Re: APCC Pro model details #APCC


Steve if I may ask what are the reasons for going from a rolloff roof to a dome I am contemplating a small backyard set up in the future and would love to hear the ins and outs, you can contact me off-line As I don’t mean to hijack this thread

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 13:36 Steve Reilly <sreilly24590@...> wrote:

I'm late to this discussion and am in the process of finalizing a transfer from the roll off roof to my 12' dome. I've polar aligned using my PoleMaster but can't say I'm overly confident as I haven't used it before. So if I run a model will this verify the alignment accuracy? If so how many points should be used? Sorry if I'm behind but this project has had so many twists and turns that I'm a bit intimidated trying to get back online.



-----Original Message-----
From: <> On Behalf Of Ray Gralak
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC Pro model details

Hi Brent,

>None would be essential but maybe useful.  For polar alignment I should have said to verify alignment instead of refine it.
> I have a permanent pier and build models (probably more often than I need to) a lot more than adjust polar alignment.
> Seeing those values in the model verify that polar alignment is still reasonable.

Yes, and this is currently available. APCC shows the mount’s polar alignment error (in arc-seconds) for both pier sides.

> Yes, as a tool to measure cone error.

APCC displays Cone error (in arc-seconds) in the two "Non-Perpendicularity" pointing terms. To measure the cone error for both scopes, you need to create a separate model for each scope.

> Maybe I am misinterpreting, but could a model with a high RMS indicate flexure (probably not specifically)?

RMS is just a measure of how well the pointing model fits the sky data points.By itself, it does not distinguish between unmodeled behavior (e.g., complex flexure) and randomness caused by moving components (eg. Mirror flop).



Join to automatically receive all group messages.