[Aavso-photometry] RE: Where do the professionals source (arne)

[Bill Goff]

For me, the biggest reason of an observatory is convenience.  Not 
having repeated assembly/disassembly certainly is a big part of that 
convenience.  Of course anyone with a theft problem would loose some 
convenience I guess.

I think I would also agree that I'd pay more to avoid the inconvenience 
of filters going bad or requiring special treatment.  Fortunately, I 
haven't had the problem yet, but Schuler filters don't seem like such a 
bargain if they loose 10% because of lack of coatings and may become 
unusable.  As the old saying goes, 'buy the right part and only cry 
once...'.

Bill


On Sep 24, 2005, at 6:33 PM, Michael Koppelman wrote:

> To each his or her own, David. My camera is not so easy to remove. It 
> is screwed on to the corrector of my Tak E-160. I do not focus every 
> night -- I focus every couple of months. I'm not taking pretty 
> pictures and because I am undersampled a little misfocus can actually 
> be an advantage. It would probably add at least an hour if I had to 
> reattach and refocus every night. (I do not have a robotic focuser.)
>
> I also don't want to deal with thermal equilibrium problems so all my 
> gear is at ambient temperature all the time. Here in Minnesota, in the 
> winter, my unheated (but attached) garage is still 20 degrees warmer 
> than ambient.
>
> Finally, someone once gave me what I consider a very good piece of 
> advice: the purpose of an observatory is to protect your equipment! He 
> suggested, and I agree, that one should leave everything set up and 
> ready to go. I can be taking data within about 15 minutes of arriving 
> at my observatory. With a full-time job, taking classes, doing 
> research, playing in bands and spending time with my wife and kid, an 
> hour here and there makes a difference.
>
> I can live with a little suspect data every 3 or 4 years. Because I 
> enjoy error analysis, I noticed this pretty much right away. I had 
> some problems with frost this summer because my desiccant needed 
> recharging. I think the combination of high heat and high humidity is 
> probably the culprit.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> On Sep 24, 2005, at 8:01 PM, David Higgins wrote:
>
>> 'Not practical for a working observatory'???  Of course this depends 
>> on what
>> you classify as a working observatory but I remove my cameras every 
>> night
>> simply because they are small and easily transportable items for 
>> thieves (a
>> 14" telescope isn't).  The camera always goes back to within 0.4 
>> degree
>> rotation (camera/scope mount adapter takes care of that) and I always
>> perform a focus (as should any observatory) before the imaging session
>> begins.  I've done this for 100+ sessions over the last 3 years with 
>> no ill
>> effects.
>>
>> I can understand why observatories with LN DEWARs etc will not remove 
>> the
>> cameras but there really isn't any valid reason otherwise if you want 
>> to
>> maintain the integrity of your filters.
>>
>> If the filters are degrading and you have to change them then your 
>> data then
>> becomes suspect because you have no idea at what point they become 
>> suspect!
>> Whats more important - data integrity or a small inconvenience each 
>> session?
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Aavso-photometry mailing list
> Aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org
> http://www.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-photometry
>
> Support the AAVSO by clicking on the Amazon.com link at www.aavso.org 
> before making your purchase. The AAVSO will get ~5% of the purchase 
> price as a donation with no increased cost to you.
>