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

Uranus and it's Ring

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 ags55

ags55

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Rubyvale, Qld, Australia

Posted 10 January 2017 - 01:06 AM

Several alterations to my system were made to improve the chances of another Uranus ring capture, these included swapping the 1.25" 5x TV Powermate with a 0.8x Focal reducer for a 2" 4x TV Powermate without a Focal reducer the idea being that less glass may reduce glare. The 685nm filter was used instead of the 610nm also to help reduce glare and a repaint of flat black inside the scope to also prevent any stray reflections. Waiting for another night of excellent seeing is often fruitless however the seeing gods must have thought after nearly a month had gone by it was my time again. The camera was rotated 15° from the previous position and particular attention was paid to the histogram level making sure it was about 90% but never went over 100%. An animated gif can be seen here  http://www.acquerra....A-685-blink.gif  kindly produced & provided by Anthony Wesley on his web page, however I suggest you may find it helpful to first try finding the ring which is both faint and narrow  .Using these techniques with precise collimation and careful focusing I look forward to another capture if and when the seeing gods co-operate.
Regards, Phil

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2017-01-09-0952_9-PMRQA-685.png

  • Bart Declercq, MvZ, John Boudreau and 8 others like this

#2 neilphillips

neilphillips

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 118
  • Joined: 13 May 2016

Posted 10 January 2017 - 02:48 AM

38 views and no congrats. Looks sound to me congratualtions



#3 ags55

ags55

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Rubyvale, Qld, Australia

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:14 AM

38 views and no congrats. Looks sound to me congratualtions

Thanks Neil, no pretty pictures and most folks don't realise how difficult it is so I'm not surprised. The pleasure is in the capture and a feeling of accomplishment when you get your quarry.



#4 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11513
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:16 AM

Another valiant effort Phil :waytogo: ...unfortunately & with the greatest respect, there is no correlation whatsoever between the JPL-simulation & anything in your image remotely near or like Uranus' rings! :(

Here's the JPL-simulation for the time in your image & your coordinates at Rubyvale Queensland...I'm not infallible but I find it difficult to see what's there of any consequence! ;)

JPL-Sim_UranusRubyvale9thJan09-52-54.jpg

Note the 2 brightest moons in your image (Titania & Ariel) are roughly where they should be in your image...

However by scaling the JPL-sim appropriately (110%) & re-orienting the JPL-sim 14° CCW to align on either Titania or Ariel it produces these 2 optional outcomes for you...but neither of them depict anything at all unfortunately! :(



NewRingClaimJan9th2017-ArielAligned.png

NewRingClaimJan9th2017-TitaniaAligned.png

EDIT: apologies, it was about 50 minutes after Sunset..still quite amazing btw because it is still quite bright at this time of the year in Rubyvale. (& Adelaide)

 

ScreenHunter_2418 Jan. 10 20.28.jpg
 


Edited by Kokatha man, 10 January 2017 - 05:23 AM.


#5 neilphillips

neilphillips

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 118
  • Joined: 13 May 2016

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:57 AM

I assumed the simulation was correct this time ? and broad daylight, how can that be ? I await further discussion

this needs to be either verified or put to bed.



#6 Traveler

Traveler

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2514
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:15 AM

When it is not the ring, what else could it be round Phil's picture?



#7 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11513
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:19 AM

Hi Neil...in case anyone needs a bit better idea of the time of day/night Phil took this image here's the full WinJupos readout for UT 09:52.9 (ie, 09:52:54) for Rubyvale...

 

A correspondent to me has suggested lens flare as a probable reason for that funny little artefact that Phil & Anthony think is a ring segment...it might sound silly, but with the Sun hardly too far below the horizon (only 51 minutes) this idea of "lens flare" has a fair amount of "currency" tbh..! :hmm:

 

EDIT: Apologies here also - it was about 50 minutes after Sunset... quite amazing given that this time of the year it is very light at that time...lens flare still has considerable currency as a possible reason... :thinking:

 

There are certainly no rings to be seen using the correct JPL-simulation! :( 

 

ScreenHunter_2425 Jan. 10 20.51.jpg

 

 

 

 


Edited by Kokatha man, 10 January 2017 - 05:21 AM.


#8 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11513
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:49 AM

...just a clarifying addendum to my earlier posts - you can align the JPL-simulation on Ariel in Phil's image or you can align it on Titania...but you cannot align it on both these moons at the same time!!!

Also, it matters not which moon you use in the JPL-simulation overlay to align with their image.....doing it either way does NOT align with that very strange-looking artefact - which can't possibly be the rings!

If you look at my images above you will notice that the JPL overlay's planet & rings do not align with that weird "loop" in Phil's image...regardless of which moon you choose to use.....this "loop" can be seen underneath the JPL image of the rings etc as a black "loop" which isn't anywhere near the JPL ring position!

This should be understandable Traveler...btw, anyone can find the coordinates of Rubyvale Queensland as per my WinJupos screenshot (or look them up for themselves) & punch these co-ords into the Uranus 2.9 software for a JPl-simulation image here:

http://pds-rings.set...iewer2_ura.html

...just obtain the readout (there is a "Help" page btw) & rescale this image readout as well as re-orientate it & try to paste it on top of Phil's image...good luck with this btw!

In P/shop for instance you use the "Difference" blend mode when you paste Phil's image onto your JPL-sim readout to see both Phil & the JPL-sim images at the same time...then use the "move" tool by clicking on this tool to move the JPL-sim around on Phil's image. (for the amounts of re-scaling & re-orientation of the JPL-sim image you can try the values in my comments in Post #4 above or experiment if you wish to waste some time! ;) )

This is how you align both layers as shown in Phil & my images...but unfortunately you will need more than good luck...you cannot do it as Anthony's link that Phil provides seems to! :(

Edited by Kokatha man, 10 January 2017 - 05:50 AM.


#9 MvZ

MvZ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:04 AM

I'm guessing your alignment examples are way off, Darryl, as Uranus is actually right in the middle of the over-exposed image and the hint of the rings will be at the right position then - as indicated by the blink animation.

 

I don't know the simulator you are using, but perhaps (likely) it doesn't take into account light travel time to Earth, in which case you should subtract about 2 hours and 45 minutes from the observation time and feed that time to the simulator.

 

Edit; and/or what KiwiRay says ;)


Edited by MvZ, 10 January 2017 - 10:15 AM.


#10 KiwiRay

KiwiRay

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2015
  • Loc: Seattle, USA

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:07 AM

Darryl, why are you scaling by 110%?  Scale up a little more, and they line up just fine (I checked myself). (I have insufficient expertise to comment on whether what's seen is actually the rings.)



#11 Eltanin

Eltanin

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 22 May 2011

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:35 PM

I would like to submit my own take on Phil and Anthony´s image, since I do think they have a point.

 

Here is the original image, open in WinJupos, and with all the sats aligned.

 

WinJupos_screen_Uranus.jpg

 

Here are the WinJupos derotated image (South up), side by side with the JPL simulation, also derotated and resized to align both.

The spot over the rings, in the simulated image, indicates the Epsilon ring periapsis.

 

2017-01-09-0952_9-PMRQA-IR_685_1.jpg

 

The position of the rings seems to match correctly. The broader and brigther ansae, should be opposite to Miranda, and this, too, seems to be the case, even as it is not a clearly defined ansae.

 

On this matter I woud argument that, since we possibly are at the very limits for this class of equipment (amateur telescopes I mean), we *will* suffer from some kind of "Galileo telescope viewing the rings of Saturn" situation, as, for example, can be seen in Damian Peach´s 2015 image, with just a broadening of the disc of Uranus in the just the corret position (here: https://scontent.fmg...19&oe=591E9643)

 

The conclusion? Well, imo, we need more data, but seems to me that Phil and Anthony scored this one, and Darryl´s criticism points to the uncertainties present.

 

Will move on trying.


  • R Botero likes this

#12 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11513
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:58 PM

I'm guessing your alignment examples are way off, Darryl, as Uranus is actually right in the middle of the over-exposed image and the hint of the rings will be at the right position then - as indicated by the blink animation.
 
I don't know the simulator you are using, but perhaps (likely) it doesn't take into account light travel time to Earth, in which case you should subtract about 2 hours and 45 minutes from the observation time and feed that time to the simulator. 
Edit; and/or what KiwiRay says ;)

  

Darryl, why are you scaling by 110%?  Scale up a little more, and they line up just fine (I checked myself). (I have insufficient expertise to comment on whether what's seen is actually the rings.)


Ok - first up I'll respond to Emil & Ray on what is an important debate & should have the hard questions asked - & that applies to me just as much as Phil & Tony! :waytogo:

Ray first.....because Emil bounces back to an "and/or" option for Ray's question in his later edit.

Ray: I've just got up & it's early so I might've made an error doing this just then & half-asleep still...

I've rescaled the JPL-sim 110%...115%...120% with the aforementioned 14° CCW rotation...

It makes NO difference to the ability to align either Ariel or Titania with Phil's image displaying these 2 moons. (the brightest & most reliable btw) It cannot be achieved to advance these ring claims.

Emil: your comments are irrelevant. (meaning not valid :) )

Firstly, you can easily see <"what simulator I'm using"> because all you have to do is look at my post & read it ;)...it is the 1st image in my 1st post!

The JPL-sim gives the appearance & orientation of Uranus, its' rings & moons from planet Earth.

Your comments about <"Uranus is actually right in the middle of the over-exposed image"> is completely incorrect btw...not only does over-exposing the planet with the very heavy processing create an asymmetrical image in this position making "right in the middle" somewhat indeterminable & most unscientific, it is without argument that it is the moons that need aligning to reveal the planet & rings real positioning - Anthony has reiterated this himself btw, but it is a basic fact regardless! ;)

I've used the exact parameters in the software data-entry form as Anthony with these additional comments.

Anthony originally used a -23°... 150°west ... 0 elevation JPL-sim in the original claim...you can see whatever co-ords are used at the bottom of the JPL-sim in the image I refer to here: this is probably because there is a glitch in the program which does not allow for E longitude co-ords.

Later JPL-sims used "Earth-centre" views of Uranus etc.....this is of no consequence, or to quote the JPL-sim webpage <"After each observatory's name, you will see listed its latitude and east longitude in degrees, followed by its altitude in meters. Note that only very rarely will a diagram change significantly based on the particular location of an Earth-based observatory.">

"very rarely" does not have any significance here btw - I have run several Earth positions including Earth-centre, overlaid each onto the other & the planet & rings are in exactly the same positions.....only the texts alter slightly as would be the case - no difference in moon positions OR planet & rings!

Also, the ring choice (6-Epsilon or Alpha Epsilon) is identical. (read the JPL-help page)

Almir's later post as I am typing this should also be addressed:

You have introduced WinJupos into the equation which neither Anthony or myself have so far...nothing wrong with that except it is the planet & rings wrt the moons that is the salient aspect & unfortunately WJ does not display the ring orientation: displaying the WJ & JPL views side-by-side has a limited additional value but both random & systematic error functions are issues here. (apologies for getting fairly technical here my friend)

However, your last statement is both apposite & diplomatic even if I might suggest your personal belief re Phil's efforts is most debatable - but you did say "it seems to me" so I certainly cannot criticise that per se! :lol:

On that matter, whatever anyone "thinks" or otherwise, we are all fallible - including me - but such claims MUST be most scrupulously & rigorously analysed: apropos Phil's latest image & claims I have to say that "IF" those "ring-objects" are indeed "the real thing" then their clarity & boldness/contrast completely belittle the Pic du Midi images employing 4X the light-grasp for starters.....all I have said & will still divulge, as well as their apparent orientation regardless of their inability to match the aligned JPL-sim images...still makes me doubt that to the extreme! :(

I'll finish for the moment with a 120% rescaling of the JPL-sim with Earth-centred co-ordinates overlaid onto Phil's image.....plus that sim to look at by itself.

I have plenty more to say on this issue as many of you can well imagine :lol: but this is way-enough for one post...more to come but I'd appreciate more questions put to me first :) - now it's back to bed if Pat has kept it warm or else getting up for early-morning gardening duties! :)

NewRingClaimJan9th2017-ArielAlignAlphaEpsEarthCntr120%.png

JPL-simEarthCentred6-Epsilon.png

Edited by Kokatha man, 10 January 2017 - 05:02 PM.


#13 Bird

Bird

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2003
  • Loc: Rubyvale, Australia

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:29 PM

I don't know what you're doing wrong Darryl, but I have no problem getting the template to align. I've attached some images showing how to do this for anyone who wants to try this themselves:

 

- The uranus viewer form showing the values to use, including the time (0952UTC)

  This page is at http://pds-rings.set...iewer2_ura.html

 

- The template that is created from this form (cropped)

 

- The template overlaid on Phils image with a -17 degree rotation to align

 

- The template after a further scale down to 70% of it's original size to match Phils image

 

It seems to align perfectly.

 

cheers, Bird

Attached Thumbnails

  • ss1.png
  • ss2.png
  • ss3.png
  • ss4.png

Edited by Bird, 10 January 2017 - 05:30 PM.

  • Eltanin and happylimpet like this

#14 KiwiRay

KiwiRay

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2015
  • Loc: Seattle, USA

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:30 PM

I'm confused, Darryl.  Is there something special about the 14° CCW rotation?  Anchoring on Ariel in your overlay above, and rotating the JPL image a little more CCW than you did, and it looks like all four moons will line up pretty well.  I must be missing something.


Edited by KiwiRay, 10 January 2017 - 05:30 PM.

  • Eltanin and AstroEthan like this

#15 Eltanin

Eltanin

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 22 May 2011

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:55 PM

I do agree with your observations, of course, Darryl, I thought of it myself, but still, your argument regarding WJ is, indeed, too technical for me.  :bow:

 

Anyway, on the alignment of the satellites beeing impossible, well... they aligned pretty well on my screen.

I did aligned the JPL sim too, centered on Earth:

2017-01-09-0952_9-SIM-IR_685.jpg

So as to compare both in just the same "equatorial" position on WJ. Then a little downsizing and they match pretty well too.

 

Here, in one of those misleading blink comparation - just a tiny sin, since I did show them separated before - so I beg for forgiveness, Sire!  :praying:

2017-01-09-0952_9-PMRQA-IR_685_anim.gif

 

On diplomacy, again, it is better than war, most of the times, even in science.

Let us not forget - and I´m not implying anyone is doing so - amateur astronomy is one - if not THE one - of the few fields where non scientists, without multimillion dotations, just in their backyard, many with self made instruments, everyone with very hard earned expensive ones, freezing (or sweating) their butts CAN GET *that* target, just for... fun.

 

Kind of a lousy, stubborn, emotional (brazilian...) ahn... argument, but...

 

And

 

I

Will

Keep Trying  :waytogo:

 


  • Mirzam and happylimpet like this

#16 Bird

Bird

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2003
  • Loc: Rubyvale, Australia

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:12 PM

EDIT: apologies, it was about 50 minutes after Sunset..still quite amazing btw because it is still quite bright at this time of the year in Rubyvale. (& Adelaide)

 

 

Once again you surprise me with these sort of comments, you should know better than to compare Adelaide (longitude 138E declination 35S) and Rubyvale (longitude 147E declination 23S). There is a large difference between the two locations. Try using stellarium (or the equivalent) and check both of these at 0952UTC on 2017-01-09.

 

Adelaide is about half an hour west of Rubyvale in sun terms, so it's not surprising that Adelaide would still have a brighter sky, but also the twilight at  Adelaides declination -35 is a lot longer than twilight at -23.



#17 MvZ

MvZ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:22 PM

With "I don't know the simulator you are using" I meant I don't know anything about the simulator you were using. I have not used it myself (I think), and don't know how it works. Of course, I can read and learned the name by clicking on the link. I'll add a smiley face now to lighten the mood a bit. Here it comes. :smirk:

 

About the light speed, that was simply a guess from me, because for example the NASA/JPL Solar System simulator (http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/) does not take into account light speed. Even if you say display as seen from earth, the light speed is not taken into account (http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html). I know in Stellarium there is an option that does fix things for you, and I'm sure many other software models are advanced enough that they also can do this, I just know that it is not always the case and 'from earth' doesn't have to mean all that much. I did look at the help of the Uranus Viewer, but couldn't find anything relevant on light speed, so I guess it probably wasn't taken into account.

 

I realize Uranus doesn't necessarily need to be in the center, but there is no way that it is not almost in the center. The fact that you were so far off with your alignment methods made me think you made some alignment mistake. I was merely trying to find possible causes for what appeared to be a clear alignment mistake.

 

p.s. oooooooooh... I so wish it was clear outside again and I had time to do some imaging myself. 


  • Eltanin and happylimpet like this

#18 happylimpet

happylimpet

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2803
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Southampton, UK

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:25 PM

I have to say the alignment seems pretty good to me. Darryl, I think you may be barking up the wrong tree! But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence etc etc etc so why not.

 

Im still a little mystified by why the ring is the only place where there is 'darkness' next to the bright disc, however this may be an artifact of the sharpening.  I would say I'm up to about 60-70% convinced now....but at this rate I think we'll have the clincher soon.

 

Great work Phil and Bird!


  • Eltanin and AstroEthan like this

#19 happylimpet

happylimpet

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2803
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Southampton, UK

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:27 PM

 

About the light speed, that was simply a guess from me, because for example the NASA/JPL Solar System simulator (http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/) does not take into account light speed. Even if you say display as seen from earth, the light speed is not taken into account (http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html). I know in Stellarium there is an option that does fix things for you, and I'm sure many other software models are advanced enough that they also can do this, I just know that it is not always the case and 'from earth' doesn't have to mean all that much. I did look at the help of the Uranus Viewer, but couldn't find anything relevant on light speed, so I guess it probably wasn't taken into account.

Pretty sure the JPL viewers all factor in light speed. I was shocked when I realised that the solar system simulator didnt! Shysters.

 

Thanks for lightening the mood! :waytogo:


Edited by happylimpet, 10 January 2017 - 06:29 PM.

  • Eltanin likes this

#20 zAmbonii

zAmbonii

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2516
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2008
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:40 PM

I'm confused, Darryl.  Is there something special about the 14° CCW rotation?  Anchoring on Ariel in your overlay above, and rotating the JPL image a little more CCW than you did, and it looks like all four moons will line up pretty well.  I must be missing something.

I'm a bit confused also. I have to admit that I haven't read through all of the arguments in the various threads, but the doesn't align up argument seems like some pretty weak tea.

 

Darryl seems to be using a specific rotation, and scaling of the JPL image and his attempts to overlay are failing (only using a up/down/left/right translation fit).  Because it fails for him, he is saying that there is something wrong with the timing or information entered into the JPL simulation.

 

It seems the rest of the ppl here are on the assumption that the information entered into the simulation is correct, but we don't have the *absolute* orientation of the camera, and we don't have an *absolute* image scale (difference in imaging train leading to an unknown image scale).  To get the image to fit correctly, since we have the positions of the moons, scaling the simulation image, and rotating it, you can get an appropriate overlay.

 

I have yet to see a convincing argument on why the method others are overlaying the simulation image is wrong.  If the capture time and place information entered in the JPL simulation was incorrect, then it is likely that Phil and others would not be able to get an alignment of the moons in the overlay to begin with (or it would be a poor match).  That does not seem to be the case.

 

Unfortunately, because it seems that one person cannot (or refuses?) to get an alignment that it seems everyone else can, the discussion gets short circuited over process, instead of discussion of the results.  I think the evidence is convincing of ring detection.  I would rather quibble of that then whether or not something is aligned correctly or not.



#21 MvZ

MvZ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:46 PM

About the light time:

I have asked the author of this - for me - slightly less new tool now, just to be sure.

 

I did wonder before why I didn't get the expected results when I used the space.jpl.nasa.gov, until I read the faq and added an offset to the times I entered. Then the moons were all of a sudden nicely where I recorded them.

 

This time discussion is quite interesting though when you think about it... it's all relative ;) And earth times are especially annoying with the stupid occasional - and impossible to predict - leap-seconds occurring now and then. Who cares if the time drifts a tiny bit... 


Edited by MvZ, 10 January 2017 - 06:47 PM.

  • Eltanin likes this

#22 djhanson

djhanson

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2012

Posted 10 January 2017 - 08:20 PM

I am beginning to think one needs to image for very long durations (1 hr) to adequately detect both sides of the ring (excluding of course very large apertures like the Pic - which showed a superb ring outline IMO).  I just find myself comparing this and the last image to Damian Peach's recent rework from 2015.  I believe Damian imaged for 1 hr or so and I clearly see both sides of the ring signal beyond the periphery noise (albeit a lot of spread which is evident from the satellite trails from such long captures). 

 

At least for me, the Uranus ring litmus test would be the clear detection of both sides of the ring with much greater signal than the outer planetary noise (and of course a JPL overlay would be good for confirmation).  That being said, I'm not 100% confident of ring detection in this latest image.  Phil's latest Jove images were excellent - so I have to think collimation is good and no doubt aperture is there.  The only other nitpicky thing I see is possibly a skosh of trefoil (?) in the brightness of Uranus, which was more prevalent in the first image a few weeks ago.  Damian's image shows a symmetrical rounded-squareness, which I would guess is due to stacking perhaps, but I don't see signs of trefoil. 

 

Anyways, it would be interesting if Phil gets another shot at some better seeing and wondering if longer exposures would better show a two-sided ring.

 

Just my two cents.  :) cheers, DJ


  • Mattpanther and Eltanin like this

#23 Bird

Bird

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2003
  • Loc: Rubyvale, Australia

Posted 10 January 2017 - 08:55 PM

A correspondent to me has suggested lens flare as a probable reason for that funny little artefact that Phil & Anthony think is a ring segment...it might sound silly, but with the Sun hardly too far below the horizon (only 51 minutes) this idea of "lens flare" has a fair amount of "currency" tbh..! :hmm:

 

EDIT: Apologies here also - it was about 50 minutes after Sunset... quite amazing given that this time of the year it is very light at that time...lens flare still has considerable currency as a possible reason... :thinking:

 

 

The "lens flare" question is one that's easy enough to debunk, so lets do that... there are two possible sources of "lens flare" to consider: (1) is a fixed external source (eg a light pole or similar) and (2) light from the central object itself (ie Uranus).

 

If a fixed external source was to blame then we'd see the angle of the "artifact" change over time as the scope tracks across the sky and changes orientation w.r.t to the source. This can be disproved easily enough, as we have about an hours worth of good data from Dec 13 that all show it to be in the same position. Clearly not an external ground source. And there's also the added information that Phil has no close external light sources, and his observatory is fully enclosed.

 

If it were (2), ie light from the target itself, then it would show up on other targets as well, eg Jupiter which is much brighter and would show this "artifact" much more clearly. To test this (and with permission) I've taken one of Phils raw stacked Jupiter images from this morning, recorded with a 700nm longpass filter, and applied the same kind of enhancement as we did with the Uranus images, both wavelets and histogram stretching about the same amount. You can see the attached result, it looks very clean to me.

 

You will need to explain how this "lens flare" shows up only on Uranus, and not on a much brighter object like Jupiter where it should be very obvious.

 

Bird

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2017-01-10-1841_0-PMRQA-700.png


#24 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11513
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 10 January 2017 - 09:28 PM

I don't know what you're doing wrong Darryl, but I have no problem getting the template to align. I've attached some images showing how to do this for anyone who wants to try this themselves:

 

- The uranus viewer form showing the values to use, including the time (0952UTC)

  This page is at http://pds-rings.set...iewer2_ura.html

 

- The template that is created from this form (cropped)

 

- The template overlaid on Phils image with a -17 degree rotation to align

 

- The template after a further scale down to 70% of it's original size to match Phils image

 

It seems to align perfectly.

 

cheers, Bird

Hi Anthony - I have made a full set of step-by-step screenshots where I follow your own applications from data-entry in Uranus Viewer through to final alignment attempt. (but it didn't align...)

 

I will post this full set (much) later tonight to demonstrate this result if there is any contention wrt my applications. ;) - but we have to go out very soon...as you & others are weighing in with a stream of new posts I have no intentions to single-handedly reply to "on-the-fly" - where everyone is displaying a keen interest to debate this topic I think it only fair & reasonable that there isn't any attempt or appearance to "snow" me here. ;)

 

However - if the saved JPL-simulation is reduced to 63%.....not your above stated 70%.....& the JPL-simulation is rotated 18° ccw.....not your stated 17° here.....then we can achieve an alignment of these 3 moons to Phil's image! :)

 

This is a good point in your argument on the surface of it.....but there are a few things that don't add up to me in your claims & I still stand by my original comments for both of Phil's outcomes. 

 

You might argue that there are factors in the following criticism that could be explained by vagaries of the optics, atmospheric conditions...the very heavy processing applied, etc: my response is that part of the credibility & very much part of your claims is "perfect" or "close to perfect" seeing that was claimed - & this would seem to negate such factors very significantly, certainly imho!

 

However, I'll post that "aligned moons" image here despite not following your step-by-step outline of how you did so...as said here that was not possible for me.....but one glaring element to the equation in the image I'll post here is the position & "alignment" of the ring claim compared to the actual positioning & alignment of their true location: I have given an accurate outline of what you claim is the clearly-seen "ring segment" in Phil's image.....it is the cyan delineation representing a section of the ellipse's perimeter.

 

This delineated cyan outline is most definitely NOT commensurate with that "ring" element in Phil's image.....& just perhaps more importantly & clearly stated does NOT align with the JPL-simulations major & minor axis representation - claimed ring being clearly tilted considerably further ccw.

 

Being honest as well as diplomatic you'd say "pretty close" & I'd say "but no cigar" ;) - & for me neither image passes the acid test of (your) "Positive detection of the Uranus ring"..!

 

Pat who has been "over-seeing" this will probably have the last word from my end ;) - as I finished typing the last para. she said the following to me.

 

<"I'd look at the Pic du Midi images & say they are positive detections......but this one is just a possible one.">

 

EDIT: Pat has just come in back from looking at it on her own pc & made the comment that the very small scale here does not give a clear image of this situation so I have taken the liberty of re-representing it at 150%. :)

 

MoonsAligned-18degreeCCW-63%JPLsimReduction-150%.png

 


Edited by Kokatha man, 10 January 2017 - 09:47 PM.


#25 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11513
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 11 January 2017 - 05:04 AM

Well, the webpage is up with step-by-step screenshots where I followed Anthony's instructions almost to the letter. Posting all the images here on CN would be far too much.

 

Here it is for anyone's scrutiny - please look at the tools & blue highlit windows in CS4 (on both sides of the CS4 window) for what is about to be actioned in each image - & these actions applied in the next image: http://www.momilika....usJPL_Align.htm    

 

The only difference is a 60" FOV instead of 61"...not that this made any difference.

 

The Uranus Viewer's JPL-sim was saved as "DirectSave_viewer_ura_82709.jpg" for those P/shop steps.

 

The final image on the webpage shows this procedure did NOT result in an alignment of the JPL-sim & Phil's image.

 

The image in post (#24) shows a different procedure produced moon alignment - but NOT for the rings as the cyan outline clearly shows.

 

Going back to this image in post #24 where I aligned the moons...I decided that it would reveal Phil's ring claim better if I defined the entire ellipse for the region his claim covers.

 

I was generous by increasing the aspect ratio of their "ring" outline (ie, increasing the minor axis to appear slightly greater than what it appears in their image) & it provides a good approximation of the JPL rings' outer dimensions - with the effect of exaggerating Phil's claim in some ways.

 

However, defining it more clearly really displays what a huge disparity there really is between what is an artefact (imo) & where the actual rings are - something like an enormous 45° shift ccw.....all this with the moons aligned as Anthony emphasised.

 

Q.E.D. (case proved)

 

I see no reason to go any further...I include in this post the image showing the full extent of where their "claimed" ring would exist as opposed to their real position...& also the 2 images which form the 2 layers for this 1st image.

 

The 2nd shows Phil's image where I defined the full extent of where the claimed ring exists by extrapolating from his "segment" of it in the bottom rhs "corner" of the outlined ellipse.

 

The 3rd image is the JPL-sim overlay...anyone can "drag & drop" the 2nd & 3rd images into P/shop etc..."select all" for the JPL image & "copy & paste" it into the 2nd opened image...select "Difference Blend" from the top rhs dropdown window (default appears as "Normal") & then use the move tool (top lhs) to drag this top layer around to get the moons to align - to see all of this for themselves.

 

That is all from me, I will take a keen interest in this thread's progression but will only respond to genuine queries re this post from now on: I do however have another, far greater challenge to set for anyone who cares to take this next challenge up - but will only reveal it after reviewing any subsequent replies in here as noted.

 

With utmost respect, Darryl.

 

Image #1

 

MoonsAligned-18degreeCCW-63%JPLsimReduction150%Bottom&TopImageLayers.jpg

 

Image #2

 

MoonsAligned-18degreeCCW-63%JPLsimReduction150%BottomImageLayer.jpg

 

Image #3

 

MoonsAligned-18degreeCCW-63%JPLsimReduction150%JPL-simTopLayer.jpg




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






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics