ANZAC Day
Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 22-05-2018, 05:09 PM
Capella_Ben (Ben)
Registered User

Capella_Ben is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 60
PHD2 Exposure Time

Hi All,

Thought I'd share some observations.

PHD2 documentation says you should have a longer exposure time to overcome bad seeing. My observations do bear this out.

I have been recording my PHD2 findings for the last four months (using PHD2 Log Viewer). If I graph a scatter plot of Exposure Time (ms) and Total Error (RMS Arc Minutes) I get:

Click image for larger version

Name:	expVerror.PNG
Views:	34
Size:	13.8 KB
ID:	228505

As you can see going up to 3 to 3.5 seconds does make a difference!

Hopefully this will help someone who is starting out with guiding.

BTW: I have a 200mm F5 scope and I use an off axis guider.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23-05-2018, 12:15 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,930
I have only run phd a couple of times and so far can only get acceptable results at half or one second...half being best it seems.
And have agressivness at 30 for RA and less or zip for Dec.
I have many others mount issues to sort out so I did not expect much until after another pull down.
I am only using a finder guider and as yet only guided on 8 inch f5 ...the auto guide via finder scope was is to go on my 80mm ..
I hope I can get mine working like yours in time.
Thanks for posting your experience I for one greatly appreciate you doing so.
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23-05-2018, 02:51 PM
luka's Avatar
luka
Unregistered User

luka is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,164
Ben, interesting and nice work which also shows the variation in seeing from night to night.

However, I would say that 2.5s, 3.0s and 3.5s are within the margins of error of each other. More data is needed to be conclusive as the night-to-night variation in seeing is very significant, just look at the spread of points at 3 seconds. As an example, from the graph one could even try to argue that 2.5 seconds is better than 3 seconds.

Also, probably the final results will also depend on the location, some places will generally have better seeing than the others.

Having said that, the trend for shorter exposure times is very clearly demonstrated
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25-05-2018, 08:32 PM
Capella_Ben (Ben)
Registered User

Capella_Ben is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 60
Luka,

I agree more data would be better. Will keep logging.


Xelasnave,

I started out with half second as well, but after re-balancing my scope and changing cameras, I'm much happier at the 2-3 second.

Really good polar alignment always helps! :-)

Good luck.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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 04:23 PM.

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