Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Solar Filter for Celestron Nexstar 5SE

Celestron accessories optics solar
  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Kelley123

Kelley123

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 14 May 2014

Posted 20 March 2015 - 10:45 AM

Does anyone have recommendations or advice to help me find a solar filter for my Celestron Nexstar 5SE?

What qualities make a good solar filter?  And of the filters with those qualities, which ones will fit a Nextstar 5SE?

Thanks!



#2 paul hart

paul hart

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1757
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2004
  • Loc: 50 M East of NYC

Posted 20 March 2015 - 11:54 AM

The Baader film is excellent. You can buy an 8" x 8" sheet for around 18 bucks and make your own here:

 

http://www.amazon.co...ader solar film

 

Or you can buy ones ready made for your scope at various dealers for a bit more. The Baader film is top rated by just about everyone.


  • DaveJ and Eddgie like this

#3 DaveJ

DaveJ

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2005
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 20 March 2015 - 02:49 PM

The Baader film is excellent. You can buy an 8" x 8" sheet for around 18 bucks and make your own here:

http://www.amazon.co...ader solar film

Or you can buy ones ready made for your scope at various dealers for a bit more. The Baader film is top rated by just about everyone.

Paul definitely speaks the truth, here. A very enthusiastic +1 to his suggestions.



#4 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23530
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 20 March 2015 - 03:34 PM

Yes, the Baader film is excellent,

 

And while you can make your own, a premade one is actually pretty inexpensive, and my concern for the homemade filter is that it has to be on so tight that it cannot come off if bumped or a wind gust takes it off.

The premade filters have nylon screws that allow for very secure attachment.  

 

If you make one, must make sure that it satisfies that criterion.  It has to be held one very securely.

 


  • paul hart likes this

#5 Kelley123

Kelley123

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 14 May 2014

Posted 29 March 2015 - 05:58 PM

Thank you for your replies!
Do you have advice for DIY and pre-made solar filters?

#6 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 28 November 2018 - 04:28 PM

Just asked the same question in another thread:

 

https://www.cloudyni...ries/?p=8976136

 

Has anyone used an AstroZap filter on the 5SE?  How did it work out?  Is it a secure fit?



#7 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 28 November 2018 - 06:15 PM

I haven't heard back from AstroZap, but I talked to High Point Scientific, and they said there is a possibility that the dovetail bar on the Nexstar 5SE may prevent a secure fit with the AstroZap filter.  High Point recommended to use the Baader ASSF instead.  Here are the three true-color white-light neutral-density film filters sized for the 152-mm tube of the 5SE:

 

https://www.highpoin...filter-assf130/

 

https://www.highpoin...filter-astf120/

 

https://www.highpoin...copes-az1002-1/

 

Note that the clear aperture on the Baader ASTF is only 120 mm, whereas the aperture of the 5SE is 125 mm, so for the Baader filters, the ASSF (130-mm aperture) will provide a better view since it can use the full aperture of the 5SE.


Edited by Nicole Sharp, 28 November 2018 - 06:18 PM.


#8 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 28 November 2018 - 06:21 PM

I still think I like the AstroZap design better though.  If anyone has used an AstroZap film filter for the Nexstar 5SE, let me know if it works.


Edited by Nicole Sharp, 28 November 2018 - 06:27 PM.


#9 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 28 November 2018 - 06:52 PM

The Baader ASSF looks way more complicated to use than the AstroZap version.  And I don't like the idea of gluing Velcro onto the 5SE OTA.  Has anyone used the Baader ASSF 130 without the Velcro?  Is that safe?

 

https://baader-plane...02_v1_3_WEB.pdf


Edited by Nicole Sharp, 28 November 2018 - 06:52 PM.


#10 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 28 November 2018 - 08:37 PM

Found another one, but the clear aperture is stopped down to 70 mm, so not really my top choice:

 

https://www.agenaast...lar-filter.html

 

The depth is listed as 17 mm, which appears to be thinner than the AstroZap design so hopefully would avoid the dovetail bar.  But it's been discontinued so not really an option.  I did see that B&H also had a discontinued Solar filter for the 5SE, apparently from Celestron:

 

https://www.bhphotov...er_for_the.html

 

That also appears to be using a thin design like Agena, presumably to avoid the dovetail bar.

 

Does anyone know what the distance is between the end of the dovetail bar and the edge of the OTA on the Nexstar 5SE?


Edited by Nicole Sharp, 28 November 2018 - 08:41 PM.


#11 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 29 November 2018 - 01:32 AM

Found another AstroZap-style filter.  Not sure if it is any thinner.

 

https://www.bhphotov...able_white.html

 

https://www.bhphotov...lar_filter.html



#12 Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: UK

Posted 29 November 2018 - 07:11 AM

Does anyone have recommendations or advice to help me find a solar filter for my Celestron Nexstar 5SE?

What qualities make a good solar filter?  And of the filters with those qualities, which ones will fit a Nextstar 5SE?

Thanks!

1. Everyone will recommend a Baader filter.

 

 

2. However, I am also in the process of buying a solar filter for my Vixen VMC 110L (110 mm aperture, 125mm tube diameter).

 

I will not buy a Baader filter because it comes without a filter frame.

 

3. Also I wouldn't trust a thin sheet of material (one solution would be to use two layers).

 

 

I will buy a glass filter. I haven't seen any evidence that a glass filter is inferior although the internet is full unsubstantiated anecdotes. This reminds me of the unsubstantiated claims that one cannot use an obstructed telescope for planetary work.



#13 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23530
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 29 November 2018 - 08:32 AM

1. Everyone will recommend a Baader filter.

 

 

2. However, I am also in the process of buying a solar filter for my Vixen VMC 110L (110 mm aperture, 125mm tube diameter).

 

I will not buy a Baader filter because it comes without a filter frame.

 

3. Also I wouldn't trust a thin sheet of material (one solution would be to use two layers).

 

 

I will buy a glass filter. I haven't seen any evidence that a glass filter is inferior although the internet is full unsubstantiated anecdotes. This reminds me of the unsubstantiated claims that one cannot use an obstructed telescope for planetary work.

Well, an un-substantiated claim would be one that was made by someone that has never used both an compared them.

 

I have used glass filter, and I have used Baader filters, and a great many people on CN have used both glass and Baader film.

 

If you take the time to read these comparisons you will find that by a very very large margin, people will say the Baader gives a much better view.

 

I used glass filters for years and finally because so many people recommended them, I eventually tried a Baader filter and the difference was easy to see. 

 

Use what you want, but the Baader Solar Film produces a much higher contrast view.   A wedge is even better, but the OP can't use a wedge (you could though, and that is what I would recommend to you as being the very best way to do solar white light with a refractor.)

 

And secondary obstructions do lower contrast.   Kept small (20%) it is hard to see, but when the obstruction gets big (33%) the effect on contrast is discernible.  That is physics.   Nothing un-substantiated about that at all.  Physics is always right. 



#14 Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: UK

Posted 29 November 2018 - 10:15 AM

Well, an un-substantiated claim would be one that was made by someone that has never used both an compared them.

 

I have used glass filter, and I have used Baader filters, and a great many people on CN have used both glass and Baader film.

 

If you take the time to read these comparisons you will find that by a very very large margin, people will say the Baader gives a much better view.

 

I used glass filters for years and finally because so many people recommended them, I eventually tried a Baader filter and the difference was easy to see. 

 

Use what you want, but the Baader Solar Film produces a much higher contrast view.   A wedge is even better, but the OP can't use a wedge (you could though, and that is what I would recommend to you as being the very best way to do solar white light with a refractor.)

 

And secondary obstructions do lower contrast.   Kept small (20%) it is hard to see, but when the obstruction gets big (33%) the effect on contrast is discernible.  That is physics.   Nothing un-substantiated about that at all.  Physics is always right. 

1. This is slightly off topic. The obstruction topic is different in nature (because one could always go for a larger aperture).

 

I cannot resist. Posting #212 here:

 

https://www.cloudyni...et-scope/page-9

 

 

2. Coming back to the solar filter.

 

For me it will be a glass filter first.

 

Even it were true the Baader filter is better (I haven't seen any consistent evidence except random reports in newsgroups) I still wouldn't feel comfortable with a flimsy sheet. But this is just me (I must also admit I haven't seen any evidence that the Baader film is unsafe or that anyone went blind or that it failed on observers).


Edited by Magnetic Field, 29 November 2018 - 10:20 AM.


#15 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 29 November 2018 - 02:13 PM

Some good news and some bad news.  Astrozap confirmed that their Solar film filter may not fit securely on the 5SE, and that the Baader ASSF 130 would be safer to use.  However, Astrozap is working on making notched Solar film filters (like they currently have for the 6SE) for both the 5SE and the 8SE starting next year (2019), so with any luck, they should be available in time for the November 2019 Mercury transit.  I really like the Astrozap filter I have now for my Newtonian, and I don't particularly like how the Baader version works, so I think I might just wait until Astrozap comes out with a notched 5SE filter next year, hopefully with enough time to do some practice runs for the Mercury transit.  Just a bit disappointed, since I specifically got the 5SE for full-disc Solar/Lunar imaging, but better to wait and get a filter that is easier to use.  I'm also worried about the design of the Baader, in that it doesn't appear to be light-tight.  Not only could that be a problem with ambient light during imaging, but if I pointed the telescope away from Sol, I would be concerned about unfiltered sunlight making it inside the OTA through the side of the filter if it could reflect off the inside of the film.

 

If anyone has actually tried the Astrozap or Baader filters on the 5SE, would love to hear any user feedback.


Edited by Nicole Sharp, 29 November 2018 - 02:24 PM.


#16 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 29 November 2018 - 02:27 PM

1. Everyone will recommend a Baader filter.

 

 

2. However, I am also in the process of buying a solar filter for my Vixen VMC 110L (110 mm aperture, 125mm tube diameter).

 

I will not buy a Baader filter because it comes without a filter frame.

 

3. Also I wouldn't trust a thin sheet of material (one solution would be to use two layers).

 

 

I will buy a glass filter. I haven't seen any evidence that a glass filter is inferior although the internet is full unsubstantiated anecdotes. This reminds me of the unsubstantiated claims that one cannot use an obstructed telescope for planetary work.

You cannot stack Solar film filters.  I forgot the technical explanation, but it's one of those things you apparently aren't supposed to do.



#17 Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: UK

Posted 29 November 2018 - 02:38 PM

You cannot stack Solar film filters.  I forgot the technical explanation, but it's one of those things you apparently aren't supposed to do.

I know a Baader filter sheet doesn't come cheap.

 

Maybe someone here wants to test the waters and  report back if the visual image will degrade with a double layer of said filter sheet.

 

One thing I could think of: the image gets too dim?



#18 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 29 November 2018 - 02:51 PM

I know a Baader filter sheet doesn't come cheap.

 

Maybe someone here wants to test the waters and  report back if the visual image will degrade with a double layer of said filter sheet.

 

One thing I could think of: the image gets too dim?

Like I said, I forgot the actual explanation (I would have to google it again), but I think it is actually a safety concern.  You should not touch a film filter, and if you are building your own film filter, it should not be made taut.  The film is supposed to be slightly wrinkled in order to work properly and safely.  Stacking filters I think would create a risk of damaging one or both of them.


Edited by Nicole Sharp, 29 November 2018 - 03:09 PM.


#19 Cajundaddy

Cajundaddy

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2016
  • Loc: Cucamonga CA

Posted 29 November 2018 - 04:10 PM

 

 

For me it will be a glass filter first.

 

Even it were true the Baader filter is better (I haven't seen any consistent evidence except random reports in newsgroups) I still wouldn't feel comfortable with a flimsy sheet. But this is just me (I must also admit I haven't seen any evidence that the Baader film is unsafe or that anyone went blind or that it failed on observers).

Lots of misconceptions around solar filters.  I am one of those crazy eclipse chasers and have a bunch of different filters in different sizes, different materials, some commercially produced and some I crafted on my own with film.  I offer no scientific comparisons, just one experienced observer with many hours of use.  

 

All filters need to be carefully inspected before each use to make sure they have no scratches or pinholes that may let in unfiltered light.  This is true with both glass and film types.  All need to be mounted in a way that they cannot come off accidentally while your eye is at the eyepiece.

 

My impressions:

 

Thousand Oaks glass filter on my C8  $120

Likes- Good fit and finish, attaches firmly, reveals sunspots and eclipse phases well, amber color to the sun which looks natural to my eyes.  No eye discomfort even in long sessions.

Dislikes- Kinda heavy and if you drop it, it breaks.  Not nearly as much granular surface detail as Baader filters.

 

Thousand Oaks film filter on my C90  $59

Same viewing as above but very light weight

 

Baader Film Filter both commercially mounted and home mounted  $20-$40

 Likes- Bright white light, reveals sunspots, eclipse phases, and lots of surface granularity, higher resolution and better detail for photography.

 

Dislikes- Sometimes on long sessions I do feel some eye discomfort so for visual work I use a yellow filter to further filter UV light. 

 

Bottom line:  I like both and use both.  For max resolution and photography, always Baader film.

 

YMMV  


Edited by Cajundaddy, 29 November 2018 - 04:24 PM.


#20 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 29 November 2018 - 04:33 PM

Lots of misconceptions around solar filters.  I am one of those crazy eclipse chasers and have a bunch of different filters in different sizes, different materials, some commercially produced and some I crafted on my own with film.  I offer no scientific comparisons, just one experienced observer with many hours of use.  

 

All filters need to be carefully inspected before each use to make sure they have no scratches or pinholes that may let in unfiltered light.  This is true with both glass and film types.  All need to be mounted in a way that they cannot come off accidentally while your eye is at the eyepiece.

 

My impressions:

 

Thousand Oaks glass filter on my C8  $120

Likes- Good fit and finish, attaches firmly, reveals sunspots and eclipse phases well, amber color to the sun which looks natural to my eyes.  No eye discomfort even in long sessions.

Dislikes- Kinda heavy and if you drop it, it breaks.  Not nearly as much granular surface detail as Baader filters.

 

Thousand Oaks film filter on my C90  $59

Same viewing as above but very light weight

 

Baader Film Filter both commercially mounted and home mounted  $20-$40

 Likes- Bright white light, reveals sunspots, eclipse phases, and lots of surface granularity, higher resolution and better detail for photography.

 

Dislikes- Sometimes on long sessions I do feel some eye discomfort so for visual work I use a yellow filter to further filter UV light. 

 

Bottom line:  I like both and use both.  For max resolution and photography, always Baader film.

 

YMMV  

 

I think I read somewhere that you should look away from the telescope at least once every 3 minutes or so when using Baader AstroSolar film (if you think that sounds bad, then remember that you should also take breaks when staring at a computer screen for too long).  But it is very good for photography.


Edited by Nicole Sharp, 29 November 2018 - 04:46 PM.

  • Magnetic Field likes this

#21 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 29 November 2018 - 05:21 PM

Can anyone verify what is the actual distance between the end of the dovetail bar and the edge of the OTA for a Nexstar 5SE OTA?  Celestron claims it is 1.3 inches, but it does not look like 1.3 inches in this photograph:

 

https://cdn.shopify...._570x380@2x.jpg

 

The tube is listed as being 13 inches long.  So the distance then should be 1/10 of the net tube length if it is 1.3 inches.  So maybe with the perspective of the angle, that actually is 1.3 inches in the photograph.

 

This is the C5 from a better angle, but not sure if the C5 dimensions are the same as the 5SE (though they are both listed as being 13 inches long):

 

https://cdn.shopify...._570x380@2x.jpg


Edited by Nicole Sharp, 29 November 2018 - 05:23 PM.


#22 Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: UK

Posted 30 November 2018 - 02:05 AM

Lots of misconceptions around solar filters.  I am one of those crazy eclipse chasers and have a bunch of different filters in different sizes, different materials, some commercially produced and some I crafted on my own with film.  I offer no scientific comparisons, just one experienced observer with many hours of use.  

 

All filters need to be carefully inspected before each use to make sure they have no scratches or pinholes that may let in unfiltered light.  This is true with both glass and film types.  All need to be mounted in a way that they cannot come off accidentally while your eye is at the eyepiece.

 

My impressions:

 

Thousand Oaks glass filter on my C8  $120

Likes- Good fit and finish, attaches firmly, reveals sunspots and eclipse phases well, amber color to the sun which looks natural to my eyes.  No eye discomfort even in long sessions.

Dislikes- Kinda heavy and if you drop it, it breaks.  Not nearly as much granular surface detail as Baader filters.

 

Thousand Oaks film filter on my C90  $59

Same viewing as above but very light weight

 

Baader Film Filter both commercially mounted and home mounted  $20-$40

 Likes- Bright white light, reveals sunspots, eclipse phases, and lots of surface granularity, higher resolution and better detail for photography.

 

Dislikes- Sometimes on long sessions I do feel some eye discomfort so for visual work I use a yellow filter to further filter UV light. 

 

Bottom line:  I like both and use both.  For max resolution and photography, always Baader film.

 

YMMV  

After a hiatus of 18 years or so I now again own a telescope.

 

But even going further back in time. I can remember when I was teenager a poor mens solar filter was a ,,blanket sheet from a first aid kit". I can remember I raided my mothers first aid kit and used the gold-coloured blanket (it is similar to a Baader solar filter sheet). I never felt safe and only used it twice before persuading my mother to contribute to my funds to buy me a glass filter (I had a glass filter  for my 4" Vixen f/10 achromat when I was a teenager and later when I bought one when I was a PhD student in physics for my ETX-90).

 

I cannot remember if the Baader filter sheets were around 25 years ago or so. I am not sure but maybe I had a sample at that time.

 

Anyway, I always had a quick check of the glass filter before sticking it on to the optical tube.



#23 Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: UK

Posted 30 November 2018 - 04:08 AM

I think I read somewhere that you should look away from the telescope at least once every 3 minutes or so when using Baader AstroSolar film (if you think that sounds bad, then remember that you should also take breaks when staring at a computer screen for too long).  But it is very good for photography.

1. Funny enough some people wouldn't trust a glass filter in terms of safety and rather go for the Baader sheet:

 

https://www.cloudyni...ilter-opinions/

 

 

2.This one is interesting (I reckon a lot must have changed since 2001 though):

 

https://groups.yahoo...s/messages/6863

 

Full citation and giving credit to the  source (see link above):

 

==

Baader Solar filter safety

 

Aug 2001

 

Hi Astro-Folks,

 

I would like to discuss a subject that comes up quite often - how safe is the
Baader film, and what about pinholes.

 

The film has been tested for transmission of energy from UV into the far
infrared, and does meet all criteria for a safe solar filter. Nevertheless,
we get film sent back to us by individuals who question the effectiveness of
the filter. There are two reasons people send the film back. One is that the
image of the sun appears too bright, and the other that they can see pinholes
when the film is held up to a strong light, or when they remove the eyepiece
and look directly down the tube at the lens when the scope is pointed to the
sun.

 

The reason the image might appear too bright is that the customer is using a
very low power - usually when the filter is used with a "shorty" refractror
at 20x - 40x. There is no way to make the image dimmer at that power and also
make the filter useable for medium to high power studies of disc detail. The
answer is to use a neutral density filter of ND1 to ND1.8. These are
available at most photo supply stores. We can supply a 48mm version from
Baader that will thread into our Maxbright, or they can be threaded directly
into our 2" to 1.25" adapter. By the way, using the Maxbright adds another
measure of safety to the solar image because the multiple oxide layers do not
transmit energy below 750 nm, so there is essentially no IR energy
transmitted to the eye. This is on top of the reduction in IR that the Baader
film produces.

 

Pinholes are the second reason people send their film back. Even though the
utmost care is taken to provide a pinhole free filter, it is impossible to
screen out every pinhole. This is a problem with all filters, glass included.
How dangerous are pinholes? Recently a customer sent his film back because he
had one eye with a detached retina, and did not dare to risk his other good
eye on a possible defective filter. He could see pinholes when the scope was
aimed at the sun, and he looked directly into his diagonal with the eyepiece
removed. His opthamologist examined the filter, and felt that the pinholes
would be unsafe. In fact, if you ask any opthamologist if there is such a
thing as a safe solar filter, the vast majority would say absolutely NO! For
this particular individual, we will advise that if he feels in the least
unsure, then he should NOT look thru this filter, (or any other) at the sun.
However, let's explore what pinholes do, and how they may transmit solar
energy to the eye.

 

Pinholes at the lens end by themselves do not transmit any sort of image to
the eyepiece. Instead, they scatter light in all directions, and a very very
tiny amount of this light reaches the eyepiece entrance aperture as a diffuse
and even illumination. The vast majority of a pinhole's energy goes every
which way to faintly illuminate the walls, baffles, focuser parts etc. of the
tube in an even, diffuse glow. If you were to somehow cut out all the light
that the filter transmits directly to the eyepiece and retain only the light
from pinholes, you would see NO solar image at the eyepiece, but only a faint
background. There is NO focused image of the sun to burn a hole in your
retina, just a faint background light. This light is many times fainter than
the actual image produced by the rest of the filter. The net effect is to
reduce the contrast ever so slightly by filling in the dark areas of sunspots
with faint illumination. Finally, pinholes can be dabbed out with a spot of
paint, or with a black marker.

 

To reduce the chance that your filter will develop pinholes, be sure not to
handle the surface, and do not stretch it tightly over your filter cell.

 

Roland Christen

==



#24 Nicole Sharp

Nicole Sharp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America

Posted 30 November 2018 - 05:36 AM

1. Funny enough some people wouldn't trust a glass filter in terms of safety and rather go for the Baader sheet:

 

https://www.cloudyni...ilter-opinions/

 

 

2.This one is interesting (I reckon a lot must have changed since 2001 though):

 

https://groups.yahoo...s/messages/6863

 

Full citation and giving credit to the  source (see link above):

 

==

Baader Solar filter safety

 

Aug 2001

 

Hi Astro-Folks,

 

I would like to discuss a subject that comes up quite often - how safe is the
Baader film, and what about pinholes.

 

The film has been tested for transmission of energy from UV into the far
infrared, and does meet all criteria for a safe solar filter. Nevertheless,
we get film sent back to us by individuals who question the effectiveness of
the filter. There are two reasons people send the film back. One is that the
image of the sun appears too bright, and the other that they can see pinholes
when the film is held up to a strong light, or when they remove the eyepiece
and look directly down the tube at the lens when the scope is pointed to the
sun.

 

The reason the image might appear too bright is that the customer is using a
very low power - usually when the filter is used with a "shorty" refractror
at 20x - 40x. There is no way to make the image dimmer at that power and also
make the filter useable for medium to high power studies of disc detail. The
answer is to use a neutral density filter of ND1 to ND1.8. These are
available at most photo supply stores. We can supply a 48mm version from
Baader that will thread into our Maxbright, or they can be threaded directly
into our 2" to 1.25" adapter. By the way, using the Maxbright adds another
measure of safety to the solar image because the multiple oxide layers do not
transmit energy below 750 nm, so there is essentially no IR energy
transmitted to the eye. This is on top of the reduction in IR that the Baader
film produces.

 

Pinholes are the second reason people send their film back. Even though the
utmost care is taken to provide a pinhole free filter, it is impossible to
screen out every pinhole. This is a problem with all filters, glass included.
How dangerous are pinholes? Recently a customer sent his film back because he
had one eye with a detached retina, and did not dare to risk his other good
eye on a possible defective filter. He could see pinholes when the scope was
aimed at the sun, and he looked directly into his diagonal with the eyepiece
removed. His opthamologist examined the filter, and felt that the pinholes
would be unsafe. In fact, if you ask any opthamologist if there is such a
thing as a safe solar filter, the vast majority would say absolutely NO! For
this particular individual, we will advise that if he feels in the least
unsure, then he should NOT look thru this filter, (or any other) at the sun.
However, let's explore what pinholes do, and how they may transmit solar
energy to the eye.

 

Pinholes at the lens end by themselves do not transmit any sort of image to
the eyepiece. Instead, they scatter light in all directions, and a very very
tiny amount of this light reaches the eyepiece entrance aperture as a diffuse
and even illumination. The vast majority of a pinhole's energy goes every
which way to faintly illuminate the walls, baffles, focuser parts etc. of the
tube in an even, diffuse glow. If you were to somehow cut out all the light
that the filter transmits directly to the eyepiece and retain only the light
from pinholes, you would see NO solar image at the eyepiece, but only a faint
background. There is NO focused image of the sun to burn a hole in your
retina, just a faint background light. This light is many times fainter than
the actual image produced by the rest of the filter. The net effect is to
reduce the contrast ever so slightly by filling in the dark areas of sunspots
with faint illumination. Finally, pinholes can be dabbed out with a spot of
paint, or with a black marker.

 

To reduce the chance that your filter will develop pinholes, be sure not to
handle the surface, and do not stretch it tightly over your filter cell.

 

Roland Christen

==

 

That's not a bad idea.  If the image appears too bright, you can dim it using a neutral-density Lunar filter.  That could help with scrutinizing small details too perhaps, same as with Lunar observing.


Edited by Nicole Sharp, 30 November 2018 - 05:36 AM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Celestron, accessories, optics, solar



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics