Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #101  
Old 08-02-2013, 01:40 PM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes View Post
I don't think many of the people making suggestions have ever been to the observatory.
+1.

And even fewer have tried to use their own scopes either at observatory hill or nearby, for a specific astronomical event, with sufficient time to "appreciate" the conditions that prevail.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 08-02-2013, 06:17 PM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,883
Ok this makes 102 posts. I suggest we form a sub-commitee to decide how we might get them all printed out and bound , and present to Sydney Observatory as a think tank, and then they can form a sub- committee to examine our findings and report back here for further comment
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 08-02-2013, 07:14 PM
LightningNZ's Avatar
LightningNZ (Cam)
Registered User

LightningNZ is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canberra
Posts: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavytone View Post
+1.

And even fewer have tried to use their own scopes either at observatory hill or nearby, for a specific astronomical event, with sufficient time to "appreciate" the conditions that prevail.
Last time I went to Sydney Obs was back in 1995. Haven't really had an opportunity to go back there. I somehow doubt the experience I get going to a public observatory is really the same as that of a regular member of the public going through the same place.

That said, there are several people here have spent quite some time working in public observatories and we tend to be saying the same things.

Cheers,
Cam
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 08-02-2013, 08:43 PM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Haha I'm sure Geoff is keeping an eye on this thread. And I think it isn't making any more progress. Committee ? Thanks but I'll pass on that.

Last edited by Wavytone; 09-02-2013 at 01:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 08-02-2013, 10:27 PM
ausastronomer (John Bambury)
Registered User

ausastronomer is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Shoalhaven Heads, NSW
Posts: 2,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavytone View Post
+1.

And even fewer have tried to use their own scopes either at observatory hill or nearby, for a specific astronomical event, with sufficient time to "appreciate" the conditions that prevail.
Well you're right. I haven't been near the place in about 15 years. But why would I want to, I have high quality visual scopes to 30" aperture under my thumb, under mag 7 skies. I have an 18" Obsession in my shed, located 4.6 metres from my Delonghi coffee machine with Mag 6.2/6.3 skies on my back porch.

What you need to appreciate is that you have had a lot of contributions from some very experienced visual observers, some of whom have worked in public observatories, and many like me who have done a lot of public outreach, over many years, under all types of sky conditions.

Whether a medium aperture APO (6"/10"), or a medium/large aperture SCT, or a medium aperture Mak or Classical Cass is the right solution is open for debate. What everyone almost to a man is tellin you is that to buy a 17" to 20" Planewave would be pissen an enormous amount of taxpayer provided funding against the wall, for nought.

Something else to consider is what has seriously been done to see if the electronics in the mount can be rebuilt, outside of Meade.

Has anyone bothered to ask Gary if the mount is salvageable and at what cost? He is as knowledgeable as anyone on the planet in regards to mounts and mount electronics. It may be cost prohibitive and he may not have the time, desire or inclination, but it will not cost the earth to at least ask the question and it may be something he would take on with a sense of pride and self satisfaction involved, knowing the cause it was for.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 08-02-2013, 10:55 PM
mithrandir's Avatar
mithrandir (Andrew)
Registered User

mithrandir is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Glenhaven
Posts: 4,161
I can't see the problem with getting a commodity 14" or 16" fork mounted SCT and accepting that the mount will not last forever. The amortised price would undoubtably beat any solution using something really designed for photography.

The OTA may well be saleable when the mount has to go. When that happens they'll get better electronics with whatever they buy to replace it. As long as they keep spares on hand, the time to upgrade is when the spares run short - not when they run out.

From the few outreach nights I've been to - with better skies than you'll ever get in the CBD - what customers want is to look through an eyepiece attached to some largish scope. Something on a screen keeps them interested while they wait, but that is not why they came and paid their money.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-02-2013, 12:25 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Hi Geoff,

If I could offer a solution that meets all your functional requirements (if not in the exact terms you stipulated):

Please consider a derivative of the German equatorial design with an extended polar axis such as the ASA Direct Drive DDM160
http://www.astrosysteme.at/eng/mount_ddm160.html
To avoid duty of care issues associated with counterweights, simply orient the telescope such that it operates past the meridian with the counterweights high in the air, like so:
http://www.apm-telescopes.de/media/i...%20inch-22.jpg

This is a turnkey approach with a proven track record boasting professional level reliability that will work with your existing 16" OTA and is easily upgradable to a much larger instrument if and when required.

If you wanted to save money, you could basically achieve the same thing using a generic German equatorial head with a custom pier that gave the same clearance for the OTA. A slightly modified AP1200 would be quite a bit cheaper but do everything you required without the public safety issues normally associated with counterweights. (you can pick them up for under $10k landed in Aus if you're smart about it)

regards,
~c

PS: Ice in space might not be the best place to solicit advice on such matters.

Last edited by clive milne; 09-02-2013 at 12:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-02-2013, 12:41 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
Probably more important than which scope is which light pollution filter or which narrowband filters.

A nice Ha and Hutech light pollution filter may do wonders.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 09-02-2013, 12:45 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Probably more important than which scope is which light pollution filter or which narrowband filters.

A nice Ha and Hutech light pollution filter may do wonders.

Greg.
Greg... you do mean Oiii, don't you?
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-02-2013, 05:33 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne View Post
Greg... you do mean Oiii, don't you?
As you can see I don't do a lot of visual. Yes O111 would be good. A wideband Ha would work though wouldn't it?

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 09-02-2013, 06:07 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
As you can see I don't do a lot of visual. Yes O111 would be good. A wideband Ha would work though wouldn't it?

Greg.
As a discrete band, not at all.
The photoreceptors in the human eye responsible for our night vision (rods) are completely blind at the wavelength of H alpha - 656nm.

~c
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 10-02-2013, 01:29 PM
GOTO (Geoff)
Registered User

GOTO is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 156
Update and comments.

Hi all,

Here is an image of the north dome scope as requested. Again, let me state for the record we take our fiduciary duty very seriously and will not, nor have we ever, wasted taxpayers’ money.

We would still like to look though a Planewave if possible but we understand the comments made here.

I can’t answer all the points that have been raised but a few comments in no particular order:

1. We are a museum and our needs are different to most people here on IIS. We are very much aware of the terrible seeing in the CBD.
2. Nasmyths look like they are out of our budget ☹
3. Newtonians are out, as we won’t send people up high ladders.
4. Refractors are out too. We have one that is 290mm (1874 Schroeder) and the height for viewing positions varies too much.
5. Video will only ever be a secondary experience.
6. We are following a few ideas that have led us to Germany.
7. We haven’t given up on the option of re-mounting the 16inch OTA in which case video supplement would be desirable but can never replace the eye at the scope.
8. We won’t consider a 20inch Meade until we have seen others use one first and reviewed it extensively. Do they actually exist yet? Besides it is a GEM.

Clearly there is no easy solution.

Kind regards
Geoff

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...psbf39a1ad.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 10-02-2013, 03:37 PM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,883
John: I'm sure someone could do a retrofit of Servocat or Siderial technology unit given a few dollars.

As I said before the small footprint of that 16" in ALTAZ mode and the fact that the eypiece changes only a little in height make it still a very good solution. i wonder whether an image intensifier eyepiece like the I3 in front of a light pollution filter give the scope more legs.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 10-02-2013, 04:10 PM
Barrykgerdes
Registered User

Barrykgerdes is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Beaumont Hills NSW
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOTO View Post
Hi all,

Here is an image of the north dome scope as requested. Again, let me state for the record we take our fiduciary duty very seriously and will not, nor have we ever, wasted taxpayers’ money.

We would still like to look though a Planewave if possible but we understand the comments made here.

I can’t answer all the points that have been raised but a few comments in no particular order:

1. We are a museum and our needs are different to most people here on IIS. We are very much aware of the terrible seeing in the CBD.
2. Nasmyths look like they are out of our budget ☹
3. Newtonians are out, as we won’t send people up high ladders.
4. Refractors are out too. We have one that is 290mm (1874 Schroeder) and the height for viewing positions varies too much.
5. Video will only ever be a secondary experience.
6. We are following a few ideas that have led us to Germany.
7. We haven’t given up on the option of re-mounting the 16inch OTA in which case video supplement would be desirable but can never replace the eye at the scope.
8. We won’t consider a 20inch Meade until we have seen others use one first and reviewed it extensively. Do they actually exist yet? Besides it is a GEM.

Clearly there is no easy solution.

Kind regards
Geoff

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...psbf39a1ad.jpg
That looks just like I remember it when I first saw it in 1997. If the electronics in the LX200 are still OK they will probably last forever. Fitting a servocat would be more trouble than its worth. I certainly wouldn't attempt it under $5000. The 20" Meade is not realy an option on it's GEM. I think Don at Bintel and I can keep that LX200 going a little longer as long as you don't have a major failure.

For the use you require the modern LX200 GPS would give you a little more ease in setting up because of the GPS and auto align and the fact that the Autostar 11 is almost identical to drive as the old handbox. Other than that. "If it ain't broke why mess with it"

Barry
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 10-02-2013, 07:12 PM
GOTO (Geoff)
Registered User

GOTO is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 156
But that's just it Barry it is broke!

Hi Barry,
The GPS doesn't work because the scope is in a metal dome. We did try an antenna out the dome but that didn't work sadly so we do a blind two star alignment each morning.

The electronics are playing up. Every now and then the scope just drives off by itself, typically toward zenith but not always.

If I remember correctly (as we've been swapping scopes around so much) we reversed the main dec/altitude gear as it was badly worn.

Not complaining though as the scope is used day and night every day bar two per year.

Cheers
Geoff
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 10-02-2013, 09:06 PM
Barrykgerdes
Registered User

Barrykgerdes is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Beaumont Hills NSW
Posts: 2,900
OK Geoff

I got the impression that it was still working. The problem with taking off every now and then is difficult. It happens with the smaller LX200's occasionally. I have never been able to trace exactly the cause because it has always come good when I get to testing the boards. I think it is a problem with the sensor arrangement and adjustments on the motor boards when the components age.

If the dec gear is worn that badly with the use you give the scope it sure looks like you need a replacement scope. I think the 16"LX200 GPS is the best option at the momnent but it will need to be setup without thd GPS. That means setting the date time manually. This can probably done easiest from a computer. This still may avoid daily alignment if the scope is parked each night after use.

I no longer have my 12" LX200GPS so I can't easily test a way of getting the date/time without the GPS. With the GPS working I only aligned the scope once and then parked it so it held its alignment for 5 years.

If you do end up getting another LX200 I would be happy to help with settiing it up.

Barry

PS I don't see the poor seeing conditions at the observatory as a major drawback in the use the scope will be put to. As has been said before the patrons only want to look through the eyepiece of a big telescope and most of them will only be interested in the moon and planets.

Last edited by Barrykgerdes; 10-02-2013 at 09:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 11-02-2013, 09:10 AM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOTO View Post
varying staff focus is perhaps a bigger more problematic issue. If anyone can suggest a fast reliable way we can standardise visual focus, again please let me know.
Geoff,

There are several ways to accurately focus a scope for infinity, which I'll post here as I am sure others may be interested. My own experience with public nights indicates quite a few people are a bit short/long sighted but have been ignoring it - when they try to look through a scope their focus is significantly off, and as a result they need to refocus a telescope to see anything properly.

Of these:

- I often use method 1 and method 3.
- Method 1 is not so accurate,
- Method 2 assumes your eyepieces are parfocal;
- Method 3 is quite accurate, and does not rely on your eyepieces being par-focal;
- Method 4 works in daylight only;
- Method 5 is obvious to camera buffs, and requires a specially modified eyepiece;
- Method 6 works for a point source (stars) only and requires a specially modified eyepiece;
- Method 7... requires a camera and makes some assumptions about your eyepieces. I have used this a few times but is fiddly.

1. The first method is simple - put your glasses on and focus while wearing them ! This relies on the simple fact that over 45 people lose their ability to accommodate different focal distances (I'm 56) and if you have some glasses that have been accurately selected for long-distance by a good optician (as mine are), then your eyes should have perfect focus for infinity when wearing them. I have separate reading glasses. It's even a good reason to go see your optician regularly when you are a bit older

If your glasses are chosen for a range of 1-2 metres (rather than infinity) this may not be a bad thing either, as most can manage to focus on that.

2. If you have parfocal eyepieces (mine are, Vixen LVW's) switch to the shortest focal length eyepiece and focus with that (on anything) then leave the focus alone and switch back to whatever eyepiece you wish. For low power eyepieces this will give an accurate focus - if the eyepieces are parfocal.

3. The next method works for small objects with a well-defined edge, particularly the brighter planets (Venus/Mars/Jupiter/Saturn). Having got the object reasonably well centred and more-or-less focussed, slowly pull your head back a few cm from the eyepiece while continuing to look at the object.

If it stays in focus - and it's apparent diameter STAYS THE SAME (the latter is the most important part) the 'scope is focussed. If it's apparent diameter increases/decreases, the eyepiece is not accurately focussed. This method is incredibly sensitive at high magnifications on the planets or moon, and very accurate.

4. This is a variation on 3, easy to do in daylight as you need to be able to see the exit pupil of the light cone coming out of the eyepiece. Point the telescope at blue sky so you can see the blue disk of light (the exit pupil) emerging from the eyepiece. Using a dynameter (a tapering slit with a numbered scale), hold the dynameter at the eyelens and measure the apparent width of the exit pupil at the eye lens. Now pull the dynameter back away from the eyepiece a few cm and measure the apparent width again. Should be the same diameter if focussed. If not, adjust the focus so that it is the same width.

This is easy to do in daylight. if you are tempted to set it then wait till dark, remember your telescope OTA may shrink as it cools and the focus will shift.

5. The next also assumes you have parfocal eyepieces, and one of them has a piece of ground glass in its focal plane. The ground side must be facing the telescope. Put this eyepiece in the scope and focus on anything bright - moon, planets or bright stars. I was able to cannibalise an old eyepiece which had a filter thread cut well into the barrel, and an old filter which I ground with some spare abrasive (wet-and-dry carbide paper, grade 1600 will do this nicely). There are 2 tricks with this one

a) to set up the eyepiece with the ground glass accurately in the focal plane of the eyepiece;
b) to add a ring around the eyepiece so it is parfocal with your other eyepieces.

To do these accurately I used an optical bench.

Alternatively, if you pick up an old film SLR body and dismantle it, you can cannibalise the focussing screen. Many old SLR's had a central split-focus or micro-prism surface that provides a much brighter image than ground glass, notably any of the Pentax MX, ME or K series bodies which had a plastic screen easily reworked to fit an eyepiece with a Dremel and some sandpaper. Put masking tape over both surfaces to prevent scratches while you're working on it.

6. Basically this method is a star-test and it is VERY accurate but also quite fiddly and time-consuming. You need a 12mm eyepiece modified so that:

a) it has a knife-edge, graticle or very fine wire in the barrel, but this must be somewhat out-of-focus in the eyepiece, ie located in front or behind the field-stop by a couple of mm.

b) You need a collar fitted so that once the knife-edge or graticle is at the focus of the telescope, your other eyepieces will be par-focal with the knife-edge (and not par focal with the lenses in this eyepiece).

You will need an optical bench of some sort to make this modified eyepiece.

With a star in the field of the telescope, look into the eyepiece, it should be a out-of-focus so you can see a disk of light instead of a point. Allowing the star to drift across so the knife-edge or graticle cuts into the light-cone near the focus, you will see the disk go dim then blank. If it goes dim evenly all over, the knife edge is precisely at the focus. if it goes dim on one side first, the knife edge is in front or behind the focus, so re-focus and try again. This takes a bit of practice to get used to.

Way back in the 1970's I used this method to set the focus for a cold-camera plug on an 8" Newtonian. It is incredibly sensitive, and you are seeing a Schlieren view of your objective which will reveal any tube-currents and atmospheric turbulence. This may be so bad that you can't accurately focus.

7. This last method works especially well at high magnification. It relies on eyepiece projection into a good quality compact camera with manual focus (i have a Panasonic LX5), you can use this on the moon or bright planets but its impossible on anything else. To work well, the eyepieces should have enough eye relief to put the exit pupil at the iris inside the camera lens so that it will fill the field of view of the camera without vignetting (again, I'm using Vixen LV and LVW's that have a pretty consistent 20mm ER.)

Basically, I manually set the camera aperture to f/2 (iris wide open), choose a rough ISO setting (ISO 100 for the moon, or 1600 for Mars/Jupiter/Saturn) and manually set the camera lens focus for infinity.

Holding the camera at the eyepiece, focus the image in the camera using the telescope focusser (the camera's autofocus must be disabled). Once focussed, remove the camera.

In my case the rubber eyecups of the Vixen LV and LVW eyepieces are a neat fit and will hold the LX5 in place without rings.

Last edited by Wavytone; 11-02-2013 at 09:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 11-02-2013, 10:43 PM
ericwbenson (Eric)
Registered User

ericwbenson is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 209
Hi Geoff,
From reading your criteria and comments:
You seem to like the OTA - it provides pleasing views for the public.
The mount is unreliable and must be replaced.

I think the solution is simple...one you have already considered, replace the mount with another fork mount. In this size of telescope the only fork mount to consider is the Mathis MI-500 (MI750 if you think you might upgrade the OTA one day). Yes they are expensive but you get what you pay for and this mount will probably outlast the dome. I am sure Mathis Instruments have made adapter plates for the 16"LX200, it is certainly waaaay within their capability. Otherwise you could get rings from Parallax Instruments to mount to plates which attach to the fork. I bought rings for my C14 and it was no trouble for them to tap both flat mounting sides.

I have a CDK20, unfortunately for you it is 700km from me, and an even longer journey from Sydney. Before moving it into the outback I used it quite a bit from my backyard (~10km from Adelaide CBD). The views thru the eyepiece were excellent. The central obstruction is only a bit larger than a C14 (my previous scope) so diffraction is not a big worry and the correction off axis is far superior, but would a novice notice, not likely. The cost is about 10x what a C14 goes for, is the view 10x better? Certainly not thru an eyepiece (for a camera it's a different story). Seeing did limit high magnification views, but the light grasp for star clusters (which show up ok in the city) is always welcome. Galaxies, except for perhaps two or three, are a write off, but emission and planetary nebula with an OIII filter still makes use of all that aperture, little peashooter refractors can't get close here.

So spend the money on the mount (familiar refrain?), a reliable mount able to point at "invisible in the finder" objects, when people are queued behind you, and then keep it there when somebody slams an elbow or noggin, is the most valuable asset to your program.

As an aside, long ago I worked at a museum too, so I know your criteria. We had to manually find objects in a 15" f/15 refractor (fl 5.7m!!!), and do it quickly, especially in winter since on clear nights it usually dropped below -15C in Ottawa. The mount was a "push to" with a clutch and clock drive, and had settings circles about 4m off the ground (that was a big pier!). You had to know how to star hop and use coordinate offsetting to find anything veiled in the sky glow, how we got by without "goto" will be legend in another generation...

EB
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-05-2013, 04:49 PM
Chris_Erickson
Registered User

Chris_Erickson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Waikoloa, Hawaii
Posts: 1
Just FWIW on an old thread, all of the electronics for the LX200GPS-16 are still available from Meade. I own a LX200GPS-16 and work on a number of others for the Onizuka VIS on Mauna Kea, Windward Community College on Oahu and others. The mounts are solid (I didn't say precise) and the electronics are easy to repair. And a retrofit with Sidereal Technologies or Software Bisque TCS are common. And in 20 years there will certainly be other drive retrofit systems available to upgrade again, when the time comes. There is a lot of space in the big, hollow fork mount for future changes and modifications.

An important upgrade to the Meade worm drives would be to replace the existing lubrication with a 3:1 blend of Lubriplate 105 and Nye Fluorocarbon 868H damping grease. That will reduce friction, wear and noise. This is very similar to the formula currently used by a number of premium mount makers.

The advantage of Alt-Az over polar is that the eyepiece doesn't move around a lot and is more convenient for access by the general public. The Onizuka VIS uses adjustable-friction, rotating 2" SCT thread adapters that allow a standard 2" diagonal to be easily-rotated to different angles for different viewers. They are made by Starizona. I machined a 4" to 3" SCT thread adapter for them so they could use the 3" C14 adapter on their 4" port on their 16.

I would also suggest getting some newer, wide field eyepieces and get rid of the junk eyepieces I looked through on my visit in November. Broken, trash eyepieces give trash views. What an embarrassment.

And it would be nice if someone were to invest in getting the mechanical drive system repaired on the Schroeder refractor. It likely only needs to have its mechanism cleaned and relubricated but apparently it ground to a halt about ten years ago and still isn't fixed? What a shame. There are probably at least ten camera repairmen in Sydney that would be perfectly-capable of repairing that clock mechanism. Another option would be to put a simple gearhead servo motor and microcontroller directly on the RA worm gear and bypass the old clock mechanism. That could be done with minimal modification to the mount and would likely be fully-reversible in the future, if desired.

It would also be nice if the docents had a proper foundation in astronomy. For example, have them stop telling the public that meteors burn up because of friction. It is the rapid compression of gas in front of the object. PV=nRT.

I am a consulting observatory engineer that works for the observatories on Mauna Kea and others around the world. The Sydney Observatory is an incredible, historic observatory that with a few fixes and improvements, could be doing fantastic outreach. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening right now.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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 05:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astrophotography Prize
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement