Quote:
Originally Posted by PRejto
Thanks Ray!
I like your analysis, particularly your ideas in #2 and #3.
Thanks,
Peter
Edit: I speculate that improvements - due to AO on high end mounts - are only going to be seen in good to very good seeing to start with (such that the AO system is not so much following seeing variations within a small isokinetic patch but mount tracking errors due to polar alignment and/or poor uncorrected PE that is greater than the blur lost to seeing. I would love to see proof that AO could improve an image on a system capable of long unguided exposures. Probably most imagers using mounts capable of long unguided exposures are not using the mounts in such fashion and thus depend on guiding to make tracking corrections. Obviously AO is going to do a better and smoother job making these corrections up until a certain limit is reached in the AO system at which time a mount correction is issued. Probably just the fact that the mount is making fewer corrections over the exposure duration accounts for the benefit seen.
|
That makes a lot of sense - if you are right, this could explain what AO is doing and when it will work best
Thanks, Ray