δ Scorpii in HA - Page 2

Martin Pugh · #21 20-06-2013, 03:06 PM

I entirely agree with Paul's comments here and indeed a user is entirely within his rights to post comments and opinions about any piece of equipment. People can make their own mind up.

Sorry Bert, but I have tracked back to your first light post of Apr 2012, and today (14 months later) you post further modifications in attempt to remove flexure. Despite your best efforts, in the image you have posted stars on axis appear fine, off axis, different story.

As the sole vendor for OS gear in Australia, Cris clearly has an agenda here as Paul suggests. If I were ever in the market for an OS telescope (unlikely) or any other piece of equipment for that matter, it is forums like these and advice from accomplished astrophotographers where I would form opinion and purchase decisions.

Martin

Paul Haese · #22 20-06-2013, 03:22 PM

Sorry for getting your specific knowledge set wrong Bert; it was an over sight on my behalf. One that I will not make again. Look forward to seeing an image that you produce which has good stars from corner to corner and that is not over stretched with mountains of noise. Good luck.

avandonk · #23 20-06-2013, 03:32 PM

I agree Martin it took a while to solve my flexure problems. They are all gone! Apparently lesser mortals than myself had just given up on ever mastering the new technology.

All I have to do now is image at nearly three times the speed of a F5 system.

Just went out to check on HER. The temperature of the optic train is at 16.0 C +- 0.1C. The UPS reports that all is well. The guide wires still have the same notes Bflat and Fsharp.

The system will be singing again tonight with one hour exposures!

Bert

avandonk · #24 20-06-2013, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Sorry for getting your specific knowledge set wrong Bert; it was an over sight on my behalf. One that I will not make again. Look forward to seeing an image that you produce which has good stars from corner to corner and that is not over stretched with mountains of noise. Good luck.

Thanks Paul. I promise not to show mountains of noise ever again. OK just a bit.

Bert

strongmanmike (Michael) · #25 20-06-2013, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

Here is an unstretched stack of 7x32 min 3nm HA dithered of the Helix Nebula. 15MB

http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.co...HN_HA_7fr_.zip

With far more data I think this will show more faint stuff.

I would be interested to see what anyone else can squeeze out of this data.

Bert

Very deep Bert...far too much worrying about slight star shape issues and not enough time enjoying what the image really shows, and so easily I recon

Mike

Astromelb · #26 21-06-2013, 05:46 PM

Thanks for your feedback Paul.

All I am trying to do is support someone who has expended a lot of time & effort and taken a system that is well past it's design intent & design criteria, and via - exceptional personal competence, capability and experience - achieved ground breaking success.

I am well aware that there are many that are able to achieve this task, as there are many experienced astro imagers out there.

What Bert has achieved has broken new ground that is being emulated by quite a number of other astro imagers overseas, and they are also having outstanding success with nearly identical systems.

But not in Australia.

Us Australians are innovation deficient - where we are very slow to respond to new technologies, and instead criticise new technology until it is so well established that we are unable to ignore it.

I have spent a life (38 years) in the global automotive industry in a specialist function - Science of Measurement (Metrology) - where the Australian industry is at least a decade behind Europe, US and Asia in our implementation of new processes in engineering.

Self fulfilling prophecy, where the demise of our auto industry is due to our reluctance to adopt new technology (well documented within the industry).

But this isn't restricted to the auto industry, it is of our countries major malaise issues.

I recommend those that are uncomfortable with the theme of f3 don't attempt it, and leave it to others whom are prepared to take things step by step and image at speeds that the balance of users of f5 and slower (most of you) simply are incapable of comprehending.

This is the central theme of all this banter, most of you do not understand this project, and thereby out of caution elect to criticise - a standard Australian idiosyncrasy (tall poppy).

Bert has broken new ground and shown what can be achieved with dedicated effort, and considered step by step implementation. He has not rushed into any of the tasks, and methodically taken each challenge as it comes.

This is a model for us all, as I see many astro imaging systems that people think are a simple plug and play, and will win them imaging awards within weeks of implementation.

What the

Plus they aren't kidding !!

A "System" is as strong as it's weakest link, and there's 20 odd suppliers in this system, why "must" the telescope be the target of all this criticism.

Bert's issues were NEVER with the telescope, they were with flexure in the CFW and it's mating connections, there's never ever been anything wrong with the telescope.

Bert puts up full res images - as such he is not able to hide any errors whatsoever, if there is any error it hits you in the face straight away. If you are putting up reduced images you are hiding your issues.

Whom of you put up full res images, I don't see anyone other than Mike S. So your data is hiding errors, not a balanced data set in the first place.

Only in full res is an image fully testable.

Bert's images also have an accuracy of 1 pixel movement in 2 hours, do yours ? This is only available from a system working correctly, with ultra precision optics working perfectly.

Yes, I rarely make any comments on Ice In Space, and why is this - I find nearly all of the comments are biased - and far too many pushing a barrow, whether it be free gear they get from suppliers (they know who they are), or free loan gear to trial. Not open enough to new technologies to open your eyes and actually learn something.

avandonk · #27 22-06-2013, 09:29 AM

I would have thought it was painfully obvious that the problem has always been differential flexure between the RH200 and the very heavy CFW and Camera. Even after getting the new rings for the RH200 I still had the same problem and it was only very marginally better. I suspect the Placebo effect was the only thing that was effective.

The engineering concept behind the the two turnbuckles and lateral bar at the bottom of the dovetail is that they form a triangle and with enough tension should minimise flexure due to changing lateral gravitational forces. So to make it VERY CLEAR we are stabilizing the CFW and Camera NOT the RH200! You do not want to know the tension those turnbuckles are at to get the movement down to one pixel per two hours. Yes that very solid ITS bends under the weight of the CFW and Camera!

The RH200 was never designed to take all this weight and far larger sensor. The Focuser, CFW and Camera weigh over eight kilograms.

I have two bars to hold the ends of the dovetail the optic train is on as this was twisting! This bar is 100mm wide and 12mm thick!

I would like to thank Cris for all his help and suggestions. He went as far as negotiating with FLI for a solution to the ten position CFW being the culprit. It was but not the only one.

Personally I am quite glad we have got over the line. Now I can just get on with imaging not engineering and optics. Till next time!

Bert

dvj (John) · #28 24-06-2013, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

The RH200 was never designed to take all this weight and far larger sensor. The Focuser, CFW and Camera weigh over eight kilograms.

Bert

My point exactly. There is a very thin tip-tilt plate on the rear cell that holds all of the image train weight. I have "suggested" that this is most likely source of mechanical flexure with a very heavy camera and filter wheel like the Proline 16803. By holding the camera securely like you have Bert, (including the very heavy duty and precise Atlas digital focuser), you have removed the weight load off of the rear tip-tilt plate, in fact the entire telescope.

For the record, it was Bert's original work with the RH200 that inspired me to purchase a unit 2nd hand from a U.S. owner a year ago. I have no idea what this guy Chris is writing about.

I have only been imaging the sky since 1974 and have forgotten a few things about astrographs in my time.

I also know of 2 individulas who purchased this telescope on my recommendation and necessary cautions about F/3.

Regards,

John Gleason

dvj (John) · #29 24-06-2013, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astromelb

Dear Ice In Spacers,

In my humble opinion - there is an element of stiff cheddar in John's comments, and this is not isolated to this thread, this has been a theme for some time. John is a very experienced and very capable astroimager, but his "system" is not in the same class as Bert's, nor his capabilities with this particular telescope, thereby Bert's images are superior to John's using the same telescope - this is the crux of this issue.

Personally John, your comments are not welcomed on this forum by myself, you seem to be "on a mission" here, as your comments are giving the impression that you are trying to warn people away from this telescope ?

John - may I recommend that you issue a correction, as going around upsetting people, as you have achieved here - I suggest this is not your desired strategy. I suggest that the manufacturer will be less happy than I am when I provide this threads link to them.

Rgds,
Cris Ellis,
Astromelb,
Melbourne,
Australia.

Ok, here is my correction:

I suggest Chris, you are very funny guy and I don't even know who you are. And for the record, I don't even like cheddar. I suggest, that your email was not your serious intent, but one of great humor that Australian's are famous for.

All the best,

jg

TerraPassenger · #30 15-01-2014, 06:47 PM

This post has been moved to the equipment discussion section as requested.

gregbradley · #31 15-01-2014, 07:42 PM

This thread should really be moved to the equipment discussions section.

The key would be a lightweight imaging setup. I'd go an QSI583 or an older SBIG STL which has built in filter wheel and guider so you save on all that weight.

FLI ML29050 may be good, small well depth but pixel size would match the optics well. FLI Atlas sounds heavy though. ML29050 is 35mm sized sensor like KAI11002 but with smaller pixels.

OAG is also a key. I think if I were setting up that system I would go for a smaller chip say max size KAI11002 (35mm full frame) as the system is really designed with that corrected circle in mind.

An alternative would be to replace the focuser with an AP one. They are really solid and install a lightwieght Roboocus on it. Or replace the focuser with a Feathertouch (I think AP would be more solid).

Greg.

avandonk · #32 15-01-2014, 08:44 PM

Dave it depends on what YOU want to do.

If you are not trolling then I am sorry, but it looks like it to me.

Q. Please sir can I carry two tons of gravel in my Ferrari?

A. Yes you can. One ton in the left seat and one ton in the right seat.

This question should be moved to the thread where people exchange information totally irrelevant and useless to each other.

Bert

TerraPassenger · #33 15-01-2014, 09:02 PM

@avandonk
I've zero clue, Bert, as to why you think I'm trolling. But I guess I should have expected this sort of response from you. For whatever reason, you're unnecessarily antagonistic.

I'll repost the question in the equipment discussion group.

@GregBradley
RE - OAG - this is more weight on the image train and isn't, based on what I've read, necessary for the scope. Anyhow, I've moved to post to the equipment discussion section as recommended.

Dave

avandonk · #34 15-01-2014, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerraPassenger

@avandonk
I've zero clue, Bert, as to why you think I'm trolling. But I guess I should have expected this sort of response from you. For whatever reason, you're unnecessarily antagonistic.

I'll repost the question in the equipment discussion group.

@GregBradley
RE - OAG - this is more weight on the image train and isn't, based on what I've read, necessary for the scope. Anyhow, I've moved to post to the equipment discussion section as recommended.

Dave

So you are asking questions of people who have not a clue about the RH200.

That should be informative.

If you have zero clue why did you not append your question to a far later image of mine, say yesterday.

I still call you a troll.

Bert

TerraPassenger · #35 15-01-2014, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

So you are asking questions of people who have not a clue about the RH200.

That should be informative.

If you have zero clue why did you not append your question to a far later image of mine, say yesterday.

I still call you a troll.

Bert

Well Bert, I go out of my way to compliment your skill, effort and patience in getting the scope to work and your response is to attack me. I don't get it.

>> So you are asking questions of people who have not a clue about the RH200.
I was asked to move the post to the equipment discussion section. I've done so. My hope is that someone from Officina Stellare will provide the design weight limits for the image train. Failing that, I'd hope that someone who is using the scope as a portable instrument will answer with details about their experience.

>> If you have zero clue why did you not append your question to a far later image of mine, say yesterday.
The reason I appended my question to this thread is that it contains discussion about the tip-tilt plate and possible flexure in that component of the system. I thought my post pertinent here but was asked to move it - I've done so.

Maybe you're so antagonistic because you feel I'm attacking you or the scope? I assure you I'm not. You've obviously got the flexure eliminated and moreover have done so with an intentionally heavy image train. The quality of your images speaks for itself - you've done a great job and the scope is obviously very high quality.

But... is it suitable for portable use where one of the goals is that has to be fairly easy to transport and setup. It's not clear to me if this is the case.

Dave

avandonk · #36 15-01-2014, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerraPassenger

Well Bert, I go out of my way to compliment your skill, effort and patience in getting the scope to work and your response is to attack me. I don't get it.

>> So you are asking questions of people who have not a clue about the RH200.
I was asked to move the post to the equipment discussion section. I've done so. My hope is that someone from Officina Stellare will provide the design weight limits for the image train. Failing that, I'd hope that someone who is using the scope as a portable instrument will answer with details about their experience.

>> If you have zero clue why did you not append your question to a far later image of mine, say yesterday.
The reason I appended my question to this thread is that it contains discussion about the tip-tilt plate and possible flexure in that component of the system. I thought my post pertinent here but was asked to move it - I've done so.

Maybe you're so antagonistic because you feel I'm attacking you or the scope? I assure you I'm not. You've obviously got the flexure eliminated and moreover have done so with an intentionally heavy image train. The quality of your images speaks for itself - you've done a great job and the scope is obviously very high quality.

But... is it suitable for portable use where one of the goals is that has to be fairly easy to transport and setup. It's not clear to me if this is the case.

Dave

Greg Bradley has more answers than me. Ask him. He gives advice for free, just like he gets his optics.

If you are genuine then have a look at what Harel Boren is doing on Cloudy Nights with his RH200.

I am not antagonistic. I just find that idiots that should know better irritate me in places you would not understand.

Bert