C11 ERF-Concept
C11 ERF-Concept
This modification of solar telescope has been moved from cloudynights.com to solarchatforum.com.
I'd like to use my C11 for Ha solar imaging... but the full aperture Energy Rejection Filters (ERFs) available as quite expensive - think US$ 2K+. I was wondering if I could accomplish the same thing with an array of 2" UV/IR cut filters and a film of red cellophane.
Fig 1 The concept is to place red cellophane over the SCT aperture plate... to cut out visible light. The array of UV/IR filters, mounted in a blacked aluminum plate, serve to cut out the ultraviolet and infrared light. That allows only red light containing the critical H-Alpha at 6562.8 Angstroms to enter the SCT.
The 2" UV/IR cut filters are available from China for about US$20 each. (Yes, they work.) Allowing for the central obstruction, one would need about 16 of these... 16 x $20 = $320.
I'm certain there are objections to doing this... and I'd like to hear them.
Thanks in advance...
Person 1
It has been tried before. There's the obvious challenge of making it mechanically safe. Then you have diffraction effects that take away image quality. It's likely that a smaller clear aperture will give just as good, or even better, results.
Okay-1
Person 1, thanks for the PM. I've reproduced it here because I think it's relevant.
Here's the link to the discussion: https://solarchatfor...pic.php?t=16241
PST mod1 on a C8 without ERF
The cheaper filters might not have a good figure and introduce aberrations of their own.
Finally, you have to be super careful about safety. A loose filter can cause serious damage. Even with the filters in place I have no idea of how much light can the pst body take and remain safe.
I feel like most of the discussion about solar mods has died down in favor of quarks with ~100mm refractors. It gets you enough aperture, relatively safe and relatively cheap.
That solar chat happened in May 2015... almost 3-years ago; too bad they stopped experimenting after 3 filters... I would have liked to see the results of 5 filters. Thanks again for supplying that information.
Okay-1
I redid my conceptual image based on actual measurements of my C11 and UV-IR cut filter.
Fig 2 Person 2
Why not add some more 1.25" filters close to the center and then make it?
Okay-1
Hi Person 2,
The sample 1.25" UV-IR Cut filter that I had cut too much into the red... cutting out all the prominences.
Maybe a good idea... if I could find some inexpensive working 1.25" filters.
Here's what it would look like.... like the business end of a Gatling Gun or Vulcan Cannon.
Fig 3
12 of 2" filters and 12 of 1.25" filters.
I tried without success to find a free program to model the diffraction pattern of such arrays.
Person 3
If you want to see the effect on contrast of such a setup, you could cut a mask and then examine the Moon - with and without. Also, might be interesting to compare against masks with single apertures of interesting sizes. Of course, viewing the Moon is likely going to be under better seeing conditions than you would find with the Sun during the day.
Person 4
Does this thread not contravene the CN TOS regarding safety and Solar viewing/modifications ...
Okay-1
Great idea Person 3! When the weather co-operates I will try that. THANKS!
Hey Person 4... the thread is about imaging, not viewing... and no solar scope is being modified.
And that folks was when it was time to move the subject over to solarchat!
All comments and suggestions are Welcome.
I'd like to use my C11 for Ha solar imaging... but the full aperture Energy Rejection Filters (ERFs) available as quite expensive - think US$ 2K+. I was wondering if I could accomplish the same thing with an array of 2" UV/IR cut filters and a film of red cellophane.
Fig 1 The concept is to place red cellophane over the SCT aperture plate... to cut out visible light. The array of UV/IR filters, mounted in a blacked aluminum plate, serve to cut out the ultraviolet and infrared light. That allows only red light containing the critical H-Alpha at 6562.8 Angstroms to enter the SCT.
The 2" UV/IR cut filters are available from China for about US$20 each. (Yes, they work.) Allowing for the central obstruction, one would need about 16 of these... 16 x $20 = $320.
I'm certain there are objections to doing this... and I'd like to hear them.
Thanks in advance...
Person 1
It has been tried before. There's the obvious challenge of making it mechanically safe. Then you have diffraction effects that take away image quality. It's likely that a smaller clear aperture will give just as good, or even better, results.
Okay-1
Person 1, thanks for the PM. I've reproduced it here because I think it's relevant.
Here's the link to the discussion: https://solarchatfor...pic.php?t=16241
PST mod1 on a C8 without ERF
The cheaper filters might not have a good figure and introduce aberrations of their own.
Finally, you have to be super careful about safety. A loose filter can cause serious damage. Even with the filters in place I have no idea of how much light can the pst body take and remain safe.
I feel like most of the discussion about solar mods has died down in favor of quarks with ~100mm refractors. It gets you enough aperture, relatively safe and relatively cheap.
That solar chat happened in May 2015... almost 3-years ago; too bad they stopped experimenting after 3 filters... I would have liked to see the results of 5 filters. Thanks again for supplying that information.
Okay-1
I redid my conceptual image based on actual measurements of my C11 and UV-IR cut filter.
Fig 2 Person 2
Why not add some more 1.25" filters close to the center and then make it?
Okay-1
Hi Person 2,
The sample 1.25" UV-IR Cut filter that I had cut too much into the red... cutting out all the prominences.
Maybe a good idea... if I could find some inexpensive working 1.25" filters.
Here's what it would look like.... like the business end of a Gatling Gun or Vulcan Cannon.
Fig 3
12 of 2" filters and 12 of 1.25" filters.
I tried without success to find a free program to model the diffraction pattern of such arrays.
Person 3
If you want to see the effect on contrast of such a setup, you could cut a mask and then examine the Moon - with and without. Also, might be interesting to compare against masks with single apertures of interesting sizes. Of course, viewing the Moon is likely going to be under better seeing conditions than you would find with the Sun during the day.
Person 4
Does this thread not contravene the CN TOS regarding safety and Solar viewing/modifications ...
Okay-1
Great idea Person 3! When the weather co-operates I will try that. THANKS!
Hey Person 4... the thread is about imaging, not viewing... and no solar scope is being modified.
And that folks was when it was time to move the subject over to solarchat!
All comments and suggestions are Welcome.
- marktownley
- Librarian
- Posts: 42559
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
- Location: Brierley Hills, UK
- Has thanked: 20828 times
- Been thanked: 10502 times
- Contact:
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Yes, these ideas keep doing the rounds...
You will get a fantastic starburst effect firstly with the pattern of sub apertures - try it on the moon and see.
Secondly my feeling is that it will let in too much energy with UV/IR and red cellophane. Red cellophane - seriously? Any idea of the optical properties of this in terms of transmission? Try some plastic wrapping film over the aperture of the C11 and look at the moon - see how how optically imperfect it is!
Bad idea personally.
You will get a fantastic starburst effect firstly with the pattern of sub apertures - try it on the moon and see.
Secondly my feeling is that it will let in too much energy with UV/IR and red cellophane. Red cellophane - seriously? Any idea of the optical properties of this in terms of transmission? Try some plastic wrapping film over the aperture of the C11 and look at the moon - see how how optically imperfect it is!
Bad idea personally.
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!
-
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 2161
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
- Location: France
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2725 times
- Contact:
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Hello,
As told by Mark, these ideas come arround now and then.
The first easy test to do is to have a look at a star with the red celophane filter. I guess this will settle the case for the cellophane idea.
As for the obstruction pattern due to the subaperture UV filters in front of the C11, here are some examples I ran for a friend who has the same idea with sub-aperture Coronado etalons (1, 2, 4 ai-spaced etalons):
Explanations are here :
http://astrosurf.com/viladrich/astro/in ... action.htm
Such calculation can be done for many more sub-apertures.
If you still want to push further that way, it would be better to use high quality red filters, rather that low quality UV filters + red cellophane filter. You need to find lambda/ 4 filters ...
As told by Mark, these ideas come arround now and then.
The first easy test to do is to have a look at a star with the red celophane filter. I guess this will settle the case for the cellophane idea.
As for the obstruction pattern due to the subaperture UV filters in front of the C11, here are some examples I ran for a friend who has the same idea with sub-aperture Coronado etalons (1, 2, 4 ai-spaced etalons):
Explanations are here :
http://astrosurf.com/viladrich/astro/in ... action.htm
Such calculation can be done for many more sub-apertures.
If you still want to push further that way, it would be better to use high quality red filters, rather that low quality UV filters + red cellophane filter. You need to find lambda/ 4 filters ...
Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
-
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 2161
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
- Location: France
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2725 times
- Contact:
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Here is the simulation of the diffraction pattern. C11 on left, ring of 50 mm filters on right side. Same scale for both :
The simulated apertures (C11 on left side, ring of 50 mm filters on right side) :
The simulated apertures (C11 on left side, ring of 50 mm filters on right side) :
Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
-
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 2161
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
- Location: France
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2725 times
- Contact:
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
BTW, 75 mm x 75 mm square filters are all available.
Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Hi Mark,
Nice to hear from you again.
RE: Yes, these ideas keep doing the rounds...
Yes but they never seem to push through to a final image... unless I missed something.
RE: You will get a fantastic starburst effect firstly with the pattern of sub apertures - try it on the moon and see.
I would expect such an effect on a star but on an extended object like the moon??? - I will try it an see.
RE: my feeling is that it will let in too much energy with UV/IR and red cellophane.
I could scrap the cellophane; it's only purpose was to reduce the 'visible' light striking the secondary mirror. Maybe ??? I can get away with all that visible light as the UV and IR have been removed.
Hi Christian
Thank you very much for those simulations of the diffraction patterns from a native C11 and a C11 with a ring of 50 mm filters.
Actually, to my eye that diffraction pattern looks mild - importantly most of the energy is still concentrated in the Ariy disc.
I guess only an actual image of the moon with an without the ring-of-filters will tell the whole story.
If it's not too much work for you... any chance you could repeat the simulation for the mix of 2" and 1.25" filters shown in my Figure 3?
Thanks All!
V/R
Rick
Nice to hear from you again.
RE: Yes, these ideas keep doing the rounds...
Yes but they never seem to push through to a final image... unless I missed something.
RE: You will get a fantastic starburst effect firstly with the pattern of sub apertures - try it on the moon and see.
I would expect such an effect on a star but on an extended object like the moon??? - I will try it an see.
RE: my feeling is that it will let in too much energy with UV/IR and red cellophane.
I could scrap the cellophane; it's only purpose was to reduce the 'visible' light striking the secondary mirror. Maybe ??? I can get away with all that visible light as the UV and IR have been removed.
Hi Christian
Thank you very much for those simulations of the diffraction patterns from a native C11 and a C11 with a ring of 50 mm filters.
Actually, to my eye that diffraction pattern looks mild - importantly most of the energy is still concentrated in the Ariy disc.
I guess only an actual image of the moon with an without the ring-of-filters will tell the whole story.
If it's not too much work for you... any chance you could repeat the simulation for the mix of 2" and 1.25" filters shown in my Figure 3?
Thanks All!
V/R
Rick
- marktownley
- Librarian
- Posts: 42559
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
- Location: Brierley Hills, UK
- Has thanked: 20828 times
- Been thanked: 10502 times
- Contact:
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Hiya Rick,
I really think the cellophane is a bad idea, and using UV?IR I think you will have too much energy inside the tube. Looking at the simulation Christian posted of a ring of 2" filters adding in 1.25" filters too is just going to make things more dotty with the resultant image lacking in contrast.
I think the easiest and safest way to get the answers you are after is to make a filterless mask with the 2" and 1.25" holes and try it on the moon with a bit of imaging. Easy, cheap and should it not work you aren't left with a pile of filters with no use for them.
Mark
I really think the cellophane is a bad idea, and using UV?IR I think you will have too much energy inside the tube. Looking at the simulation Christian posted of a ring of 2" filters adding in 1.25" filters too is just going to make things more dotty with the resultant image lacking in contrast.
I think the easiest and safest way to get the answers you are after is to make a filterless mask with the 2" and 1.25" holes and try it on the moon with a bit of imaging. Easy, cheap and should it not work you aren't left with a pile of filters with no use for them.
Mark
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!
- Bob Yoesle
- Almost There...
- Posts: 996
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:24 pm
- Has thanked: 541 times
- Been thanked: 811 times
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Agree Mark, the cellophane is a non-starter. If I were going to do this (and that's a big IF considering the diffraction effects), I'd use Baader 35 nm nighttime H alpha filters. Better than the UV/IR for the UV/IR and visible blocking, on an RG substrate (RG610 I believe) and optically polished to a much better flatness and overall quality. You should be able to get a quantity discount as well ;-)
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.
Dark-Sky Defenders
Goldendale Observatory
Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.
Dark-Sky Defenders
Goldendale Observatory
- Valery
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 4059
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm
- Has thanked: 156 times
- Been thanked: 893 times
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
As the "Person 2" I would to remind the proverb "There is no free lunch.".
And add more - normally, there are no cheap large size optics and large size interference filters.
You always get what you pay for.
Valery
And add more - normally, there are no cheap large size optics and large size interference filters.
You always get what you pay for.
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.
Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
- marktownley
- Librarian
- Posts: 42559
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
- Location: Brierley Hills, UK
- Has thanked: 20828 times
- Been thanked: 10502 times
- Contact:
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
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!
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Well I made a mask for my C11.
First attempt - Original Mask. I suspected that the rough edges were contributing to image blur so I modified the mask using black tape to cover the edges of the holes.
Second Attempt - Modified Mask Here's the results on the moon tonight (March 25 2018) using the my C11 with and without the modified mask.
NO MASK - 10 best out 900 frames stacked in AS!3. No Image Processing. WITH MASK - 10 best out 900 frames stacked in AS!3. No Image Processing. The masked image is certainly not as clear as the unmasked image. Maybe sharpening the image might help?
Here's the sharpened masked image. (Sharpen: Lucy Richardson deconvolution, unsharpmask, high-pass filter)
WITH MASK - SHARPENED At this point, I felt that the sharpened masked image was better than the original no-mask image.
I then applied a similar sharpening routine to the original no-mask image.
NO MASK - SHARPENED After sharpening both the masked and no mask images, to me it is evident that the image made without a mask is superior. Just how much... hard to quantify this effect. Applying these moon results to a possible solar image, I think one could expect a similar performance.
i.e. Not as good as a full 11 inch aperture (but who expected that anyway) but it seems to work... how well is an open question.
What are your thoughts on these lunar results?
First attempt - Original Mask. I suspected that the rough edges were contributing to image blur so I modified the mask using black tape to cover the edges of the holes.
Second Attempt - Modified Mask Here's the results on the moon tonight (March 25 2018) using the my C11 with and without the modified mask.
NO MASK - 10 best out 900 frames stacked in AS!3. No Image Processing. WITH MASK - 10 best out 900 frames stacked in AS!3. No Image Processing. The masked image is certainly not as clear as the unmasked image. Maybe sharpening the image might help?
Here's the sharpened masked image. (Sharpen: Lucy Richardson deconvolution, unsharpmask, high-pass filter)
WITH MASK - SHARPENED At this point, I felt that the sharpened masked image was better than the original no-mask image.
I then applied a similar sharpening routine to the original no-mask image.
NO MASK - SHARPENED After sharpening both the masked and no mask images, to me it is evident that the image made without a mask is superior. Just how much... hard to quantify this effect. Applying these moon results to a possible solar image, I think one could expect a similar performance.
i.e. Not as good as a full 11 inch aperture (but who expected that anyway) but it seems to work... how well is an open question.
What are your thoughts on these lunar results?
- marktownley
- Librarian
- Posts: 42559
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
- Location: Brierley Hills, UK
- Has thanked: 20828 times
- Been thanked: 10502 times
- Contact:
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Excellent! Experiment is King! The results are pretty much what I would expect, the masked version has much lower contrast. On the sun, and certainly at the moment contrast is a lot lower than the moon so I would image if this was tried on the sun things would be very washed out.
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!
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Thanks Mark,
Yes I agree... " Experiment is King!"... often too many talkers without proof.
Now in retrospect, the results makes sense; chopping up the aperture would cause diffraction effects that would lead to a loss of contrast.
The only thing I wonder about is resolution.
The masked C11 has the equivalent clear glass of a 152mm aperture scope. However, because the clear glass is distributed about the periphery of the C11, I would expect the masked C11 resolution to be higher than an unmasked 152mm refractor.
I wonder who wins? Would the loss of contrast have more effect than the increase in resolution or visa-versa?
Yes I agree... " Experiment is King!"... often too many talkers without proof.
Now in retrospect, the results makes sense; chopping up the aperture would cause diffraction effects that would lead to a loss of contrast.
The only thing I wonder about is resolution.
The masked C11 has the equivalent clear glass of a 152mm aperture scope. However, because the clear glass is distributed about the periphery of the C11, I would expect the masked C11 resolution to be higher than an unmasked 152mm refractor.
I wonder who wins? Would the loss of contrast have more effect than the increase in resolution or visa-versa?
-
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 1732
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
- Location: Germany
- Has thanked: 3060 times
- Been thanked: 2163 times
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
"The only thing I wonder about is resolution."
Wow. I would wonder if the secondary mirror survives the heat.
i hope you didnt plan to use that construction visually on the sun.
Wow. I would wonder if the secondary mirror survives the heat.
i hope you didnt plan to use that construction visually on the sun.
Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
-
- Im an EXPERT!
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:28 am
- Has thanked: 175 times
- Been thanked: 429 times
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
Given the thread got bumped recently, I just wanted to point out that diffraction is the smaller problem. The bigger problem is that each filter will have very slightly different thickness and be mounted at a very slightly different angle. A better test than a diffraction mask with holes would be to put as many haze filters as you can find in front of one objective and see the effect. It should have the same effect as grinding different sections of your objective to aim at slightly different focal points (both front-back and side-to-side). I am guessing it would look like very bad seeing.
George
George
- marktownley
- Librarian
- Posts: 42559
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
- Location: Brierley Hills, UK
- Has thanked: 20828 times
- Been thanked: 10502 times
- Contact:
Re: C11 ERF-Concept
That's very good point George.
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!