Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thinking about it though, I guess in planetary imaging where focal ratios are invariably very high it is not so much of a problem
Robin
This look pretty good value as a couple of decent wedge prism eg from Edmund Optics alone would be close to this figure. This arrangement though would generate astigmatism placed in a converging beam wouldn’t it? Shouldn’t there ideally be some form of collimator ?
Robin
Hi Alun,
The ALPY600 is an impressive tool for measuring active galaxy redshifts. For example Etienne Bertrand has found it is possible to get down to mag 15-16 on active galaxy and QSO with a C8 scope. You might be interested in his growing collection that he has been reporting on the ARAS forum here.
http://www.spectro-aras.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=6
His latest ( QSO 1247+267 at z=2 and V mag 16) is here
http://www.spectro-aras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1663&p=7726
Cheers
Robin
Also some additional comments here which might be useful where a change to 256 colours was needed
http://www.spectro-aras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1660
Robin
Hi Peter,
The shape of your spectrum looks different from the one in the library because your spectrum is not corrected for the response of your instrument or the absorption of the atmosphere. You can see an example of this for the Star Analyser in the VSpec tutorial lesson 5 here
http://www.astrosurf.com/vdesnoux/tutorial5.html
You can also see the same process in my BAA Workshop presentations
http://www.threehillsobservatory.co.uk/astro/spectroscopy_10.htm
Cheers
Robin
You should try keeping a flip top dry! The moisture condenses on the inside of the open roof and can even rain down on the gear when you close it up. I run a dehumidifier 24/7 (with a tubular heater when it is below freezing), though apart from after I close up, it never seems to be running when I go back to it. The observatory volume is very small though!
http://www.threehillsobservatory.co.uk/astro/observatory/observatory_C11_LHIRES_feb_2010.jpg
Hi Andrew,
Yes the effect of atmospheric dispersion (particularly if combined with CA) is well known in amateur spectra too eg
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/dispersion/atmo.htm
but that does not seem to explain this case where the results were ok when the seeing was better, unless the target was also higher in the sky or the location was such that the parallactic angle fortuitously aligned better with the slit
Cheers
Robin
Hi David,
I am not sure I follow this. I can understand how the wavelength dependency of the Airy disc size due to diffraction could potentially cause this effect in a diffraction limited situation but in your setup I would expect this to small compared with the slit width and the seeing. Also the atmospheric effects which affect seeing and atmospheric dispersion are due to refraction, so wouldn’t they reduce with increasing wavelength? Comparing the star FWHM from photometric B and I band measurements could be interesting. Do you know if that this affect on seeing is seen there ?
Robin
Hi Tony,
I forgot about that. In fact it was me who asked for it !
http://www.spectro-aras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=516#p1829
It was added in v5.1.3
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/isis/new/release.html
Cheers
Robin
I am wondering if using the AOD technique to do a second order extinction correction coupled with our standard reference star technique as a first order correction might be useful, reducing the need to chose the reference star precisely at the same elevation as the target. ie The MILES star need not then be at the same elevation, as the effect of the difference in air mass is calculated separately using a typical AOD.
Robin
Hi Paul,
Yes it is described in part 4 of the link I posted above.
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/calibration2/absolute_calibration_en.htm
It seems to be what the pro I talked to was suggesting too. ie separating out the instrument response (which is presumed stable so measured infrequently) and extinction (measured on the night and adjusted for air mass using the AOD)
Cheers
Robin
Hi Andrew,
Yes I agree, this is an area which definitely needs more consideration. Even Pro-Am campaigns are rarely specified beyond a SNR figure and in most cases I suspect these sort of systematic errors are much greater than the stochastic ones that SNR estimates, and much harder to quantify. These problems are not confined to amateur observations and databases either. For example the continuum of the ELODIE Vega spectrum originally incorporated into ISIS and which has probably used to correct hundreds of spectra in BeSS, is significantly in error.
http://www.spectro-aras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1369#p6205
and the Indo-US library spectra sometimes suggested as reference stars have a completely synthetic continuum based on Pickles
http://www.spectro-aras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1582
Cheers
Robin
Hi Tony,
I have only a couple in BeSS (I also have a few BeSS candidate spectra but those stars are not in BeSS yet)
They are also in the BAA database so you can pick them up there. Note that the V361 Per spectrum there is as I submitted it to BeSS but the BD+55521 is the version outputted by BeSS so has extra fields in the header which BeSS adds.
They are both very noisy but my excuse is they are high resolution spectra at mag 10 so a bit of a challenge.
Cheers
Robin
Hi Tony,
I need to think about doing it that way as I think ISIS normally does some internal rescaling rather than outputting in ADU counts so the final spectra may not subtract correctly. (you would need to test this) What I was proposing is to produce a single pre processed spectrum image manually with the dark, flat correction and the sky image subtracted already, ready for processing in ISIS without any further dark, flat bias correction or background subtraction to produce the spectrum profile but ISIS may then complain if it is not given any master dark or bias frames.
It seems this might not be as straightforward in ISIS as I thought. Perhaps putting the question on ARAS might be a better bet. Francois Teyssier there would know how to do it in practise.
Cheers
Robin
Hi Andrew,
A wide “photometric” slit is certainly needed for absolute flux calibration of course but in my experience, provided precautions are taken I have found it is possible to consistently get “reasonable” (+-10% say above 4000A) broad continuum relative flux calibration with my setup using a slit width the same order as the star PSF.
(Except for the effect of changing focus on the original run and an example of the effects of scintillation on the latest run, the continuum errors my two runs using MILES stars I have documented here have been reasonably under control. You can also see some comparisons with professional spectra in what is perhaps a worse case scenario of faint targets using the modified ALPY 200 here.
http://www.threehillsobservatory.co.uk/astro/spectroscopy_20.htm
Comparisons between observers on the same object posted on the ARAS forum using the reference star techniques are also usually (but with admittedly some exceptions) consistent.
Perhaps my success though is due to the not particularly good guiding performance which effectively scans the centre of the star image across the slit.
Speaking to a professional recently, this sort of thing is tough for them too and their approach seemed to be to specifically measure the instrument response using standard stars only occasionally on photometric nights, removing the effect of the atmosphere by measuring at different air masses and then measure just the atmospheric extinction during the observing session, typically making one standard star measurement and correcting for air mass using an atmospheric model generated for their particular local conditions. This gets round the problem of having to find a reference star close to the target but does not address the problem of selective wavelength sampling at the slit which may be what we are seeing here, though I believe that is yet to be proved. (David, perhaps you could try running with a wider 35um or even 50um slit to see if you get any improvement?).
Buil’s ideas on spectrophotometric measurements using a combination of wide and narrow slits are probably worth thinking about in this context too, though adopting the 4 spectra measurement every time would reduce throughput significantly and might still give extinction errors with our fickle weather.
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/calibration2/absolute_calibration_en.htm
Professionals though probably measure with the slit orientated at the parallactic angle and their CA and positioning and guiding errors are likely much lower than ours in general so perhaps selective sampling at the slit is not a big issue for them
Cheers
Robin
Hi Tony,
I am not a Be star expert but I would have expected the continuum to be that of the corresponding B star ie a typical hot star spectrum rising towards the blue end. On that basis the flat spectra and that one which dips down at the blue end look strange to me. The stars may be reddened by interstellar extinction though I suppose. For a more experienced view you could ask on the ARAS forum.
Cheers
Robin
Hi Tony,
If the nebula extends beyond the length of the slit and you want to produce a flux calibrated spectrum then yes, you need to take a separate sky background spectrum image of the sky near the nebula under as near as possible the same conditions and with the same exposure time. I would then preprocess them all with bias, darks and (halogen)flats as usual then subtract the nebula image from the sky image to produce a final image ready for extracting the spectrum profile as usual (without any background subtraction). The instrument response calculated from a nearby reference star is applied in the normal way.
Cheers
Robin
Hi John,
Your response calculation technique looks sound, otherwise you would note get a good match when applied to the reference measurement. It does seem though that something must have changed between the observations. There are a few things to check
I ran into a similar problem when I first attempted this type of exercise soon after I got the ALPY. In this case it was due to a combination of chromatic aberration and a shift in focus. I have attached the details.
Combinations of chromatic aberration, atmospheric dispersion, focus and the position of the star on the slit can all conspire to give these sort of problems. Christian Buil has a particularly scary page on the problem somewhere. I will see if I can dig it out. Having said that your C6 without focal reducer I would guess does not suffer from too much CA.
Other things to watch in processing is to make sure your binning zone includes all the spectrum and the background zones are free from any spectrum data. If you use the optimised binning in ISIS try switching it off as I found the similar feature in VSpec could distort the spectrum under some circumstances.
Cheers
Robin
EDIT: here is the link I was looking for
Re darks:- With my extremely faint supernova spectra, I no longer do a traditional dark correction though i still take them to produce a defect map and use this with the bias frame. I have not taken that step with other spectra yet though. I use cloudy nights to take darks so I have plenty of opportunity to take very large stacks !
re flats:- I always take and use them with slit spectra as I find it is the only way to accurately remove some fine scale QE variations (QE ripples at low resolution and interference type effects at high resolution). Getting a big enough stack to avoid introducing noise without getting saturation is a problem with a halogen flat source and wide spectral range though. (eg ALPY). Again cloudy nights come to the rescue here.
For slitless work I have come to the conclusion that flat correction is effectively impossible so just take a flat so I can avoid any obvious defects and position the star zero order (target and reference) in the same place in the field.
Robin
Concerning rectification, I think it depends to what use you are going to put the spectrum. For your own personal use or in a specific study, you just need to do what is required for that application (Which as an extreme example could be all about as accurate as possible wavelength calibration and nothing needed concerning flux calibration if all you wanted to know was the RV) .
The problem comes where you might be uploading data to a general database where you do not know to what use the data is to be put. The rule I apply (which is the philosophy behind the BeSS database) is that you should do all reduction that the user cannot do (eg wavelength calibration, flux calibration by correcting for instrument response) but not steps that the user could do for themselves (eg heliocentric correction, rectification, telluric removal). making sure that the appropriate flags are set in the header.
In this specific case however, If I was uploading this to a database, I would rectify it. To upload it as is including the continuum would be misleading. The reason is that the continuum shape is completely artificial having been made to fit that of a typical star of similar spectral type. For all we know this might bear no resemblance to the actual spectrum. By rectifying it, we are not losing any data, since the continuum shape is not derived from the spectrum and the user should they wish, could add back the continuum shape using their own typical B star spectrum.
Concerning measurements on rectified spectra, EW measurement of absorption lines is no problem as they are measured relative to the continuum. Measurement of emission line strengths is problematic though as the actual flux in the line is usually the important parameter rather than the EW (as in general emission and continuum flux are not related) and measuring the relative strengths of these at different wavelengths (even in relative flux) requires a non rectified accurately flux calibrated spectrum.
Robin
