Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Frankenscope? Let's see it!***be advised that NOTHING in this forum has been safety tested and you are reading and using these posts at your own peril. blah, blah, blah... dont mess around with your eyesight when it comes to solar astronomy. Use appropriate filtration at all times...
christian viladrich
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by christian viladrich » Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:28 am

Hi Mark,
Very interesting, thanks for the simulations.
That would explain why the contrast at F/9 is lower than with the PST (= etalon in a collimated beam) : about 4 A resulting FWHM vs 2.2 A for the PST.
F/15-20 seems to be the minimum ratio to make good use of the filter.

Bob, if you have a TZ-2, you might give it a try. They are designed for Ha but, by chance, they might do well for Ca K too. I remember having played with a Ha telecentric design for my 300mm. It was not too bad in Ca K too.
Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Astronomie Planétaire"
http://www.astroplanetes.com/
Co-author of "Astronomie Solaire"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/

User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 24342
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by marktownley » Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:35 am

christian viladrich wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:28 am
That would explain why the contrast at F/9 is lower than with the PST (= etalon in a collimated beam) : about 4 A resulting FWHM vs 2.2 A for the PST.
CaK PST does not use collimating / refocusing lens either side of the all important filter, it sits in a converging f/10 beam. Maybe the PST filter is natively narrower and the quoted 2.2a is the bandpass in the f/10 beam?
Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!

User avatar
Bob Yoesle
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by Bob Yoesle » Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:41 pm

Maybe the PST filter is natively narrower and the quoted 2.2a is the bandpass in the f/10 beam?
Perhaps a multiple cavity filter with steeper transmission sides, which may make it less susceptible to light ray incident angle effects(?)
Bob, if you have a TZ-2, you might give it a try. They are designed for Ha but, by chance, they might do well for Ca K too. I remember having played with a Ha telecentric design for my 300mm. It was not too bad in Ca K too.
Thanks for that information Christian. May have to contact Baader to see if they have any info on their TZ''s and their performance at 394 nm.

The Baader TZ3 looks to be the ideal telecentric, and is specifically stated to be "diffraction limited at 396 nm (CaK)"

https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/r ... ngth).html

Then would have to find a suitable focal reduction lens ;-)

Looks like Apollo is working on a COTS (commercial off the shelf) lens solution as well...
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.

Dark-Sky Defenders

christian viladrich
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by christian viladrich » Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:03 pm

Thanks for the clarification Mark.
Does anybody have a drawing of the optical design of the Ca K PST ?

Bob, interesting what they say about the correction of the TZ-3 at 393 nm.
Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Astronomie Planétaire"
http://www.astroplanetes.com/
Co-author of "Astronomie Solaire"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:46 pm

Just giving everybody a heads up, the baader planetarium double polarizer has a defect that causes sagging at the ccd sensor.

It worked as i had intended to control the intensity but the sag is so great that it affects the picture. The defect appears to be with the rotational cell itself and i have notified baader planetarium to inspect the product line.

So do not purchase one unless you plan on having it seated inside of its own 1.25” eyepiece holder disconnected from the sensor nosepiece.

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:50 pm

A call should also be placed to televue to see what the performance their powaremate series has below 400nm.

That could be a universal solution because i already have adapters that unify all powermates directly to the Skybender without extensions.

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:58 pm

My new solution cost $40 btw. I will not share it publically however. It is the only infrared cutting kg3 achromat collimating optic and i will be getting it trademarked first so nobody else can market it for an outrageous amount of money.

It has extreme market value and potential, i am keeping control of that.

User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2989
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by Valery » Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:29 pm

The corrective optics I do use with my C11 works also as barlow lens. It makes all my SCTs - C8, C11 and C14 diffraction limited at 393nm. Unfortunately, the market for this optics is too small to justify all the troubles, hairs and money loss making this optics.
There are plenty of other much more appeling and cost effective projects with a small optics.
"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:56 pm

There is also the meade #140 triplet barlow. Being a triplet, it is likely purple fringe right out of the box.

Its cheap enough that I could buy it just to see what happens.
meade 140.PNG
meade 140.PNG (76.34 KiB) Viewed 430 times

User avatar
Bob Yoesle
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by Bob Yoesle » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:16 pm

Hello all,

Spoke to Dick Stewart at Chroma Technology about the CT 392.37 0.1bp filter's tilt performance, and he provided me the following data:

0.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.999 nm 99.69%
1.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.386 nm 99.69%
1.5 degree tilt peaks at 393.371 nm 99.70%
2.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.350 nm 99.69%
2.5 degree tilt peaks at 393.322 nm 99.69%
3.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.289 nm 99.69%
4.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.203 nm 99.69%

It appears about 1.5 degrees of tilt is the optimum for this filter using the data set provided. The transmission curve at 1.5 degrees looks like this:
CT393.4 1.5 degree.jpg
CT393.4 1.5 degree.jpg (66.92 KiB) Viewed 389 times
Of course, this would be with perfectly collimated light rays. Towards this end, it appears the Baader TZ 3 telecentric might be an ideal component, and is stated to have a strehl "well above 80%" at 396 nm. This can be combined with the matching 0.4 telecompressor to restore the native EFL.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.

Dark-Sky Defenders

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:01 am

Bob Yoesle wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:16 pm
Hello all,

Spoke to Dick Stewart at Chroma Technology about the CT 392.37 0.1bp filter's tilt performance, and he provided me the following data:

0.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.999 nm 99.69%
1.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.386 nm 99.69%
1.5 degree tilt peaks at 393.371 nm 99.70%
2.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.350 nm 99.69%
2.5 degree tilt peaks at 393.322 nm 99.69%
3.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.289 nm 99.69%
4.0 degree tilt peaks at 393.203 nm 99.69%

It appears about 1.5 degrees of tilt is the optimum for this filter using the data set provided. The transmission curve at 1.5 degrees looks like this:
CT393.4 1.5 degree.jpg

Of course, this would be with perfectly collimated light rays. Towards this end, it appears the Baader TZ 3 telecentric might be an ideal component, and is stated to have a strehl "well above 80%" at 396 nm. This can be combined with the matching 0.4 telecompressor to restore the native EFL.
Okay now there is some conflict of data somewhere, because I have the same exact filter as you bob from the same production running lot; and the carey spectrometer shows 94% transmission at 3.5 degrees for onband performance with my filter and my skybender is clearly tilted more than 1.5 degrees. Even without the collimator attached i was 3+ degrees.

I think dick is providing new theoretical information where mine is actual filter data, or they shipped you a filter with a completely different profile than mine? a 5% transmission loss is a huge error.

Image

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:12 am

CT393.37-0.1 -4 Degrees.txt
(1.78 KiB) Downloaded 12 times
dstewart.PNG
dstewart.PNG (54.63 KiB) Viewed 377 times

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:43 am

alright guys, I don't know what you are trying to accomplish anymore but trying to work something out here together has proven to be a never ending conflict which has just resulted in mutual disaster.

Remember that a product must perform the same for everybody, which is why the lunt systems are what they currently are.

If you cannot decide on one method of doing things, I just cant be here to watch anymore.

Not everyone can be a Leader, and you guys are officially are on your own now.

I wish you the best of luck ignoring standard's.

Cya!

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:33 am

This is my second to last message I will be delivering on this subject.

My last message will be the outcome of test mentioned below.

I spoke with AL NAGLER on the phone today, the optical titan behind televue.

He is personally mailing me a 5x televue powermate to integrate with the Skybender calcium system. I am to evaluate performance at 393nm.

I requested some customized optics, but he does not offer such a service to anybody. I am the first person to ever ask him if his optics perform well for calcium observation. He told me flat out that he has no idea, I then asked what the strehl of his powermates are below 400nm. His reply was the same, he has no idea. He informed me he does not have the data on his lenses, which was quite a shock. So I have the Al Nagler powermate on the way. It will be paired with my Kg3 doublet refocus lens.

I will then be selling the complete unit with my kg3 optical refocus lens attached. It will be the only one I ever sell, so if you are interested at all this will be your only chance to get one from me.

This will be the only time I ask for help, because I need funds for a future development.

User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2989
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by Valery » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:15 am

TheSkyBurner wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:33 am


This will be the only time I ask for help, because I need funds for a future development.
Do you mean spinal surgery/probe equipment development you recently announced? I belive this is much more
important than playing with sun imaging.


Valery
"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.

User avatar
Bob Yoesle
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by Bob Yoesle » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:01 pm

I don't know why there is a discrepancy, all I know is that this is the data Dick Stewart sent me. My filter also appears to need more than 1.5 degrees of tilt, but I have yet to calculate it from what I can measure in the Skybender - going to have to brush up on my trigonometry skills ;-)

Dick did inform me that any future CT 393.37 0.1 filter production would cost ~ $2250+ per filter given the R&D prototypes required even tighter tolerances and complex production methods than they originally anticipated.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.

Dark-Sky Defenders

User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2989
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by Valery » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:14 pm

Bob Yoesle wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:01 pm
I don't know why there is a discrepancy, all I know is that this is the data Dick Stewart sent me. My filter also appears to need more than 1.5 degrees of tilt, but I have yet to calculate it from what I can measure in the Skybender - going to have to brush up on my trigonometry skills ;-)

Dick did inform me that any future CT 393.37 0.1 filter production would cost ~ $2250+ per filter given the R&D prototypes required even tighter tolerances and complex production methods than they originally anticipated.

Is this CT 393.37 0.1 a single cavity or a double cavity filter?


Valery
"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.

User avatar
Bob Yoesle
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by Bob Yoesle » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:10 pm

Single.

Chroma Tech said they could do a double cavity filter, but not a triple. I didn't ask what the price would be.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.

Dark-Sky Defenders

User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2989
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by Valery » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:36 pm

The price for a single cavity is $2250 and for a two cavity filter I'd expect at least $4000. If a two cavity filter will be a stack of two
single cavity filters (each of 1A FWHM) then it should have FWHM about 0,75A - 0,8A with steep sides and well supressed skirt. Still not enough to see dark filaments. But fibrils within bright AR near sun spots should be visible as well at the limb as spiculaes.
May be worth of $4000, may be not. Depends of how much better it will peforms on the sun vs DS of PST CaK.


Valery
"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:20 am

Some friendly advice. The next time somebody offers you a unicorn with rainbows coming out of its butt, DONT KILL IT.

You guys wrecked an amazing accomplishment here with your constant probing, and disbelief. I had this all setup perfect, had everything alive and well functioning as was intended . Then a couple bad apples had to breach my leadership for their own personal insecurity.

Seriously. All you guys had to do was accept my good gesture for what it was, not initiate a mutiny.


Karma is watching, and waiting to wreck your day...

Even though im working with NSO and Al Nagler right now, it just doesnt even matter because Now nobody can afford this thing.

Bob Yoesle is the only person that got anything out of this entire development;

User avatar
Bob Yoesle
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by Bob Yoesle » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:11 am

I have asked Dick at Chroma Tech about the discrepancy of the data sets. So far, no answer. I did ask about the nomenclature difference; Apollo's files were labeled 393.37 0.1, the data sets Dick sent me were labeled 393.4 0.1. Dick stated it was just a labeling difference and that they indeed were for the same limited (two filter) R&D production run. The data sets he sent me do have a finer resolution.

Here's the 1.5 degree and 4 degree tilt data sets I received. Comparing the two 4 degree data sets (see Apollo's txt file above) indicates a substantial difference - ???
393.4-0.1bp-1.5 deg.txt
(35.46 KiB) Downloaded 6 times
393.4-0.1bp-4 deg.txt
(35.46 KiB) Downloaded 4 times
My findings regarding tilt more closely match Apollo's - the tilt for on band seems much nearer to 3 - 4 degrees.

Despite the now higher price, the filter appears to hold significant promise - when tilted it is quite close to the PST filter in an f9 system, and appears much better when used in a telecentric system. If one could afford it, as Valery references, it could provide pretty outstanding performance when double stacked. I have not used a PST (or Lunt) filter in such a telecentric system, so this comparison must wait.
The price for a single cavity is $2250 and for a two cavity filter I'd expect at least $4000. If a two cavity filter will be a stack of two
single cavity filters (each of 1A FWHM) then it should have FWHM about 0,75A - 0,8A with steep sides and well suppressed skirt. Still not enough to see dark filaments. But fibrils within bright AR near sun spots should be visible as well at the limb as spiculaes.
May be worth of $4000, may be not. Depends of how much better it will performs on the sun vs DS of PST CaK.
I understand how cost can be a deciding factor for purchase. On the other hand, my first DayStar H alpha 0.7 Angstrom ATM filter (circa 1976) was ~ $4000 in today's dollars (and has consistently stayed there: Quantum 0.7 A SE @ $4025). If getting a two cavity CT 393.37 version could provide the performance Valery refers to - 0.7+ A for CaK - it could be worth it for those who desire that level of contrast performance. The problem is finding someone who wants to risk that amount of investment for a new product. I risked $1250, and even with my limited trials so far it seems to have been worth it...
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.

Dark-Sky Defenders

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:22 am

⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️

I am sorry to report that the filter mount chroma is using to support these filters has caused a thermal fracture on my glass.

This occurred from bringing the scope from outside on the field, to the air conditioned house.

The filter retaining rings are way to tight, and there is zero wiggle room for the expansion of the metal. It has pinched the glass.
I heard an audible “clink” when i brought everything vack inside. Iimmediatley inspected everything in my whole scope and found it on the most expensive piece :(

I have informed chroma of this unfortunate event and it looks like im SOL.

I was literally just talking about thermal shrinking filter cells on another thread, and here it happened on my most prized filter.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1040&start=175

⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️

I had complete energy rejection and have concluded this to be entirely caused by the 1.25” optical mount chroma has supplied the filter in.

As a result I can no longer recommend chroma filters until they resolve the issue with the filter mount ring tolerance..

Especially now considering the filter cost has doubled, there is no way in heck I would chance this again with out changing the filter cell.

A990910B-668E-40FF-8487-265D2A000527.jpeg
A990910B-668E-40FF-8487-265D2A000527.jpeg (2.04 MiB) Viewed 220 times

bart1805
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:04 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by bart1805 » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:59 pm

[/quote]
\\
Your Skybender is on its way to your door!
[/quote]

Thanks Apollo, I received it today. That is an ingenious piece of equipment!! Let's Bend!
And ouch. 4.000 instead of 1.250. That means saving a whole lot longer.....

User avatar
TheSkyBurner
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by TheSkyBurner » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:35 am

i think i found the 393 system winner , will report the images soon compared with the powermate. So far the zeiss is the clear winner but i need more testing.

https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/c ... ns-2x.html

"The focal length of the Carl Zeiss Abbe Barlow is -65mm
Answer by: Baader Web Team (Admin) on Feb 17, 2017 2:34:00 PM"

User avatar
krakatoa1883
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 291
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Mediolanum

Re: Narrowest 393.37 ever by Apollo Lasky

Post by krakatoa1883 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:01 pm

Looking forward to see the results of the comparison.

I am using a Baader VIP (Zeiss design) for imaging Venus in the UV and it seems very well corrected. I never use it for CaH but I can try comparing it to my Powermates.
Raf
My personal page on Google+
My personal web site on practical astronomy and astronomical optics

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests