Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

AO7 Bench test

Expand Messages
  • Randy Nulman
    Hi All, I got a private email from Ron B. that he did the bench test last night (Thanks Ron!). In his test, there was virtually no difference in fwhm between
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,
      I got a private email from Ron B. that he did the bench test last
      night (Thanks Ron!). In his test, there was virtually no difference
      in fwhm between a slow AO rate (under 4Hz) and a higher rate (15Hz).

      I suspect that this was probably due to the fact that he may have had
      very steady seeing during the time that he did the tests..so maybe it
      needs to be done when the seeing is a little "worse" to get more
      accurate data?

      Based on what Ron W. said..that he saw no difference between a self
      guided image and an AO image that is taken at a rate slower than 5HZ
      (on a _good_ well tuned mount) plus Ron B's data; I strongly suspect
      that an AO is not useful for me. (Especially since my skies get no
      better than 2.5 a.s. and typically are around 3.0 a.s.) I think you
      need much better "seeing" to benefit from the AO. It's interesting
      in that I just saw a post on the SBIG group from Adam Block where
      Adam stated that he felt the AO was useful if the seeing was under
      2.2 a.s but (and I'm making an inference here) not that useful if the
      seeing is worse. Also interesting that John Smith is now choosing to
      go completely unguided..with shorter exposures of around 5
      minutes..and has been getting good results (I assume they are at
      least equal to his previous AO guided results or he wouldn't be doing
      this?) John, if you're out there, I'd love to hear your opinion.

      Any comments?
      Randy
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.