#1  
Old 12-04-2018, 12:58 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
Star analyser and C11

I am planning to use my new C11 for spectroscopy...
The idea is to use existing GRISM
I already used it with MTO_10_1100A, but because I could not go deeper into tube (field element was in the way), the light cone at SA was ~5mm in diameter, so the resolution was not great.
Now, I can go deeper inside the baffle (150~200mm away from camera sensor), to fully utilize the resolution of Star Analyser (calculator is here: http://www.rspec-astro.com/calculator/)
There will be a lot of 3D printing and turning plastic tubes on lathe...
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Star_Analyser_GRISM_SCT.jpg)
88.6 KB34 views
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:05 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
Bojan,
Sounds good.
I think you'd get better performance using the grating in an f6.3 beam than increasing the spacing in an f10 beam.

The size of the seeing disk determines the resolution. Smaller disk when using f6.3
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:06 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
Yes, I know.. but reducer is out of budget at the moment..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-04-2018, 03:59 PM
sheeny's Avatar
sheeny (Al)
Spam Hunter

sheeny is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oberon NSW
Posts: 14,288
With my C8 and my C11 I found there was enough backfocus to have the SA mounted in the front of a barlow body and still achieve focus. Is it the weight of the DSLR that you don't want hanging off the barlow?

I used a DMK mostly, but tried my SBIG a couple of times which would be similar weight to to a Canon I would think.

Al.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-04-2018, 01:09 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
Al,
The resolution of diffraction grating depends on number of lines engaged to disperse the light beam of the star under test. More lines in the beam, the better resolution.

With f/10, the distance between SA and focus should be ~200~300mm, so if I place SA inside C11, I can use the same camera adapter and have the optimised spectrum resolution and dispersion
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17-04-2018, 02:17 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
Bojan,
Sorry mate, that's only the theoretical resolution not the actual...

The final result when using a transmission grating "in the converging beam" will be influenced by the chromatic coma, field curvature etc.
My TransSpec V3 spreadsheet may help.
Attached Files
File Type: zip TransSpecV3.1.zip (21.2 KB, 34 views)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17-04-2018, 02:38 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
Ken, thanks for the spreadsheet, it will be useful
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18-04-2018, 12:34 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
Some more on grating resolution (theoretical) is here.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 18-04-2018, 12:59 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
There are many good websites which cater for amateur spectroscopy.

I have provided many interesting links on my webpage
http://www.astronomicalspectroscopy.com/

Christian Buil's page is highly recommended.
http://astrosurf.com/buil/
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 18-04-2018, 01:50 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
Discussion of grating resolution as function of number of grooves, from Christion Buil's page, see here.

From the formula below, (theoretical) resolution is directly proportional to product of m*L, which is number of grooves, engaged by (converging) beam.

All this above is rationale behind my decision to place the grism inside the back-end tube of my C11... and why I expect better results with this setup.

But first I have sort out burning C11 mounting issue om EQ6... losmandy flange is on its way (I hope).
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (c_01.jpg)
1.6 KB11 views
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 18-04-2018, 02:51 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
Bojan,
Read to the end of that paper.
You'll see in the "grating in converging beam" that the actual resolution is severely compromised by the aberrations.
The same formula is used in the TransSpec spreadsheet.
ie the dispersion may be 4A/pixel, but the resolution 35A......
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 18-04-2018, 03:25 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
I did read the paper.
What I am saying here is, I am trying to optimize my setup the best I can, by eliminating limitations I had earlier.
I do not have any dispute with you.
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 09:08 PM.

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