Conclusions

For the neccesary explanation of the results, various histograms were made, also a statistical analysis was done.

Figure 6.4: Histograms of Seeing and Scintilation for all the Observations that are Made in Xolomon until now.

The left histogram of figure 6.4 is seeing and ata the right is scintilation. It is clear that the seeing has a distribution that looks like a gausian with a maximum at the value of $0,86$ arcsec^6.1. Also it is obvious that the distribution is slightly moved to the left. This is caused by the dependece of the observed seeing value by the exposure time we use during the observations. As the exposure time increses, the relative displacement of the two idols produced by the two subapertures is smoothed out, the result is that the value of seeing gets smaller. The correction for this phenomenon was not done here and thats why there is a small underassumption of seeing in the order of $\approx0.1$ arcsec.

The St. Deviation of seeing is $0,31$ arcsec. This particular value is not bad but it can not show us how stable the nights really was. To conclude some safe conclusions about this parameter we must have a look at all the indivitiual St. deviation of the observed nights, or else we must find the mean value of St. Deviation of all nights. In the present work this was not done and is left for future analysis.

A quick conclusion i can make is that by watching the St. Deviation of many nights, the typical value is $0.1$ arcsec and not $0,31$ arcsec. Some nights even have values of $\approx0,05$ arcsec.

Table 6.2: Total Statistics of the Observations

	Mean	St. Deviation	Median
Seeing (arcsec)	0.86	0.31	0.79
Scintilation (mag)	0.049	0.074	0.031
Isoplanatic Angle (arcsec)	45.32	193.26	6.86

This means that Xolomon is an exceptional place for astronomical observations, that can be one of the best worldwide with the help of an Adaptive Optics unit. This unit will have great results because of the stabilty of the nights Xolomon has. This is reinforced by the values of the isoplanatic angle, weach they are big enough so to help AO systems very much. From table 6.3 it is clear that the $80\%$ of the observations are better than $1$ arcsec. This fact is an increrible result if we think the low altitude the observations were made.

Figure 6.5: Precentage of Observations in a Pie-Diagram

In the left of figure 6.4, it si the histogram of scintilation. From this figure and table 6.3 i conclude that the values of scintilation are low, with the $90\%$ of the observations to be better than $0.1$ mag. This fact is great if we think the potential for accurate and fast photometry.

In figure 6.5 it is the pie-diagram for seeing. Also in figure 6.6 is the histogram of the isoplanatic angle for all the observations that have been done in Xolomon. At tables 6.2 and 6.3 are the results of the statistical analysis fo the data.

Figure 6.6: Histogram of Isoplanatic Angle for all the Observatons until now.

As it is shown in figure 6.6 and in table 6.3, the $50\%$ of the observations for the isoplanatic angle are better than $\approx18$ arcsec. This fact is great and it can help the effectiveness of AO systems.

This fact in combination with the very low values of scintilation, can help in the discovery of new supernova but also in projects that involve high speed photometry with instruments as Ultra-Cam. The high mean value of the isoplanatic angle should not be wory as because no filter was applied for the rejection of noise, and as a result very high and unnatural values are taken in mind to the calculations of mean value. Of course St. Deviation is also afected.

Table 6.3: Presentage of Observations

	Seeing (arcsec)	Scintilation (mag)	Isoplanatic Angle (arcsec)
P100	2.79	1.27	4319
P90	1.28	0.1	70.12
P80	1.04	0.071	27.25
P75	0.98	0.061	18.7
P50	0.79	0.031	6.86
P25	0.66	0.013	3.55
P10	0.56	0.003	1.95

As a final result i must say that the place that the observations took place was not ideal from an astronomical point of view. The altitude was about 800 m, very low. Also the observations were made in the facilities of the agricultural division near a tavern that usually a fire place was operational. This of course affected the observations and probably is responsible for some unnaturally big values, and in result affected the mean value observed. So probably the real behaviour of the place is even better from the observed. This is very important if we think of the very nice behaviour already.