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

Star test interpretation - Help

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Boom

Boom

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 303
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted 18 March 2019 - 08:33 PM

Hello guys and gals, 

 

I would like some input from experienced star testers.  The image on the right is 4mm extra focal, and the left is 4mm intra focal.  Both images are to the same scale.  Instrument is f/10.  CO is approx 40%.  I added the red lines to aid in measurement.

 

How much over-correction is present?  What other glaring aberrations do you see?

 

Thanks!

 

ST.png


Edited by Boom, 19 March 2019 - 12:16 PM.


#2 Pinbout

Pinbout

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22410
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Montclair, NJ

Posted 18 March 2019 - 08:40 PM

You should be 10~ defocused.

 

even Mel says resist trying to attach numbers to reading

 

how well acclimated was the system?

 

what eyepiece, did you use a Barlow? What camera was used?

 

your images look a little different, probably cus your still in the caustic.

 

gallery_106859_355_7660.jpg


Edited by Pinbout, 18 March 2019 - 08:48 PM.


#3 Boom

Boom

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 303
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted 18 March 2019 - 10:45 PM

I referenced Suiter's chart which says 10 waves is about 4mm in and out for a f/10 instrument.  EP was a 6.5mm PL, no barlow, cellphone EP afocal.

 

I noticed the outer diameter of the rings of my images are practically identical.  Isn't one image supposed to be larger than the other, and CO shadow smaller than the other, if SA is present?

 

Makes me think this instrument actually doesn't have that much SA, but there is a zone error causing the CO shadow to be different.



#4 dan chaffee

dan chaffee

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 306
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2006
  • Loc: North Carolina

Posted 19 March 2019 - 01:53 AM

Defocus distances look very good for detection correction errors.

The shadow of the of the extra focal image IS considerably larger than the infra focal image.

Overcorrection is significant...at least 1/4 wavefront or worse and possibly a TDE, based on the softer

outer edge of the infra focal image. Stop it down with an aperture mask by 1/4 inch increments and see what happens, and

do the same with obstruction mask, if that was used.


  • Boom likes this

#5 Pinbout

Pinbout

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22410
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Montclair, NJ

Posted 19 March 2019 - 06:09 AM

 

Isn't one image supposed to be larger than the other, and CO shadow smaller than the other, if SA is present?

yes

 

was it cooled enough?

 

cause some off the visual on intrafocal looks more like under but the co sizes show over.

 

I looked up in abberator and 10 ~ is 4.4mm, I'd do a little more

 

but either the atmosphere or acclimation is causing too much turbulence.

 

and if you want to see zones you have to defocus a lot more.


Edited by Pinbout, 19 March 2019 - 06:16 AM.

  • Boom likes this

#6 DesertRat

DesertRat

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6261
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Valley of the Sun

Posted 19 March 2019 - 10:31 AM

At f/10 +-10 waves of defocus would be +-4.4mm.

 

The near equiv size of the images suggest a mixture of low order (LSA) and high order (HSA) spherical error.  In this case approx overcorrected 1/5 wave LSA and undercorrected -1/5 to -1/10 wave HSA.  Evaluating mixed optical errors from a web graphic is mostly a guess, as being off by 50% quite possible.  But I think the signs are correct anyway.

 

When a scope has a mixture of theses errors its difficult to evaluate visually.  IIRC Suiter recommends defocus of +-15 waves for this particular mixture, but I remain fairly skeptical it can be done well.  When you have a mixture of aberrations I recommend using the WinRoddier program or the WavefrontEstimator (Mike Schuster's script) included in PixInsight.  This requires a linear detector and more defocus on the order of  20 waves.

 

A cell phone has on board level adjustments as well as sharpening which makes any analysis problematic.

 

Is this a Maksutov?

 

Glenn


  • Asbytec and Boom like this

#7 Boom

Boom

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 303
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted 19 March 2019 - 12:16 PM

Stop it down with an aperture mask by 1/4 inch increments and see what happens, and

do the same with obstruction mask, if that was used.

No mask was used.  I'll try some out.

 

yes

 

was it cooled enough?

 

but either the atmosphere or acclimation is causing too much turbulence.

 

and if you want to see zones you have to defocus a lot more.

It was acclimated.  Probably a combination of turbulence and slightly rough optics?

 

When a scope has a mixture of theses errors its difficult to evaluate visually.  IIRC Suiter recommends defocus of +-15 waves for this particular mixture, but I remain fairly skeptical it can be done well.  When you have a mixture of aberrations I recommend using the WinRoddier program or the WavefrontEstimator (Mike Schuster's script) included in PixInsight.  This requires a linear detector and more defocus on the order of  20 waves.

 

A cell phone has on board level adjustments as well as sharpening which makes any analysis problematic.

 

Is this a Maksutov?

 I'll give more defocus a try.  You're right a cellphone isn't the best for recording an accurate image, but I'm limited in what I have to work with.  It is an SCT, but I intended this to be an exercise in star testing, not so much a telescope critique.

 

 

Thanks to all for your input so far.


Edited by Boom, 19 March 2019 - 12:19 PM.


#8 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 15005
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 30 May 2019 - 03:48 PM

When the OP said this is an SCT, the comments above made sense as do the "non standard" (complex) patterns presented. The images are not showing classic primary spherical alone, as Glenn said, likely with some amount of secondary spherical. Secondary spherical with primary spherical is not as damaging to the image as the same amount of either, especially if they have the opposite sign. So, importantly, I would not fret over this being a bad optic based on appearances. 

 

Nothing new here, just looking it over and making sense of what has already been said. Evaluating SCTs can be kind of difficult sometimes, but it's good practice to think it through. The corrector does some magic to the planar wavefront causing it to behave differently from pure primary spherical. I got a geeky chuckle as this seems to be what prompted Glenn to ask if the scope is a MCT, but an SCT makes sense in this context, too. Both "correct" the wavefront before the primary mirror. That's what we are seeing in the defocused images.

 

"Isn't one image supposed to be larger than the other, and CO shadow smaller than the other, if SA is present?"

 

Yes. With under correction, the marginal zones focus closer to the mirror. So when you're inside focus you are closer to marginal focus, the diameter of the slice will be smaller than outside focus. Outside best focus the slice is a bit further from marginal focus and the diameter of the diffraction artifact is larger. Of course, with over correction this is reversed. This is not what the OP shows, however, so this is not entirely what is happening.

 

"...but there is a zone error causing the CO shadow to be different."

 

Sure. I believe and understand the shadow size is influenced by the inner zones, so there seems to be a clue as to what the inner zones are doing. With over correction, the inner zones focus short of best focus and the shadow is smaller on the intra focal slice and more expanded on the extra focal slice. So, at least the inner zones appear to be focusing short of best focus indicating some level of over correction as was mentioned many times, already. The edge is likely doing something different causing the shadow breakout to be less reliable reading an overall correction error into it. So, in this case, I'm not sure I'd rely on the shadow breakout to indicate the level of over correction, maybe only for the central zones. 

 

"...cause some off the visual on intrafocal looks more like under but the co sizes show over."

 

It's hard for me to tell what's going on with the marginal zones, but it's sometimes possible to see indications of both under and over correction at the same time. I believe, as Glenn said, there is some residual secondary spherical present and most likely due to the corrector. With defocus either side the diameter of the diffraction pattern is very close to the same size indicating approximately the same amount of divergence of the marginal zone. So, as a guess and because of the secondary spherical, it may be the marginal zones are focusing close to best focus. If so, I'd argue that's actually a good thing as the edge contributes more energy to the image than the center. 

 

"...and possibly a TDE, based on the softer outer edge of the infra focal image."

 

This makes sense, too, again due to the corrector. The edge may be focusing a tiny bit long giving the appearance of a very slight turned edge. Again, it's another form of the general over correction we're seeing. It's just a matter of how much further out the marginal zone is coming to focus. I would not hazard to guess other than to say, "not far." It seems to be a normal consequence of the design in some cases, and likely in this case. I'd like to see a little more defocus, too, out to a full 10 waves defocus to see what happens. And see if a more controlled exposure can give us more information on the outer zones. 

 

"It is an SCT, but I intended this to be an exercise in star testing, not so much a telescope critique."

 

Nothing wrong, to my mind, understanding your equipment. Dig in and get your feet wet. waytogo.gif

 

The only reason I chimed in was to put all the above comments into context as everyone, including the OP, seems to be hitting on the "error" seen in the images and their non standard appearance. Each comment above makes sense in this context. The OP does not have pure over corrected primary spherical, but some hybrid version with secondary spherical included. That's not necessarily a bad thing. 

 

Again, and I think importantly, it's important not to fret over the asymmetrical images above thinking it's a bad optic with asymmetrical patterns. They are normal and by design to some level of perfection. The answer is more complex because it is not testing like a parabola, rather a more complex design making it hard to read sometimes. The hybrid star test is very likely not as detrimental to the image as pure LSA alone, especially when each is of opposite sign.

 

As to how much of each is present, I'd not hazard a guess (or offer a PV estimate) other than to suggest in focus is where it counts. I'd bet it's actually pretty good sample despite the (seemingly ugly) asymmetry of the diffraction pattern and differing appearance of the shadows. My guess is it's just fine in focus and pretty snappy, too. Am I wrong? 


Edited by Asbytec, 30 May 2019 - 03:56 PM.



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