Thanks for your feedback Ken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66
Steven,
The improved SNR helps but the inherent resolution of the grating set-up will not change. If you get say 20A resolution with your set-up (grating to camera distance/ pixel size etc.) then that's the wavelength accuracy you'll obtain...
|
While the SNR doesn't improve the resolution it does deal with the issue of noise masquerading as a signal.
The higher the SNR, the greater the probability of a signal rather than noise.
It is more probable that the weak OIII emissions are a signal in the 4 hr exposure than in the 1 hr exposure (it might still be noise however
)
Scientists take probabilities to the extreme case as was the discovery of the Higgs boson which was announced at a 5 sigma level or a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the Higgs boson was noise resembling a signal.
Quote:
Subject to atmospheric effects.... if nothing changes then your response curve should still be valid.
Drop me your fits files and I can verify.
Also, just double check with an A type star.....
|
I ended up creating a response curve based on the QE data of the KAF-3200ME chip used in my CCD.
This seems to be giving a more consistent result than deriving the curve from an existing spectrum combined with professional data.
The attachment shows the comparison response curves.
Regards
Steven