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

Night vision with a Tec160fl

NV
  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#26 Gavster

Gavster

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014

Posted 11 June 2019 - 02:54 AM

Another piece of the puzzle appears to be the diagonal.

 

Dielectrics fall off pretty fast beyond 700nm, while our intensifiers are sensitive down to 900nm. The information published by Collins indicates peak sensitivity of 775nm:

 

http://www.ceoptics....ech_report.html

 

A Baader BBHS is very high on my Buy List.

 

That also begs the question of how much we are losing with the aluminized coatings of our reflectors. Fortunately, the net gain is still substantial.

Jeff, luckily I was already using baader BBHS diagonals pre NV. I’ve never done a comparison against dielectric. For my c11 edge I use a baader t2 prism diagonal to keep the light path short. This seems to work well

as well.


Edited by Gavster, 11 June 2019 - 02:55 AM.


#27 GeezerGazer

GeezerGazer

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Modesto, CA

Posted 16 June 2019 - 02:55 AM

Gavin, just wondering... while you had the 160 out, did you try the 55 or 41 with the GSO R-C reducer instead of the AP .75x reducer?

 

By any chance, do you know what humidity was on your observing night in London?  I have found that higher levels of moisture combined with smoke, dust or pollutants, exacerbates transparency problems.  

 

A little off topic, but maybe of interest, here in the central valley of California, during the winter we get Thule Fog, very dense fog causing visibility to drop sometimes to 15-20 feet... no kidding.  There was a news story recently about a scientific study that was conducted over a period of years as to why this region suffers this extremely dangerous weather anomaly.  As it turns out, nobody remembers Thule fog here before about 1935. And, more surprising, since the mid-1980s, the serious fog events have been decreasing.  In 1975, two-way catalytic converters (CCs) were installed on new cars.  Those first generation CCs combined oxygen with carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons to produce carbon dioxide and water.  But in 1981, 3-way CCs were installed which also reduce oxides of nitrogen.  It seems that the nitrogen oxides combine with water molecules to cause our fog, especially during low pressure atmospheric events which allow pollutant build up in the valley atmosphere.  Ever since about 1985, the severe fog events have been on the decrease.  

 

The point is that there are lots of factors that can cause transparency problems for local observers, with or without NV.  And we don't always know what causes them.  I have always felt that our valley has terrible transparency much of the winter because of fog.  Now, at 71, I learn that pollution, mixed with our irrigated, fertile valley land creates much of that problem.  So when an observer has a bad night because of transparency, I immediately wonder how high the humidity level was... so long as you don't have any forest fires or ag activity like almond sweeper, harvesters or tilling going on.  

 

The other thing I wanted to mention is that subjective preferences also play a role in what equipment we use.  Some like a lot of space around an observed subject for context; others want it bigger and in their face.  Just like some of us prefer wider pass-band filters to see stars with our nebulae, while others prefer narrow filters to show a nebulae with distinct edges and bright enough to make it appear as a solid mass.  Neither is better than the other; they are just different.  So it is with aperture and the speed of optics.  We all have our preferences, usually born of experience.  

 

Edggie's point about dark sites is very important.  Going from high levels of LP to a dark site is extremely beneficial to NV.  At a dark site, there is no need for long pass filters.  And at a dark site, I can use a wider pass band filter to see more stars with nebulae.  It's just better, significantly better.  

Ray


  • moshen and chemisted like this

#28 Gavster

Gavster

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014

Posted 16 June 2019 - 01:41 PM

Gavin, just wondering... while you had the 160 out, did you try the 55 or 41 with the GSO R-C reducer instead of the AP .75x reducer?

 

By any chance, do you know what humidity was on your observing night in London?  I have found that higher levels of moisture combined with smoke, dust or pollutants, exacerbates transparency problems.  

 

Ray, no unfortunately I forgot to try the gso Rc reducer with the tec. Given my results with other triplet refractors of similar speed I would be pretty confident that it would work well...

 

And no idea on humidity either. Humidity hardly ever gets mentioned in the UK.

I was out observing last night and had much better results with my 95mm refractor and with the 3x afocal lens so I think I just managed to hit a particularly poor night for transparency with the Tec. I still think I won’t use it much for nv observing. If I set up the panther mount in future, I think I will also reach for the c11 to get more image scale at low mag.


  • GeezerGazer likes this


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