Re: APCC Pro model details #APCC


Ray Gralak
 

Hi Brent,

I have a few questions so that I may better understand your points.

* Of course the polar axis values to refine polar alignment
APCC already provides these values, so I assume you meant the conversion of the polar axis values to knob turns for the specific mount? Many other polar alignment alternatives provide faster polar alignment, so what advantage do you see in having APCC do this?

* Cone error if trying to reduce that.
Why is this important if modeling accounts for this? Do you just want a tool to measure this?

* Flexure - for troubleshooting excess flexure
I don't think there are enough samples to make a good determination of "excess flexure." There are many types of telescopes. The OTA's material, construction, diameter, and length all matter. Also affecting flexure are things like the OTA balance point, length of the OTA, the mounting plate strength, the weight of cameras, etc. There are many variables so trying to come up with a value for excess flexure for all of the variables would be difficult.

The model compensates for those items but reducing them, relying less on the model compensation seems better.
It may seem better, but these are not where you will see much gain. A more meaningful area to look into is the amount of randomness in the system. Any of the pointing terms can have a low average value but higher variance. APPM provides a way to look into this with the "5x Verify" option. APPM will run the same set of data points five times. Then, A-P staff (or I) can analyze the APPM logs for variances.

-Ray

Join main@ap-gto.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.