Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
I agree. These scopes are really showing that the basic thing - the optics, are very good. The truss structure also appears to be well done. The mirror support seems to be improved, the collimation accessories and the focuser needs to be replaced.
I am continually surprised at the quality of your images from it. Not to take anything from the scope but I think your site is pretty exceptional and it plays a major part in the sharp images as well. I see a huge difference in the CDK's performance between mediocre seeing and good seeing.
Greg.
|
I think there are a number of factors that are contributing. I am not sure putting it down to any one or two things is the answer.
Getting the scope imaging as a system has involved a lot of tweaking and frustrations. Things like collimation, polar alignment, guiding, PEC implementation, Protrack, use of the AOX and remote imaging allow the collection of good data. The local seeing conditions are contributing but without all the other things under control the seeing would not have as significant an impact. In any case one should try to eliminate all the issues so that only seeing remains the limiting factor.
Of critical importance is the guiding. An AOX cannot work properly until the traditional guiding is nailed down. I also had to tweak the bump settings quite a bit too. So the AOX should not be seen as a panacea. Though its use in good seeing makes a huge difference.
Fine tuning is the name of the game here. Subtle adjustments to refine the tune of the system. There needs to be a fair bit of obsessiveness with trying to work out each element and tune out errors.
In any event I am enjoying the rewards now, but there have been times when I felt like ditching every thing in the Murray River.
