differently  on different objects, just because you enjoy the variety (the scopes as objects of desire) or some other reason?

Regards Andrew 

Ps sorry if this is hijacking the thread but I am genuinely interested. 

I intended the balance point of the telescope .

Regards Andrew 

Sorry can't directly help, but as well as length you need to consider the center of mass.

I have had to place a scope based on dimensions to fit in the observatory but then used steel and lead counterweights to make it balance.

Regards Andrew 

What do you mean, "Go back to one" I only have one and I found it in the back of my bits box a few days ago. I do have 3 CCD and 1 CMOS cameras. Oh yes, and a high sensitivity video camera.

Regards Andrew