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

Higher and higher....

Expand Messages
  • Bob
    Hello all, It s been a while since I last posted here. I am contemplating moving my imaging setup ( FL 2850 )to a higher altitude location to escape the fog
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 6 10:54 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all,

      It's been a while since I last posted here. I am contemplating moving
      my imaging setup ( FL 2850 )to a higher altitude location to escape
      the fog and skyglow of sacramento...I was wondering where I should
      draw the line as to what the minimum altitude should be where the
      seeing and skyglow/limiting magnitude would improve enough to justify
      the move.

      In general, it seems the higher you go, the better the conditions, but
      there are more available locations the lower you are...I am thinking
      in the range of 3000-4000 feet, where the snow would be minimal, but
      would be high enough to escape the fog and smog....

      Any thoughts on this are appreciated...

      Thx,
      Bob.
    • Bill Logan
      Bob, I have my observatory located at 7, 400 feet ASL in the White Mountains of Arizona. It took me six months to get acclimated. Don t forget, the higher
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 6 11:04 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob,

        I have my observatory located at 7, 400 feet ASL in the White Mountains of
        Arizona. It took me six months to get acclimated. Don't forget, the higher
        you go, the colder and windier it becomes. My recommendation is not to go
        above 12,000 feet because the brain doesn't function well above that without
        oxygen (ask the Keck Observatory crew).

        Caela perlucida,

        "Dollar" Bill Logan,
        Director, Chief Astronomer (and local artist)
        Robert Burnham Jr. Memorial Observatory
        Eagar, Arizona

        Life goal: To be the person my dog thinks I am.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Bob" <rsh@...>
        To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:54 AM
        Subject: [ccd-newastro] Higher and higher....


        > Hello all,
        >
        > It's been a while since I last posted here. I am contemplating moving
        > my imaging setup ( FL 2850 )to a higher altitude location to escape
        > the fog and skyglow of sacramento...I was wondering where I should
        > draw the line as to what the minimum altitude should be where the
        > seeing and skyglow/limiting magnitude would improve enough to justify
        > the move.
        >
        > In general, it seems the higher you go, the better the conditions, but
        > there are more available locations the lower you are...I am thinking
        > in the range of 3000-4000 feet, where the snow would be minimal, but
        > would be high enough to escape the fog and smog....
        >
        > Any thoughts on this are appreciated...
        >
        > Thx,
        > Bob.
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG.
        > Version: 7.5.448 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/748 - Release Date: 4/5/2007
        > 3:33 PM
        >
        >



        --
        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG.
        Version: 7.5.448 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/748 - Release Date: 4/5/2007 3:33 PM
      • Yahoo - Wodaski
        Changing your altitude above sea level can involve multiple benefits, but not every site at a higher elevation delivers multiple goodies. The primary benefit
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 6 11:23 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Changing your altitude above sea level can involve multiple benefits,
          but not every site at a higher elevation delivers multiple goodies.

          The primary benefit from an increase in altitude is thinner air. Thinner
          air is "thin" because it is less dense. Since refraction in the air
          column you are viewing/imaging through is the cause of seeing effects,
          and since less dense air refracts less, the seeing is always better as
          you increase altitude.

          Also, if you choose a site carefully, you can control for things like
          vertical mixing, which is the primary cause of seeing problems.

          But keep in mind that the dominant cause of seeing problems at any site
          is the vertical mixing that occurs very close to the ground (most of it
          within 10 meters of the surface). By simply raising your telescope's
          elevation above the ground, you can get a huge gain in performance. (Of
          course, moving to a high altitude AND raising your telescope elevation
          yields even more improvement!)

          There is a Powerpoint presentation ("Understanding and Controlling
          Seeing")on the DVD that comes with my book on the Zone System that notes
          the following:

          "A change from 4 meters elevation to 10 meters elevation is the same as
          placing the telescope at 4,200 meters altitude."

          (Altitude, Elevation, and Seeing. Rene Racine, Publications of the
          Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol 117, No 830 p407)

          Ron Wodaski

          Bob wrote:
          > Hello all,
          >
          > It's been a while since I last posted here. I am contemplating moving
          > my imaging setup ( FL 2850 )to a higher altitude location to escape
          > the fog and skyglow of sacramento...I was wondering where I should
          > draw the line as to what the minimum altitude should be where the
          > seeing and skyglow/limiting magnitude would improve enough to justify
          > the move.
          >
          > In general, it seems the higher you go, the better the conditions, but
          > there are more available locations the lower you are...I am thinking
          > in the range of 3000-4000 feet, where the snow would be minimal, but
          > would be high enough to escape the fog and smog....
          >
          > Any thoughts on this are appreciated...
          >
          > Thx,
          > Bob.
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Bob
          Hi Ron, I have your CD, but have yet to view the section you are talking about. Looks like i ll have to work it in around the masters tournament this weekend!
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 6 12:05 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Ron,

            I have your CD, but have yet to view the section you are talking
            about. Looks like i'll have to work it in around the masters
            tournament this weekend! Thanks for the input.

            Bob.

            --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Yahoo - Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:
            >
            > Changing your altitude above sea level can involve multiple benefits,
            > but not every site at a higher elevation delivers multiple goodies.
            >
            > The primary benefit from an increase in altitude is thinner air.
            Thinner
            > air is "thin" because it is less dense. Since refraction in the air
            > column you are viewing/imaging through is the cause of seeing effects,
            > and since less dense air refracts less, the seeing is always better as
            > you increase altitude.
            >
            > Also, if you choose a site carefully, you can control for things like
            > vertical mixing, which is the primary cause of seeing problems.
            >
            > But keep in mind that the dominant cause of seeing problems at any site
            > is the vertical mixing that occurs very close to the ground (most of it
            > within 10 meters of the surface). By simply raising your telescope's
            > elevation above the ground, you can get a huge gain in performance. (Of
            > course, moving to a high altitude AND raising your telescope elevation
            > yields even more improvement!)
            >
            > There is a Powerpoint presentation ("Understanding and Controlling
            > Seeing")on the DVD that comes with my book on the Zone System that
            notes
            > the following:
            >
            > "A change from 4 meters elevation to 10 meters elevation is the
            same as
            > placing the telescope at 4,200 meters altitude."
            >
            > (Altitude, Elevation, and Seeing. Rene Racine, Publications of the
            > Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol 117, No 830 p407)
            >
            > Ron Wodaski
            >
            > Bob wrote:
            > > Hello all,
            > >
            > > It's been a while since I last posted here. I am contemplating moving
            > > my imaging setup ( FL 2850 )to a higher altitude location to escape
            > > the fog and skyglow of sacramento...I was wondering where I should
            > > draw the line as to what the minimum altitude should be where the
            > > seeing and skyglow/limiting magnitude would improve enough to justify
            > > the move.
            > >
            > > In general, it seems the higher you go, the better the conditions, but
            > > there are more available locations the lower you are...I am thinking
            > > in the range of 3000-4000 feet, where the snow would be minimal, but
            > > would be high enough to escape the fog and smog....
            > >
            > > Any thoughts on this are appreciated...
            > >
            > > Thx,
            > > Bob.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          • Ron Brant
            The basic question was skyglow....is there a reasonable elevation where the sky glow falls off significantly?? Ignoring smog, etc. rb ... From: Bob To:
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 6 12:11 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              The basic question was skyglow....is there a reasonable elevation where the sky glow falls off significantly?? Ignoring smog, etc.
              rb
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Bob
              To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:07 PM
              Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Higher and higher....


              Hi Ron,

              I have your CD, but have yet to view the section you are talking
              about. Looks like i'll have to work it in around the masters
              tournament this weekend! Thanks for the input.

              Bob.

              --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Yahoo - Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:
              >
              > Changing your altitude above sea level can involve multiple benefits,
              > but not every site at a higher elevation delivers multiple goodies.
              >
              > The primary benefit from an increase in altitude is thinner air.
              Thinner
              > air is "thin" because it is less dense. Since refraction in the air
              > column you are viewing/imaging through is the cause of seeing effects,
              > and since less dense air refracts less, the seeing is always better as
              > you increase altitude.
              >
              > Also, if you choose a site carefully, you can control for things like
              > vertical mixing, which is the primary cause of seeing problems.
              >
              > But keep in mind that the dominant cause of seeing problems at any site
              > is the vertical mixing that occurs very close to the ground (most of it
              > within 10 meters of the surface). By simply raising your telescope's
              > elevation above the ground, you can get a huge gain in performance. (Of
              > course, moving to a high altitude AND raising your telescope elevation
              > yields even more improvement!)
              >
              > There is a Powerpoint presentation ("Understanding and Controlling
              > Seeing")on the DVD that comes with my book on the Zone System that
              notes
              > the following:
              >
              > "A change from 4 meters elevation to 10 meters elevation is the
              same as
              > placing the telescope at 4,200 meters altitude."
              >
              > (Altitude, Elevation, and Seeing. Rene Racine, Publications of the
              > Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol 117, No 830 p407)
              >
              > Ron Wodaski
              >
              > Bob wrote:
              > > Hello all,
              > >
              > > It's been a while since I last posted here. I am contemplating moving
              > > my imaging setup ( FL 2850 )to a higher altitude location to escape
              > > the fog and skyglow of sacramento...I was wondering where I should
              > > draw the line as to what the minimum altitude should be where the
              > > seeing and skyglow/limiting magnitude would improve enough to justify
              > > the move.
              > >
              > > In general, it seems the higher you go, the better the conditions, but
              > > there are more available locations the lower you are...I am thinking
              > > in the range of 3000-4000 feet, where the snow would be minimal, but
              > > would be high enough to escape the fog and smog....
              > >
              > > Any thoughts on this are appreciated...
              > >
              > > Thx,
              > > Bob.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Yahoo - Wodaski
              No, elevation won t help with sky glow. The only thing that will help is being far away from from the source of the light. Going up, you maybe gain a mile,
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 6 12:25 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                No, elevation won't help with sky glow. The only thing that will help is
                being far away from from the source of the light. Going up, you maybe
                gain a mile, perhaps even two miles if you have a really high mountain -
                but you need to get 20-50 miles away from a city to solve the problem.
                The elevation change is just too small to be a big help.

                Of course, most mountains are also laterally far away from a city, which
                helps some. But even on Kitt Peak, the lights of Tucson are a real nuisance.

                Ron Wodaski

                Ron Brant wrote:
                > The basic question was skyglow....is there a reasonable elevation where the sky glow falls off significantly?? Ignoring smog, etc.
                > rb
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Bob
                > To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:07 PM
                > Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Higher and higher....
                >
                >
                > Hi Ron,
                >
                > I have your CD, but have yet to view the section you are talking
                > about. Looks like i'll have to work it in around the masters
                > tournament this weekend! Thanks for the input.
                >
                > Bob.
                >
                > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Yahoo - Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Changing your altitude above sea level can involve multiple benefits,
                > > but not every site at a higher elevation delivers multiple goodies.
                > >
                > > The primary benefit from an increase in altitude is thinner air.
                > Thinner
                > > air is "thin" because it is less dense. Since refraction in the air
                > > column you are viewing/imaging through is the cause of seeing effects,
                > > and since less dense air refracts less, the seeing is always better as
                > > you increase altitude.
                > >
                > > Also, if you choose a site carefully, you can control for things like
                > > vertical mixing, which is the primary cause of seeing problems.
                > >
                > > But keep in mind that the dominant cause of seeing problems at any site
                > > is the vertical mixing that occurs very close to the ground (most of it
                > > within 10 meters of the surface). By simply raising your telescope's
                > > elevation above the ground, you can get a huge gain in performance. (Of
                > > course, moving to a high altitude AND raising your telescope elevation
                > > yields even more improvement!)
                > >
                > > There is a Powerpoint presentation ("Understanding and Controlling
                > > Seeing")on the DVD that comes with my book on the Zone System that
                > notes
                > > the following:
                > >
                > > "A change from 4 meters elevation to 10 meters elevation is the
                > same as
                > > placing the telescope at 4,200 meters altitude."
                > >
                > > (Altitude, Elevation, and Seeing. Rene Racine, Publications of the
                > > Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol 117, No 830 p407)
                > >
                > > Ron Wodaski
                > >
                > > Bob wrote:
                > > > Hello all,
                > > >
                > > > It's been a while since I last posted here. I am contemplating moving
                > > > my imaging setup ( FL 2850 )to a higher altitude location to escape
                > > > the fog and skyglow of sacramento...I was wondering where I should
                > > > draw the line as to what the minimum altitude should be where the
                > > > seeing and skyglow/limiting magnitude would improve enough to justify
                > > > the move.
                > > >
                > > > In general, it seems the higher you go, the better the conditions, but
                > > > there are more available locations the lower you are...I am thinking
                > > > in the range of 3000-4000 feet, where the snow would be minimal, but
                > > > would be high enough to escape the fog and smog....
                > > >
                > > > Any thoughts on this are appreciated...
                > > >
                > > > Thx,
                > > > Bob.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Wayne Lord
                If you are not already a member, you might consider joining the Sacramento Valley Astronomy Society. That would give you access to the Blue Canyon airport site
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 6 1:14 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  If you are not already a member, you might consider
                  joining the Sacramento Valley Astronomy Society. That
                  would give you access to the Blue Canyon airport site
                  that they use in the warmer months. Alternatively, you
                  could try contacting Teri Smoot, who goes to a site up
                  near Ice House (montanacg@...). Both sites
                  are around 5000' elevation.

                  Wayne Lord/star_geezer

                  --- Bob <rsh@...> wrote:

                  > Hello all,
                  >
                  > It's been a while since I last posted here. I am
                  > contemplating moving
                  > my imaging setup ( FL 2850 )to a higher altitude
                  > location to escape
                  > the fog and skyglow of sacramento...I was wondering
                  > where I should
                  > draw the line as to what the minimum altitude should
                  > be where the
                  > seeing and skyglow/limiting magnitude would improve
                  > enough to justify
                  > the move.
                  >
                  > In general, it seems the higher you go, the better
                  > the conditions, but
                  > there are more available locations the lower you
                  > are...I am thinking
                  > in the range of 3000-4000 feet, where the snow would
                  > be minimal, but
                  > would be high enough to escape the fog and smog....
                  >
                  > Any thoughts on this are appreciated...
                  >
                  > Thx,
                  > Bob.
                  >
                  >


                  Wayne Lord/Star_Geezer
                  Citrus Heights, CA
                  SkyView Pro 8 EQ, SkyView Pro 127mm EQ, Odyssey Compact 10"



                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  It's here! Your new message!
                  Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
                  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
                • Bob
                  Hi Wayne, I am already a member of SVAS, but that is a temporary solution. I want to set up a permenant site so I don t have to move the equipment around.
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 6 3:24 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Wayne,

                    I am already a member of SVAS, but that is a temporary solution. I
                    want to set up a permenant site so I don't have to move the equipment
                    around. Maybe control everything via the internet and make
                    troubleshooting runs as needed...


                    --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Wayne Lord <star_geezer@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > If you are not already a member, you might consider
                    > joining the Sacramento Valley Astronomy Society. That
                    > would give you access to the Blue Canyon airport site
                    > that they use in the warmer months. Alternatively, you
                    > could try contacting Teri Smoot, who goes to a site up
                    > near Ice House (montanacg@...). Both sites
                    > are around 5000' elevation.
                    >
                    > Wayne Lord/star_geezer
                    >
                    > --- Bob <rsh@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Hello all,
                    > >
                    > > It's been a while since I last posted here. I am
                    > > contemplating moving
                    > > my imaging setup ( FL 2850 )to a higher altitude
                    > > location to escape
                    > > the fog and skyglow of sacramento...I was wondering
                    > > where I should
                    > > draw the line as to what the minimum altitude should
                    > > be where the
                    > > seeing and skyglow/limiting magnitude would improve
                    > > enough to justify
                    > > the move.
                    > >
                    > > In general, it seems the higher you go, the better
                    > > the conditions, but
                    > > there are more available locations the lower you
                    > > are...I am thinking
                    > > in the range of 3000-4000 feet, where the snow would
                    > > be minimal, but
                    > > would be high enough to escape the fog and smog....
                    > >
                    > > Any thoughts on this are appreciated...
                    > >
                    > > Thx,
                    > > Bob.
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > Wayne Lord/Star_Geezer
                    > Citrus Heights, CA
                    > SkyView Pro 8 EQ, SkyView Pro 127mm EQ, Odyssey Compact 10"
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                    > It's here! Your new message!
                    > Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
                    > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.