#1  
Old 25-10-2013, 08:02 AM
niharika
Registered User

niharika is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: melbourne
Posts: 216
PL16803 Window coating

Hi,

The standard window for PL16803 has an F101 coating and there is an optional upgrade with F116 window which is optimized for photometry. I have attached a window reflectance image provided by FLI.

At this stage I have no intention of using it for photometry but wondering if I should just get the upgrade which will reduce the efficiency in the visible light path by about 1%. What are your thoughts??

Regards
Raki
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (coat.png)
56.2 KB36 views
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 25-10-2013, 09:10 AM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
For visible band imaging, I would get the lower reflectance coating - less chance of reflection artefacts (halos etc). 1% of Alnitak could do a lot of damage to an image. Ask FLI for advice.

Last edited by Shiraz; 25-10-2013 at 09:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26-10-2013, 11:03 AM
niharika
Registered User

niharika is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: melbourne
Posts: 216
Thanks Ray
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 27-10-2013, 06:00 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,881
I wouldn't. You pay a fortune for every last bit of QE and if you are taking pretty pictures I have not noticed a reflectance issue with the regular Proline.

If you look at Proline images you will see a little diffraction spike in one spot only on the brighter stars. I am not sure what that is but you don't see it on Microlines. I suspect its something reflecting inside the CCD chamber.

The bigger issue of Proline versus other types like Microline or another brand is weight. Not all scope's focusers can handle the weight without flex. Are you using TEC160FL? Its fine on the Feathertouch 3545. Not sure about the TEC focuser (I would have less confidence in that unless proven).

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 27-10-2013, 07:20 PM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
just to clarify, that's what I suggested as well - the standard low reflectance window, not the upgrade.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 27-10-2013, 07:52 PM
Hans Tucker (Hans)
Registered User

Hans Tucker is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
I wouldn't. You pay a fortune for every last bit of QE and if you are taking pretty pictures I have not noticed a reflectance issue with the regular Proline.

If you look at Proline images you will see a little diffraction spike in one spot only on the brighter stars. I am not sure what that is but you don't see it on Microlines. I suspect its something reflecting inside the CCD chamber.

The bigger issue of Proline versus other types like Microline or another brand is weight. Not all scope's focusers can handle the weight without flex. Are you using TEC160FL? Its fine on the Feathertouch 3545. Not sure about the TEC focuser (I would have less confidence in that unless proven).

Greg.
TEC Focuser
I though all TEC Refractors that were built since TEC Refractors (Starting with the TEC140) came on the market were fitted with the Feathertouch 3545 Focuser.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 27-10-2013, 08:13 PM
niharika
Registered User

niharika is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: melbourne
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
I wouldn't. You pay a fortune for every last bit of QE and if you are taking pretty pictures I have not noticed a reflectance issue with the regular Proline.

If you look at Proline images you will see a little diffraction spike in one spot only on the brighter stars. I am not sure what that is but you don't see it on Microlines. I suspect its something reflecting inside the CCD chamber.

The bigger issue of Proline versus other types like Microline or another brand is weight. Not all scope's focusers can handle the weight without flex. Are you using TEC160FL? Its fine on the Feathertouch 3545. Not sure about the TEC focuser (I would have less confidence in that unless proven).

Greg.
Thanks for your input Greg. Yes the TEC is with FT3545. At some stage I might try to put it on my FSQ106N as well but that will have to wait till I get a Atlas!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 27-10-2013, 08:21 PM
niharika
Registered User

niharika is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: melbourne
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Tucker View Post
TEC Focuser
I though all TEC Refractors that were built since TEC Refractors (Starting with the TEC140) came on the market were fitted with the Feathertouch 3545 Focuser.
Yes, I think they started putting TEC focuser on from last year or so. Some say TEC focuser is better, some prefer the old proven FT. TEC was also developing a focuser automation to integrate with their new focuser but that never came to production and there is no clear indication on when it will come to production.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 04:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement