Friday, August 7, 2015

See Atomic Particles With Your Own Eyes Part 4: Inferrence via Ion Induced Voltage Fluctuations (Welcome to the Ion Chamber)



So You Wanna See Atomic Particles With Your Own Eyes Part 4: Inferrence via Ion Induced Voltage Fluctuations (Welcome to the Ion Chamber)


There is more to seeing than what meets the eyeball.
-N.R. Hanson, Patterns of Discovery


We've explored actually seeing the paths of particles in a nuclear cloud chamber; watched corruscating alpha particles slam against a phosphor screen in spinthariscope; watched them explode when crossing the high voltage spark detector; found fields of activity with the radio telescope; and just horsed around with regular old Geiger Counters for fun. 

It's time to mix low voltage (8.5v) with soldering, multimeters and aluminum foil to make an Ion Chamber.

Simply put: we charge a cookie tin and have a wire inside that acts as a cathode. As ionized particles enter the chamber they create a current flow that is displayed on a multimeter. The higher the volts, the more ions which means greater radiation. 


Cookie tin. 


Screws that join the circuit board physically and electricity to the tin.



The cover of the tin becomes a circuit board cover.







I soldered a wire to the middle post of a Darlington transistor.  This is the cathode that passes through the bottom of the circuit board and into the tin. The Darlington transistor is actually two transistors in one package. The first part amplifies the incoming current, the second amplifies it even more!

A guy named Sid Darlington actually patented the idea of putting "two or three" components into a single unit back in the early 1950s. Not sure how momentous this was. Um, "let's moosh together two pizzas and make a mediocre double-pizza with a soggy crust center." Yeah, no! I think he actually figured out how to do it though, so it wasn't just the dopey idea of smashing them together that was his claim to fame.


Anyway, it acts like a single transistor but it amps up (high gain) the input. However the first of the Darlington ‘pair’ sucks up the voltage and responds in the circuit, leaving the second built in transistor a little ‘hungry’ for more. 

Think of it like two cats in a single cage: first one gets enough food, the second doesn’t so it makes for a really jittery pair of cats. That’s generally bad, but how can we use this to our advantage? 

Darlington Pairs are very jittery = very sensitive! They make create components in touch sensors. What are we doing? Well, we’re building a sensor that detects when it is touched by tiny little ions right? Great! How can we increase the jittery sensitivity of this? By adding that long wire to the middle leg of the Darlington transistor and extending it into your ion chamber. Neato!

Here's a photo of the wire coming off the Darlington straight at the camera.





By the way, I ordered the circuit board and transistor from Madscientisthut.com. They're neat people, ship fast and have cool stuff. You can order an ion chamber kit from them in various ways. In one of the kits they'll even through in a multimeter!! Or you can buy the board and source the parts separately from Radio Shack or wherever. I've found that usually on Amazon you have to buy 100 of the same components-it's cheap, but do I need 100 Darlington Transistors for $5 and free shipping? No, that's where kit designers like Madscientisthut.com come in and make everything easier.

I do order capacitors in bulk, because I get weird and blow lots of capacitors. A just received a bag of 100 capacitors from Amazon, which was a good deal and convenient...as you'll see in my next post about linear laboratory bench power supply making (there will be a loud bang and a little smoke!). 




Ok, here is the circuit board mounted on the cookie tin.




The inside of the cookie tin with the cathode wire in place.




The open end of the tin is covered with aluminum foil. I roughly zeroed out the meter.

Here is that meter during testing with a uranium test source (upper left above the foil).





Back view of the unit with the circuit board guard off and meter reading 15.1 mV. Notice the vial with uranium placed behind the ion chamber.





I moved the uranium to the front (sensing) side of the chamber. Notice the meter has started climbing.




Here's a nifty video I made of it in action. All of this was done before I properly mounted the circuit board deflector guard.




With the circuit board guard professionally mounted (with two different kinds of tape) I can now turn the unit on and use a plastic screw driver to zero in the unit by adjusting a 10k and  a 100k potentiometer through the holes.


Not something I'd have in my carry on luggage, but it works and only took me two nights to build.

The first night I was soldering and half my house went dark. Apparently the 240v electricity from the pole gets split into 120v when it gets to the fuse box. Sometimes with a blown utility pole transformer half the box can go out: either the left side (odd numbered fuses) or right (even numberr fuses) loses power. My basement, garage and half my kitchen worked fine.  All the other rooms had dim lightbulbs that slowly went dark.

"How can a soldering iron cause this?!?"

I finally looked outside and saw the street lamps going dark and realized it was a power line/pole problem. For a few minutes as I sat in complete darkness holding a blazingly hot soldering iron I thought I fried my house wiring.

I got to bed at 3am with a power company using a gas-powered generator backfeeding the pole by my bedroom window. Backfed with a regular old orange extension cord up the pole.  It's very important to wire in emergency generators for your home properly: if you backfeed your house with a male plug to your wall you can kill a utility worker.




Wait, so it wasn't the catnip, er, I mean soldering iron that made the lights in the house look like lava lamps? Still seems dark in here, I can't tell if I'm standing in a pile of loose Darlington transistors or those 10uf decoupling capacitors for the laboratory power source being built for the next post...meow.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Making Waves: Oscilloscopes, Lissajous and a Smattering of Cymatics




Making Waves: Oscilloscopes, Lissajous and a Smattering of Cymatics


Lissajous Figures are curves that are complex enough to make a pattern. These patterns are great tests for oscilloscopes because you can learn information from them by looking at how they move and their shape. They can tell you the frequency, phase, and even angle ratio which you can then look up in a trigonometry sine value for the phase angle of two waves: which lets you figure out the power factor of an electrical component.

Sine waves: sin and cosine. Get it?


Above is a circle I drew with a triangle. The bottom of the triangle is cosine. This is a 45° triangle. Trigonometry and Lissajous Figures are ratios. The ratio of cosine and sine is 70.7% and the angle is 45°. So, sin45 = 0.707. The same priciple applies to waves, but showing it on a circle is easier.

Fancy-smanshy, but we're just looking neat waves here. Lissajous waves are beautiful and quite reminiscent of Art Nouveau "whiplash" style curves and lines used in everything from painting and sculpture to wild furniture and architecture.



So who discovered Lissajous Figures? A man named Nathaniel Bowditch of course! Huh? Yeah, Bowditch experimented with them for a while, then like 50 years later a guy named Jules Lissajous attached a tuning fork to a lightbulb to create these patterns. Previously, people would use a pointed pendulum swinging through fine sand to create what much later became known as Lissajous Figures. I used an analog synthesizer and an old oscilloscope.



I also put a second line out from the synthesizer to a speaker so I could hear the waves while viewing them. A brand new 20Mhz probe and BNC female to UHF male adapter round out this setup.




Lissajous Figures are easy to use. You just count the loops running across the top of the pattern and down the side. This gives you your ratio, a 3 to 1 means 180 cycle voltage, 3 to 5 means a 60 cycle signal, etc. You set the signal input and then calibrate the oscilloscope by at adjusting until you get a familiar pattern. In the above video the settings I talk about are on the synthesizer, not the oscilloscope: I was going for beauty and variation, not calibration.


There are tons of ever more complex Lissajous Figures / Bowditch Curves. Above are the most common ones you'll probably encounter.



Another type of waves are Chladni Figures after Ernst Chladni in 1787 (later renamed Cymatics in 1967 by Hans Jenny). So, who first investigated them in recent times? Our poor, old friend Robert Hooke! You remember him right? He was the guy who discovered "Newton" Rings and "Newtonian" telescopes. I guess we should count ourselves lucky these aren't called Newton Figures.

Cymatics is sound waves directed through water.  Chladni used sand on the bodies of acoustic guitars, but the principle is the similar; although the sand forms geometric patterns that are more hard edged. Here are a few variations of Cymatics waves:




At 456 MHz the water spattered out of the plate:


Shocking and messy!


Here are some still photos of various Cymatic waves:













Chladni Figures are usually made in sand on flat plates. They're basically Cymatic waves in sand but there is a huge difference in how they look because the sand bouncing around, while the sound waves push the water into itself, bumping the waves along: which is why sound travels 4 times faster in water than air! Of course sound moves fastest through our good old friend beryllium from my neutron gun experiment. 



Chladni Figures, related to Cymatics (water and sound waves) showing sounds creating patterns in sand. For more geometric results a square plate and direct vibration coupling works much better. I was piping sound to a metal file cabinet, which then went to the small plate. At first I was bummed they weren't geometric, but after extensive image searching I found exact pattern duplicates from someone using a wooden desk with no plate.

This was just a spur of the moment test after looking at Lissajous Figures on my oscilloscope at 2 AM waiting for the cloud to clear so I can drag my telescope outside.


Here's another attempt:



Again, I found this same pattern duplicated by someone else, so I wasn't totally annoyed at the less-than-awesome pattern. I think once I get a perfectly flat metal plate instead of a slightly domed dish (which was levitating off the surface due to the sound pressure) I think I'll be able to get the hard edged geometric lines. As Paul Camp said, "There is a balance between discovering for oneself and being told."

I'll also be able to better acoustically couple the metal plate to the sound source. I'll update here once it's done, but I'm working on some other projects first.




Just make the noise stop-I can't cover my ears! Meow.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Non-Newtonian Fluid is the Best Kind of Fluid




Non-Newtonian Fluid is the Best Kind of Fluid


In my continuing assault on Isaac Newton I will demonstrate how boring old Newtonian fluids (like water) are less fun than non-Newtonian ones. First, we need to get our hands on a non-Newtonian fluid.

To make a non-Newtonian fluid we can just mix laundry spray starch and white glue. This will make a shear-thickening non-Newtonian fluid. Under stress it thickens and hardens (increases viscosity), once the stress passes it turns into a runny liquid. Put it in a cup and its like white glue you can stir with your finger. Poke your finger into the cup forcefully and it will harden into a single blob and you can pull it out of the cup!

Here's how quickly it is to make, it's actually easier without the gloves-they're too slippery to get a good gauge on the mix:




Here's my non-Newtonian fluid in action. Slap it and it hardens enough to let me peel it up off the plate. Wait a second and it'll drizzle down as a liquid:



There are many variations of non-Newtonian fluids besides shear-thickening ones.

Ketchup is a shear-thinning non-Newtonian fluid, which is why people smack (shear) the ketchup bottle to get it to thin and flow out faster. Xanthum gum is added to ketchup for just this effect.

If you put this spray starch and white glue mixture in a ketchup bottle the only way to keep it from pouring out would be to keep smacking the bottle! If you wanted it to thin and flow faster your just leave it alone for a few seconds. If you slap it hard enough it will instantly harden and break into two pieces, only to flow back together of left alone for a few seconds.

It seems pretty weird, but I've dealt with having a non-Newtonian fluid and the problems that it can cause:


I play a variety of bowed instruments. Rosin is used on the bow to let it grab the strings of the violin, cello or as in the photo above a double bass viol. The rosin looks and feels like a cube of yellowish glass:



This is the harder rosin I've used for years, but recently I started playing the huge upright double-bass which required me buying newer, softer rosin. It's in the red canister next to the violin. The softer rosin seemed like regular rosin: hard, produces a white powder when rubbed with the bow and will shatter into a zillion pieces if hit with a hammer; however you leave the canister on its side after a few days the seemingly glass-like rosin will ooze out. Leave it as a blob on a shelf and it will slowly pancake out: spreading and flattening, and eventually oozing off the edge.

Now, some people will tell you that regular old glass is a fluid that oozes over time, but they're wrong. Glass is a solid, although it isn't a crystallized solid so it's an amorphous solid. Crystals are rigid lattices of ordered molecules. Fluids and gases are unlatticed unordered molecules. Glass is unlatticed, unordered yet rigidly bound. Glass is a solid.

Most rosin for instruments is a solid, so solid on fact that it sometimes crystalizes. However bass rosin is much softer relative to regular rosin-although if you found a piece on the sidewalk you'd probably assume it was a chunk of old, broken glass.

Common myths: old glass windows are thicker at the bottom because the glass oozed down. Wrong: the spun old glass and cut it, the outside edge was always thicker and it was installed thick edge lower. A glass shelf will bend in the center over time so it's an oozing liquid. Wrong: it bends for the same reason wood shelves bend, it was too thin and/or too overloaded or gravity just got the best of it.

Polymers are repeating molecular units. They tend to create semi-crystalline structures and glasses. It tends to make things "plasticy" and in fact it gives the name for polystyrene is polymer of styrene (styrene being obtained from benzine).

What else has a crystalline structure? The starch spray in our non-Newtonian fluid. It has a semi-crystalline structure, that helps bind the glue into big molecules that are a polymer. Starch itself is considered a polymer. Adding a little borax powder* to the mix would make it a stronger polymer--strong enough that it would stop being a thinning/thickening liquid and become a rubber-like blob that you could throw and bounce off the walls. If you add an enzyme it will break the polymer up into smaller units (monomers) which changes its properties. Stringing together units of silicon yields a semi-liquid silicon polymer, which we call Silly Putty!

*Borax powder is sodium borate a natural compound of the element boron, which is what you want to get in the laundry aisle.

Boric acid is hydrogen borate is an acidic form of borax that is either a natural compound or manmade using the element boron with sulfuric or hydrochloric acid; as such it is acidic. Borax crystals are usually crystallized boric acid. They are sort of not the same. Kind of like ice is frozen water and good for putting in soda, ice dipped in acid is not quite the same.

Boron is B
Boric Acid is H3BO3
Borax is (NA2B4O7)(10H2O)

When dry boric acid crystals are added to water it grabs electrons and becomes weakly acidic. This weak acid is used in eye washes and hygiene products to combat yeast.

You'll also remember boron in its elemental form has awesome properties when used to lace blocks of paraffin wax during out experiments with slowing down radioactive neutron particles in my previous post "My Radioactive Dime".


Where else is boron/borax used? Taxidermy!



This is part of my Game fowl Collection: photo-books by Hiro; my bird Alouicious (named after the teddybear from Brideshead Revisited); and copies of Feathered Warrior (a catalogue where you can buy fighting spikes and the live-fertilized eggs of *past* fighting champions). 

Alouicious is actually from an organic market in Rochester Hills - not a fighting bird (so if you were upset when you thought he died in a cockfight, but relieved he was just normal food-then you're a hypocrite, unless you're vegan). LOL.


Here's a pic of my room-mate Boris the Book Boar visiting Melvindale Public Library during a charity event.  He came all the way from the Black Forest in Germany!

As you can see, boron is very useful! But enough of boron for now, it's time to get back to starchy polymers...

Boron has an incomplete set of electrons (in a compound) and seeks them out to bond with. This gives boron (not boric acid) many uses in the adhesives industry, including mixtures involving our good old friend starch! I see this all the time (I'm a librarian) in bookbinding pastes. One great glue for paper (used to make cardboard poster tubes) made from a water soluble synthetic polymer is polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) with boric acid added to it. 


Usually polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) has a formula of (CH2CHOH)n), but this particular chunk of PVA is actually:
 (-(CH2CHOH)n-(CH2CHOOCCH3)m-)

PVA is sorta weird in that it's not made up of chained monomers, it's polyvinyl acetate that is polymerized, and then the acetate is converted to alcohol! It's very bouncy:



PVA is  (CH2CHOH)n or it is -(CH2CHOH)n-(CH2CHOOCCH3)m-
Glucose is C6H12O6
Starch is C6H10O5

As a side note: the specific gravity of this PVA ball is 1.24 according to the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) provided by the manufacturer, Chang Chun Petrochemical. It sinks in water, but if you tip the bowl it's in it only slowly rolls to the lower side.


Here's a weird enzyme vs polymer test: chew a saltine cracker. Your saliva will break up the polymers and the crackers will get sweeter and sweeter as you keep chewing (and not swallowing) and adding more crackers. The monomer of starch is glucose. Glucose is a simple sugar. Simple sugar is sweet. It's the enzymes in your saliva (not the acids) that do this.

As a polymer, starch tastes like bread or potatoes. Break it up into its glucose sugar monomers and it's sweet! Glucose attracts water around it. Starch just attracts other starch around it. Glucose grabbing water can cause swelling and other problems-especially in the bloodstream of humans. It also causes plants (which store sugar/energy in the form of glucose) to need more water to make the glucose happy. The result is thirsty plants.

Many plants have wised up and stored their glucose in the form of longer chains of starch: the plants aren't so thirsty and the starch isn't bothered by whatever water is in the plant (too much water can mess with the glucose storage). Glucose in plants and animals calls for a balancing act with the amount of water, starch doesn't really care so much.






So...I guess have to find someone besides Newton to blame for the constant barrage of cantaloupes "oozing" off the glass table? Cantaloupe polymerization via face rubbing? I don't want to be taxidermied. Meow.


Oink!

Sunday, July 19, 2015

I Want to See the Sun III (Not) Unfiltered




I Want to See the Sun III (Not) Unfiltered


Here Phaeton lies, in Phoebus' car...

-Ovid




Here is a photo I took of the solar flares (upper right) shooting off the sun and into space. I used a cheap cellphone held up to the eyepiece of a Coronado PST...but we'll get to that later in this post.

We're going to explore the methods I've used over the past couple years to stare directly at the sun. We'll start with the simplest and cheapest and work our way up.

The easiest is to just look up and stare at the sun with bare eyes. This is a fantastically bad idea invented by the ancients. Galileo went blind from doing this.

Here is a picture of a sun dog (aka parhelion) false sun I took on 5/11/2017 in Michigan. Somewhere on this blog I have a better, earlier photo.


This particular sun dog looks like a rainbow. One time I saw a sun dog (aka False Sun) in which there appeared to be 3 suns in a row! The middle sun was the real one. All three suns were identical in shape (round) and brightness (bright as the sun). It was very weird and made me research what the heck was happening: sun dog aka false sun(s) aka parhelion aka mock sun(s).




Another terrible idea: Above is a green glass "Sun" filter. It screws onto the end of the eyepiece that goes into the telescope and gives nice crisp images of the sun that are tinted green. This will  only let you see sunspots, like in the photo below:


The photo is a tag blurry, but that's not the sun filter's fault, just bad focus. The little dot is a sunspot. The edge of the sun on the left side is crisp. These filters are really cool and come free with many old Tasco garage sale telescopes, but they have some serious drawbacks.

Walking around a church widdershins (against the sun / counterclockwise is considered unlucky or dangerous in Britain, but not in Eastern Orthodoxy.

They are usually found to fit small, 0.965" cheap eyepieces. A couple posts ago I detailed the problem with using these smaller, not so great eyepieces. Because this filter screws onto the eyepiece the burning hot sunlight has to enter your telescope Unfiltered until it hits this filter, which is about an inch from your eyeball. This works ok with really small (weaker) telescopes, but larger telescopes or any telescope using a mirror (reflector) will burst into flames if you point it at the sun, no matter of you have this filter in place or not! The sunlight is only filters for the last inch before it hits your eye, the rest of the time it's melting things in your telescope.

Another problem is that these glass filters have a habit of heating up and shattering! You'll be treated to flying glass and full, magnified sunlight blasting into your eye. They don't seem to sell these anymore, i got mine free from a friend. If you're smart you can use them relatively safely...except that they are not labeled as to manufacturer so they're mystery material. Some are 13 welder's glass but some might be a different version, some are just green glass, some are even cheap plastic. Never use these!

Beyond catastrophic failure of the glass, the most common injury is that while the light coming through the eyepiece is filtered, the light going through your little aiming/spotting scope isn't. People routinely burn their cheeks or set the shoulder of their shirts on fire. The spotting scope magnifies the sunlight. Leave the cap on the front of your spotting scope! Or take it off entirely.

Smaller telescopes and binoculars can be pointed at the sun and instead of shoving you're eye up to the eyepiece you can hold a piece of paper a few inches away from where your eye would normally be. This will project an image of the sun onto the paper. However, you can end up overheating and melting parts of the telescope or binoculars. Some cheap (and some super expensive) telescope eyepieces are epoxied together and may come unglued from the heat-and I wouldn't want to try this with and nice eyepieces. Strictly garage sale finds for the solar projection method.

The next step up in price (less than $30) is solar film i picked up cheap online from Draco Productions. It's made by Baader (make sure you get the film for in front of telescopes and NOT the naked eye version). It's available elsewhere, but Draco was cheap and shipped fast:


The tiny dot showing through the film is the sun...but this is NOT made for naked eye viewing.  If you hold this up to one side of a pair of binoculars (left eye side, held in front of the binoculars) remember to leave the cap on the other (right eye side) or else your left eye will be treated to a beautiful view of the sun while your right eyeball/eye-lid will be melted off your face! People forget, think before you do-your eyes depend on it!






In the above photos you can see the silvery solar film. It's over the objective end of the telescope which gets pointed at the sky: all of the sunlight has to pass through the filter before entering the telescope. It comes in squares and you make a round cardboard frame to stick on the end of your telescope or camera or binoculars. Everything is nice and cool and safe, just as long as you secure it strongly so the wind doesn't blow it off.

So, your can use this on bigger/better telescopes with any eyepiece that fits the telescope (1.25" and 2" eyepieces), not just the puny 0.965 eyepieces. Solar film can be held up to your camera, binoculars, cellphone or camera.. The green glass filter only screws onto toy-quality 0.965" eyepieces and is off unknown safety. Solar film is safer, and more versatile with slightly more surface detail.

As you can see, the silver foil is almost as wide as the opening of the telescope. This is actually too much. There should be a wider cardboard frame and less silver. That's a 3.5" diameter silver circle, or should be 2". This will let less light into the telescope which means less internal glare and less heat. If your telescope has a secondary mirror centered in the objective end, make the hole in the cardboard off-center. You'll have a big cardboard circle with a small silver circle not centered.

The photo below shows my bigger telescope with a bigger mask (and smaller filter letting in less light). To the extreme left edge there is a big plastic cover over the 8" telescope with a tiny cut out showing silver. Ignore the silver camera and lens at the center of the photo, it's the little circle on the budget one almost touching the middle of the left edge of the photo:



Your Reflector mirror telescope won't mind an off-center hole, because the spider 90 degree mirror blocks the center of the telescope. Your view will also have more contrast! With the light gathering power of my 8" telescope I used the plastic end cap with a small hole cut in it (as shown in the above photo) which tones down the internal light reflections. This beast of a telescope is made to grab all the light it can from dim deep-space objects-firehosing (even the filtered) fury of the sun down it is a case of less is more!

So, what do you see? Again, only sunspots and associated phenomena.


Here's a picture using the above telescope with solar film, set up just light it's shown. You can see 9 sunspots. Sunspots are almost always in pairs and have magnetic interactions with each other, but as you can see the highest one near the center of the sun is all alone! Neat.

You'll also notice the sun is white, not green. That's less annoying and also let's more fine detail be resolved by the human eye.

What else can you see with these simple two filter systems? Well, if you pop in more powerful (smaller number in millimeters) eyepieces you can zoom in and see light and dark structures in and around the sunspots and of you get the size of the filter (smaller is better) just right some orange-peel solar surface may be visible. Light grey surface with slightly lighter grey wisps. Anything else? Oh, you better believe it! How about the silhouette of anything that gets between your telescope and the sun: airplanes, satellites, the International Space Station and even planets like Venus. Venus? Yep, here's my photo of the planet Venus passing between the sun and the earth:


Venus is the big dot at the bottom. I took this photo of the Transit of Venus on June 5th, 2012 (my best friend's birthday-the same friend who gave me the green glass filter and a pile of telescopes). Toward the top you can see some sunspots too. Venus is about 84% the size of earth, the only reason it looks even as big as it does is because it's close to us-like how you can take your tiny thumb and block the sun with it.

While tracking Venus moving across the sun I also did my first act of "sidewalk astronomy". This is where astronomers set up a telescope in a weird place, like the middle of the sidewalk and give free views to anyone passing by. It's usually at night of course. I had my solar freak-show set up obviously while the sun was out on the middle of the afternoon, one of my neighbors came by and I gave an explanation and a free peak at a cool event. I'm extremely shy, but I was happy for the company while self-consciously operating this weird silver foil contraption.


What's the next method? Well, you can get a 90° eyepiece holder with a fancy (super expensive) glass filter called a Herschel Wedge. In addition to practically inventing or vastly improving many forms of photography (including astrophotography) he was a great astronomer not only on observing (he named a bunch of moons of Uranus and Saturn) he solved technical problems such as: how can we stare at the sun without going blind like Galileo did? He made a special prism (wedge) and added polarizing filters around it. They're cool (but blast out heat by diverting around 95% of the sunlight), pricey and only good for use with refractor (lenses, not mirrors) telescopes. The glass of the prism messes with the light waves and as mentioned in my previous post, reflector telescope mirrors focus all light at the same point, not different points like lenses.

I opted not to go the Herschel Wedge route since my best telescopes are not refractors. So, what did I do? I bought a really expensive refractors telescope-that can only be pointed at the sun! Didn't expect that did you?

I had been thinking for about a year over a solar telescope. I noticed that at almost all the websites the price of the model I wanted jumped up by more than $100! It was now or never, so clicked over to Amazon, which hadn't raised their price yet and I purchased my very own Coronado PST (personal telescope):


It's a strange beast indeed. My new solar telescope, was worth the wait and expense. Its manufacturing tolerances are 4 times tighter than the Hubble telescope's were. It uses a Fabry–PĂ©rot interferometer / etalon to dump out light and get only 656nm wavelength light to the eye, which is the hydrogen-alpha band of the sun. It's plus or minus 1/10 of a nanometer. The upgrade to make it plus or minus 5/100 of a nanometer would have added almost $2000 to the price (I'm happy with what I got).

So, what does this method do? In addition to sunspots, surface orange-peel wisps and other details the Coronado PST let's you see huge solar flares blasting off the surface of the sun into space. You can also refocus and see an extremely pronounced alligator-skin surface which also shows black lines of cooler areas of the sun. Here's some of my quick snapshots (the real view is much crisper):


That little spike shooting up off the upper right edge of the sun is actually a geyser of fire as tall as two planet earths stacked on top of each other!!!!





These are probably the worst photos I've taken in my life, but when I'm using my PST I just can't be bothered with taking photos. I just get memorized by the awesomeness! 

Here's a review I wrote for the Coronado PST:


THE SHORTER REVIEW/QUICK SETUP GUIDE

Mount on camera tripod. 

Aim at sun.

Lefty-loosey the big tuning ring where the gold tube attaches to the black box until the sun looks like a reasonably crisp circle and not fuzzy.

Adjust the little focus knob at the back bottom of the black box until you can see details (either sunspots, orange peel surface of sun or huge spikey solar flare prominences).

Then slightly adjust the big ring again until you can SEE THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Yes, using the this scope you can see sunspots, flares and surface detail all at once. There was even a crazy `fault line' of dark red running almost the entire diameter of the sun's surface.

Fiddle with the little focus knob if needed. That's it!

THE LONGER REVIEW
Unboxing must be done carefully since the foam grabs this telescope insanely tight. Be careful you don't break the plastic (nylon) eyepiece thumbscrew. Some people complained that this screw was plastic-but that's a good design feature since it won't scratch, ding or dent your eyepieces. In fact an upgrade on some telescopes costing way more is to throw out the metal thumbscrew and put in a plastic one. It's a good thing to have. Some people have five or six hundred dollar eyepieces that they don't want marred by metal-on-metal contact.

The telescope is extremely heavy compared to its size. The black box is only two pieces: a milled out brick and a cover milled from the same brick of metal. This is very solid and nicely done.

Mounting is easy since there are two holes in the bottom of the black box that can each accept a standard camera tripod screw. Easy.
The eyepiece that comes with the telescope is just a silver plossl, nothing special. It's actually not bad at all except for the fact that it's a relatively weak (magnification-wise) 20mm which gives you a view of the entire disk of the sun and lots of black space around it. I suppose this low power makes it easier to find the sun.

Finding the sun: if you put your hand near the front of the telescope (like when you're adjusting the big ring) you can block the solar sun-finder. You can waste a lot of time panning around with the sun finder blocked. The sun finder uses a hole in the front of the black box--it doesn't use actual telescope to get the image of the sun. If you block the whole with your hand (or part of your tripod) you will never see the sun in the sun finder. ALSO, since the sun finder uses a small hole and not the main telescope-it works EVEN WHEN THE DUST CAP is on the main telescope. I have to admit that was pretty embarrassing. A perfectly centered bright sun dot in the sun finder on the top of the black box just gets you close, you'll still have to center the sun by panning the scope a little.

Focusing: this telescope has a big ring (tuning ring that is between the black box and the gold tube) and a small focus knob. The eyepieces don't rack in or out like on most telescopes. Because of this can supposedly make getting some eyepieces to focus hard or even impossible. I had no trouble using three different eyepieces before the clouds came out and ruined my fun. At first I was scared because the sun just looked like a dark red blurry blob: just like those awful youtube videos that don't do this telescope justice.

Lefty-loosey almost to where the big tuning ring stops is where I ened up. That gives a solar disk that is red and pretty crisp at the edge. Then I turned the little knob sorta in the middle? Not sure but keep at it, it was like 10 turns and then a sun spot seemed to appear and darken out of nowhere, I turned a little more and the sunspot resolved into light and dark portions with fine detail while at the same time prominences (spikes) appeared and lots and lots of surface orange peel, crackle-effect and even a long `fault-line' looking thing that was almost the entire diameter of the sun!!!!!!!! The longest part was dialing the telescope in using the ring and the knob--after that it was smooth sailing.

Eyepieces: the included 20mm plossl isn't bad at all. It's just low power. I could see sunspots which showed black and lighter grey areas. This was the same but crisper than what I could see using Baader Solar film. I could see an incredibly sharp orange peel effect all over the surface of the sun that looked like alligator skin! The photos online that you find do not do the orange peel effect any justice at all: it is insanely cool to look at and very well defined, like a crackle-paint effect. Prominences on the limb looked like geysers of flames spitting out into the black of space. There were four or five on 10/24/2014 that were awesome. There wasn't too much detail using the included 20mm eyepiece for the prominences but only because the magnification was low. So I popped in a higher magnification eyepiece.

I tried a 9mm plossl eyepiece that came free with my Zhumell Z8 reflector telescope. The lower the mm number the higher the magnification is in telescopes. The 9mm no-name brand gave better magnification and maintained almost all the brightness and all detail of the 20mm eyepiece. Awesome, I didn't view too long because I wanted to try another eyepiece. I was really just testing whether they'd come to focus or not, but the views remained awesome. Also, I believe I still had a view of the entire disk of the sun: only with a lot less black space around it and more `zoomed' in.

UPDATE: I also tried a Zhumell 9mm Planetary eyepiece. With its 55 degree field of view the entire sun was still visible (just barely). I then added a 1.25" 2x Barlow (a celestron #93640) which makes this eyepiece into a 4.5mm eyepiece. This made me have to re-focus using the little knob on the bottom/rear of the black box. It took about 8 or 10 turns of the knob to bring to focus and the view was more magnified ("more zoomed in" as newbies say). It was much crisper in focus and brighter than the 3mm (see below) that I tried. BTW: if you click "see my other reviews" on page 5 is my review of the Celestron T Adapter/2x Barlow, which is a pretty useful piece of equipment to have for various reasons besides just 2x your eyepiece collection.

At 40mm aperture the PST only can take about 94x magnification {40mm = 1.5748" x 60 = 94x useful magnification in perfect conditions. 400mm f/length pst + 4.5mm eyepiece = 88x magnification so this is pretty close).
It's a balancing act on the higher powered eyepieces before everything is just "more zoomed in blurry dark garbage", at any rate a 4.5mm will always look better than a 3mm all things being equal. The 4.5mm was a lot better than the 3mm (below) so if you have a 9mm maybe try a 2x barlow than buying another eyepiece.

I tried a 3mm Zhumell Planetary eyepiece. These are long and heavy, not like the cheap plossls. The view was dimmer and I felt that I could focus okay--but the view was dimmer and softer (blurrier) but THAT IS THE EYEPIECE and what happens when you put in higher magnification eyepieces in any telescope. The lower the Xmm number the: higher the magnification but the blurrier and darker the image. Fact of physics, but also the fact that it is a forty dollar eyepiece and not a six hundred dollar one. Anyway, I was pleased with these three eyepieces. It was here that the clouds rolled in-while I was fiddling with the little focus knob trying to get the 3mm sharper. In the PST (400mm f/length) the 3mm eyepiece yeields 133x magnification which is way more than the theoretical limit of 94x for this telescope. It's "empty magnification" which means darker and blurrier, but it still was neat. The point here is: if you have no other eyepieces, a 4mm would be a much better buy than a 3mm for THIS particular telescope. A 4mm eyepiece would produce 100x in this telescope--close enough to the 94x limit.

I suppose one might fiddle with the little focus knob AND the big tuning ring when changing from eyepiece to eyepiece.

What do you see? A deep red sun disk with lighter red crackle effect and black and grey sunspots surrounded by the jet black of space being pierced by deep red spikey prominences spouting off the surface.
Totally worth it! All you need is this telescope and a photographic tripod. You might want more powerful eyepieces to zoom in more. Possibly a 4mm / 5mm and maybe a 9mm / 10mm would give you a nice range of low (20mm that comes with this scope), medium and high power magnification.

Also, anything you can stick your eyeball up to and see through you can stick a camera or cell phone up to and photograph. Search "afocal astrophotography" for various cheap and easy methods. I took no photos because I was so happy and stunned at what I saw that the clouds rolled in on me. Forecast is for clouds and rain.

The sunspots looked much like when using my Baader solar film. The surface detail is way more than I expected. The prominences are awesome as well: they only way to see 99% of the surface detail and any prominences are to use a Hydrogen-Alpha telescope like this. Solar films don't let you prominences at all and only a vague hint at the insane orange-peel effect and what I call "fault-line" activity of the surface.
After researching this product for over a year, I have never been so nervous ordering and so happily surprised (immense surface detail and prominences and all at same time.

So, in summary:

Glass Filter: sunspots
Solar Film: more detailed sunspots and slight surface detail
Coronado PST: detailed sunspots, immensely detailed surface and solar flares shooting into space!

Glass Filter: leaves telescope unprotected, only fits some eyepieces, green sun, can shatter, might not filter UV! Don't use.

Solar Film: can fall off if windy, have to mount yourself. Buy the telescope version, not naked eye version. 

Coronado PST: expensive.


Here are some photos I took of the Transit of Mercury on May 9, 2016:






At some point I'll post about some devices I made myself that allow me to see the sunlight that cannot be seen: infrared!




Alright, you've convinced me to spend some of the two hours a day I'm awake staring at the sun...after my nap. Now go away. Meow.