Date   

Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Cheng-Yang Tan
 

Download from STF8300 is about 1s. I focus with 1/2 to 1s integration time and it takes 1s to do a full frame download. Definitely not 4 s.

I do have a planetary camera, asi120mc, which I can use if I reconfigure my main setup. Is this necessary?

On Sunday, August 19, 2018, 11:27 PM, stephenjwinston@... [ap-gto] wrote:

 



>That's the total time it took for PHD2 to download and calculate the centroid and send an event to PEMPro. 
>I'm not sure why the camera would take that long unless it was always exposing/downloading a full 
>exposure instead of a sub frame.
 
Full frame download on the STF-8300 is supposed to be around 1s, so 4.5s still seems slow.  

For comparison, on my STi with a PHD2 sample rate of 1s I get a sampling rate of 1.2s in PEMPro, so around 0.2s for PHD2 overhead + download time.

Cytan - how long does full frame download from the 8300 normally take on your system?  And do you maybe have a faster / lower-resolution guide camera you could use instead?


Re: 1100GTO not holding polar alignment

Dale Ghent
 

On Aug 19, 2018, at 11:27 PM, Joe Renzetti axnyslie@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:

Well I’m still trying to resolve this problem with no luck and it seems to be getting worse. Both the alt and az moves significantly when slewing and not even that far, like 20 degrees. No matter how much I tighten it down with Allen wrenches it won’t hold. Plus tonight it was drifting quite a bit. I was only doing 60 second subs and the stars are decent but within 30 minutes the target moved off center quite a bit. Plus I had several oscillation errors. Can’t say I’m happy at all now I expect a lot better from a premium mount and this is sub par performance for sure.
At this point, the obligatory question must be asked: Have you contacted support@... about this?

/dale


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Stephen Winston
 



>That's the total time it took for PHD2 to download and calculate the centroid and send an event to PEMPro. 
>I'm not sure why the camera would take that long unless it was always exposing/downloading a full 
>exposure instead of a sub frame.
 
Full frame download on the STF-8300 is supposed to be around 1s, so 4.5s still seems slow.  

For comparison, on my STi with a PHD2 sample rate of 1s I get a sampling rate of 1.2s in PEMPro, so around 0.2s for PHD2 overhead + download time.

Cytan - how long does full frame download from the 8300 normally take on your system?  And do you maybe have a faster / lower-resolution guide camera you could use instead?


Re: 1100GTO not holding polar alignment

Joe Renzetti <axnyslie@...>
 

Well I’m still trying to resolve this problem with no luck and it seems to be getting worse. Both the alt and az moves significantly when slewing and not even that far, like 20 degrees. No matter how much I tighten it down with Allen wrenches it won’t hold. Plus tonight it was drifting quite a bit. I was only doing 60 second subs and the stars are decent but within 30 minutes the target moved off center quite a bit. Plus I had several oscillation errors. Can’t say I’m happy at all now I expect a lot better from a premium mount and this is sub par performance for sure.

Joe


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Ray Gralak
 

Cytan,

Although you can get away with 3.5 cycles, I highly recommend that you do at least 5-6 cycles. The longer duration will increase resolution of the fitted curve that PEMPro will create.

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc
Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

-----Original Message-----
From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 7:12 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO



Yes, it's 3.5 cycles. I meant that the AP document

http://www.astro-physics.com/tech_support/mounts/Making_PE_Curve.pdf


says to do 3 and not 6.

I plan to do it again on with the updated PemPro the next clear night.

cytan


On Sunday, August 19, 2018, 9:07:32 PM CDT, stephenjwinston@... [ap-gto] <ap-
gto@...> wrote:




Hi Cytan,


Your PHD2 logs do indeed show a sampling rate of 1s, not the 4.5s shown in the PEMPro log - not sure why that is
or if it is fixed o the new version of PEMPro Ray created.

The PHD2 logs do only show 3.5 cycles of captured data (28 minutes worth). What made you think yo were getting
6 cycles?

And BTW: the final PE seen in the GA run you did at the end of the night looks pretty good and seems to match your
measured 1.5 arc-s.

Maybe Ray can clarify, but not clear what the impact of this incorrect tag that Ray fixed is - ig it was putting your
PEC curve completely out of sync I'd be surprised that yuo ened up with 1.5 arc/s as the corrected result.

Anyway, seems that you should redo the measurements and PE creation using the updated version of PEMPro and
see if it improves.&nbs p;

Steve


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Ray Gralak
 

Hi Steve,

Your PHD2 logs do indeed show a sampling rate of 1s,
The 1 second is just the duration between exposures after an exposure is done.

not the 4.5s shown in the PEMPro log -
That's the total time it took for PHD2 to download and calculate the centroid and send an event to PEMPro. I'm not sure why the camera would take that long unless it was always exposing/downloading a full exposure instead of a sub frame.

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc
Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver


-----Original Message-----
From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 7:07 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO



Hi Cytan,

Your PHD2 logs do indeed show a sampling rate of 1s, not the 4.5s shown in the PEMPro log - not sure why that is
or if it is fixed o the new version of PEMPro Ray created.

The PHD2 logs do only show 3.5 cycles of captured data (28 minutes worth). What made you think yo were getting
6 cycles?

And BTW: the final PE seen in the GA run you did at the end of the night looks pretty good and seems to match your
measured 1.5 arc-s.

Maybe Ray can clarify, but not clear what the impact of this incorrect tag that Ray fixed is - ig it was putting your
PEC curve completely out of sync I'd be surprised that yuo ened up with 1.5 arc/s as the corrected result.

Anyway, seems that you should redo the measurements and PE creation using the updated version of PEMPro and
see if it improves.

Steve


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Ray Gralak
 

Eric,

Ray, I just downloaded and installed the PEMPro enhanced PHD2.
I did notice there is no "check for update" option in the help menu. I assume this was intentional, but ?
The change was to PEMPro V3 itself, not to the PEMPro enhanced PHD2, which is a separate installer to PEMPro. You should be able to do "Check for updates" in PEMPro V3's help menu to get the PEMPro update.

Would you please share what the enhanced version allows in conjunction with PEMPro?
IMO the PHD2 TCP interface is rather clunky to use so I added some streamlined methods and properties to make it more straightforward for PEMPro to control.

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc
Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver


-----Original Message-----
From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 6:47 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO



Ray, I just downloaded and installed the PEMPro enhanced PHD2.

I did notice there is no "check for update" option in the help menu. I assume this was intentional, but ?

Would you please share what the enhanced version allows in conjunction with PEMPro?

Thank you.

Eric


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Cheng-Yang Tan
 

Yes, it's 3.5 cycles. I meant that the AP document 


says to do 3 and not 6.

I plan to do it again on with the updated PemPro the next clear night.

cytan


On Sunday, August 19, 2018, 9:07:32 PM CDT, stephenjwinston@... [ap-gto] wrote:


 

Hi Cytan,


Your PHD2 logs do indeed show a sampling rate of 1s, not the 4.5s shown in the PEMPro log - not sure why that is or if it is fixed o the new version of PEMPro Ray created.

The PHD2 logs do only show 3.5 cycles of captured data (28 minutes worth). What made you think yo were getting 6 cycles?

And BTW: the final PE seen in the GA run you did at the end of the night looks pretty good and seems to match your measured 1.5 arc-s.

Maybe Ray can clarify, but not clear what the impact of this incorrect tag that Ray fixed is - ig it was putting your PEC curve completely out of sync I'd be surprised that yuo ened up with 1.5 arc/s as the corrected result.

Anyway, seems that you should redo the measurements and PE creation using the updated version of PEMPro and see if it improves. 

Steve


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Stephen Winston
 

Hi Cytan,

Your PHD2 logs do indeed show a sampling rate of 1s, not the 4.5s shown in the PEMPro log - not sure why that is or if it is fixed o the new version of PEMPro Ray created.

The PHD2 logs do only show 3.5 cycles of captured data (28 minutes worth). What made you think yo were getting 6 cycles?

And BTW: the final PE seen in the GA run you did at the end of the night looks pretty good and seems to match your measured 1.5 arc-s.

Maybe Ray can clarify, but not clear what the impact of this incorrect tag that Ray fixed is - ig it was putting your PEC curve completely out of sync I'd be surprised that yuo ened up with 1.5 arc/s as the corrected result.

Anyway, seems that you should redo the measurements and PE creation using the updated version of PEMPro and see if it improves. 

Steve


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Eric Dreher
 

Ray, I just downloaded and installed the PEMPro enhanced PHD2.

I did notice there is no "check for update" option in the help menu.  I assume this was intentional, but ?

Would you please share what the enhanced version allows in conjunction with PEMPro?

Thank you.

Eric


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Cheng-Yang Tan
 

Hi Steve,
  I've just uploaded the PHD2 debug and guide logs. I've checked that in PHD2 the exposure time is 1s so I don't understand why the sampling period is 4.5s. How do I increase the sampling rate? In PemPro or in PHD2?

I had originally thought to have 6 cycles, however, the AP instructions says 3. So I did 3.

Here's the answers to your questions:
(1) Seeing is pretty poor. In fact, +/-2 arcseconds oscillations.
(2) Measurement is done through PHD2 because SBIG cameras is not natively supported. Hopefully Ray will have a version that supports SBIG cameras soon.


cytan

On Sunday, August 19, 2018, 7:48:09 PM CDT, stephenjwinston@... [ap-gto] wrote:


 

Hi Cytan,


Looking at your results I'd have the following comments:

I generally would not consider 3 worm cycles sufficient for measurement and correction of the worms PE.  You really would be better collecting 6+ cycles (the more data the better).

That said, you do appear to have at least one "harsh" transition around the 1:30 mark.  Zooming in on the graph the worm appears to move around 4 arc-s over a 4 second period, and then move back again over the next 4 seconds.  For many mounts this might not be unusual, but I think on an AP mount this is somewhat surprising (I don't see anything close to that kind of "fast" movement on mine).

However, it looks like your sampling period is 4.5 seconds?  That is a very long interval between samples and so makes me question the measured 4-arc/s over 4 second error.

Some questions:
- What was seeing like when you took your measurements?
- Are you measuring directly through a native camera interface, or via Ray's custom version of PHD2? 
- If using PHD2 please post your PHD2 guide log so we can see how the guide star was moving before and during and after capturing the PEMPro data).

My suggestions would be:
- Increase your sampling rate to at least 1.5 or 2 second intervals (I use 1s intervals)
- Re-do the test and capture more cycles [between 6 - 10], both when measuring initial PE and when measuring the improvement with PEC applied.
- Try wait for a night when seeing is at least "good" so it is not a major determining factor (although capturing more cycles will smooth out random seeing...)

Steve



New file uploaded to ap-gto

ap-gto@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ap-gto
group.

File : /PEC on_off of Mach1GTO (July 2018 batch)/PHD2_DebugLog_2018-08-18_212945.txt
Uploaded by : cytan299 <cytan299@...>
Description : PHD2 Debug log of PE seesion

You can access this file at the URL:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/PEC%20on_off%20of%20Mach1GTO%20%28July%202018%20batch%29/PHD2_DebugLog_2018-08-18_212945.txt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_GRPS&locale=en_US&id=SLN15398

Regards,

cytan299 <cytan299@...>


New file uploaded to ap-gto

ap-gto@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ap-gto
group.

File : /PEC on_off of Mach1GTO (July 2018 batch)/PHD2_GuideLog_2018-08-18_212945.txt
Uploaded by : cytan299 <cytan299@...>
Description : PHD2 guide log from the PE session

You can access this file at the URL:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/PEC%20on_off%20of%20Mach1GTO%20%28July%202018%20batch%29/PHD2_GuideLog_2018-08-18_212945.txt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_GRPS&locale=en_US&id=SLN15398

Regards,

cytan299 <cytan299@...>


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Stephen Winston
 

>This issue only affects users that use the PEMPro enhanced PHD2.

Thanks Ray.  Was this a recent regression or has this been the case for some time?

i..e should I go back and re-do my curve? (even though the reported result from building/applying PEC was pretty good :))

Steve


Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Ray Gralak
 

Hi Steve,

I communicated with Cytan via private email earlier today. I noticed that PEMPro was not putting in the proper worm phase tag when using the PEMPro Enhanced PHD2. I built a new version of PEMPro (v3.00.16) to fix that and let Cytan know it was available. I also repaired his PEMPro log file so he should be able to use it to rebuild a PEC curve with the correct phase that he can upload to his mount. This issue only affects users that use the PEMPro enhanced PHD2.

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc
Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

-----Original Message-----
From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 5:46 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO



Hi Cytan,

Looking at your results I'd have the following comments:

I generally would not consider 3 worm cycles sufficient for measurement and correction of the worms PE. You
really would be better collecting 6+ cycles (the more data the better).

That said, you do appear to have at least one "harsh" transition around the 1:30 mark. Zooming in on the graph
the worm appears to move around 4 arc-s over a 4 second period, and then move back again over the next 4
seconds. For many mounts this might not be unusual, but I think on an AP mount this is somewhat surprising (I
don't see anything close to that kind of "fast" movement on mine).

However, it looks like your sampling period is 4.5 seconds? That is a very long interval between samples and so
makes me question the measured 4-arc/s over 4 second error.
< br>
Some questions:
- What was seeing like when you took your measurements?
- Are you measuring directly through a native camera interface, or via Ray's custom version of PHD2?
- If using PHD2 please post your PHD2 guide log so we can see how the guide star was moving before and during
and after capturing the PEMPro data).

My suggestions would be:
- Increase your sampling rate to at least 1.5 or 2 second intervals (I use 1s intervals)
- Re-do the test and capture more cycles [between 6 - 10], both when measuring initial PE and when measuring
the improvement with PEC applied.
- Try wait for a night when seeing is at least "good" so it is not a major determining factor (although capturing more
cycles will smooth out random seeing...)

Steve




Re: First attempt at taking and correcting PE of new Mach1GTO

Stephen Winston
 

Hi Cytan,

Looking at your results I'd have the following comments:

I generally would not consider 3 worm cycles sufficient for measurement and correction of the worms PE.  You really would be better collecting 6+ cycles (the more data the better).

That said, you do appear to have at least one "harsh" transition around the 1:30 mark.  Zooming in on the graph the worm appears to move around 4 arc-s over a 4 second period, and then move back again over the next 4 seconds.  For many mounts this might not be unusual, but I think on an AP mount this is somewhat surprising (I don't see anything close to that kind of "fast" movement on mine).

However, it looks like your sampling period is 4.5 seconds?  That is a very long interval between samples and so makes me question the measured 4-arc/s over 4 second error.

Some questions:
- What was seeing like when you took your measurements?
- Are you measuring directly through a native camera interface, or via Ray's custom version of PHD2? 
- If using PHD2 please post your PHD2 guide log so we can see how the guide star was moving before and during and after capturing the PEMPro data).

My suggestions would be:
- Increase your sampling rate to at least 1.5 or 2 second intervals (I use 1s intervals)
- Re-do the test and capture more cycles [between 6 - 10], both when measuring initial PE and when measuring the improvement with PEC applied.
- Try wait for a night when seeing is at least "good" so it is not a major determining factor (although capturing more cycles will smooth out random seeing...)

Steve



Re: Some doubts about the use of the clutch knobs on the Mach1

topboxman
 

If you don't have APCC-Pro, then there's nothing wrong with loosening the clutches to manually move the mount to point to LED panel. On the next imaging night, all you have to do is unpark from your favorite park position, slew to a known star, center the star and RCAL. From then on you are good to go.

Peter


---In ap-gto@..., <marfig1970@...> wrote :

Thank you for your answers.

To be more precise, the mount is located on a pier in my backyard, there is no observatory (just a telegizmos cover, but it does a great job) and I practically never move it.

And at the moment I don't have APCC Pro, just the normal version.


Re: Some doubts about the use of the clutch knobs on the Mach1

Marcelo Figueroa
 

Thank you for your answers.

To be more precise, the mount is located on a pier in my backyard, there is no observatory (just a telegizmos cover, but it does a great job) and I practically never move it.

And at the moment I don't have APCC Pro, just the normal version.


Re: Some doubts about the use of the clutch knobs on the Mach1

Joe Zeglinski
 

Peter,
 
    Perhaps I can provide an example, in the “non-typical” way I make FLATS.
 
    I have a “permanently” installed scope – only because its a massive RC-14.5 on a Losmandy tripod, housed under a tarp rather than an observatory structure. I use my normal  “kitchen ceiling lights” illuminating a 3-foot square framed 2–sheet VELLUM target, hung “indoors”,  just fitted to the walkout glass door about 20 feet away. It is effectively just a “slats” frame with Vellum stapled to it.
 
    Originally, by trial & error and using a Glatter Collimator (holographic pattern) Laser,  illuminating the center of the frame, I saved the APCC corresponding ALT/AZ coordinates permanently,  in my “ALTERNATE PARK” box. So, doing flats is quick & easy – just issue an Alternate Park, shoot flats, and return to the star target or one of the AP standard 4 Parks – not unlike doing this with a Flats Target affixed to a dome wall.
 
       Now ... if I were able to go to a dark site, I would still keep, the same (saved) APCC ALTERNATE PARK coordinates (since I don’t want to redo them when I return).
But after a quick Polar Align at the new site, I would then,  as a final step during daylight setup,  likewise issue the (Alternate) PARK for flats, turn on the GLATTER Laser, and move (whatever portable  LED flat target, mounted on its camera tripod), into the path of the laser, and adjust the flat target height etc. to center the LED illuminated flats target on it, until it is in line  with the GLATTER collimator red laser beamed pattern, (or just the beam itself). 
 
    I would think my method would be a quick, easy, and accurate “field setup” for flats – no messing with slewing the mount in the field trying to center it on the flats target, which might require a bit more effort and associated lost time.
Then I would just use the (same saved ALT/AZ) Alternate Park command, as I do at home.
 
    Doesn’t have to be difficult. Perhaps much easier to line up the “Flats Target” to a saved  Alternate Park position, than the alternative approach of trying to establish a new ALT/AZ alternate Park, in the field, every time – as many might typically do.
 
    My method, in fact, does  as per your concern  ... “ guarantee that the "PARK" the mount - to point to LED panel - will always be consistent”
 
Joe
 

From: pnagy@... [ap-gto]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 5:29 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Some doubts about the use of the clutch knobs on the Mach1
 


You might want to define "semi-permanent". If the equipment is inside the observatory, then it's a good idea to "slew" to the LED panel assuming both the mount/scope and LED panel are ALWAYS fixed at the same positions.
 
But if the mount/scope and LED panel are somewhat portable and never fixed at same location, then there's no guarantee that the "park" the mount to point to LED panel will always be consistent.
 
Absolutely nothing wrong with loosening the clutches to manual point the scope to LED panel.
 
If you are using APCC-Pro and use pointing model and NEVER move or disturb the mount/scope and LED panel, then use the power to the mount to slew in order to preserve pointing model positions. But if it's more portable than permanent, then I wouldn't waste time trying to preserve pointing model positions and use whatever method to move or slew the scope to point to LED panel.
 
So, please describe what you mean by semi-permanent?
 
Peter


---In ap-gto@..., wrote :

I have some doubts about the correct use of the clutch knobs on the Mach1. Let me explain:

 

I have my mount located in my backyard on a semi-permanent basis (Park 3 position). When I have to take flats this is what I do:

 

(All this with the mount turned off)

 

- I release the clutch knobs and point my telescope at my LED panel.

- I tighten the clutch knobs again (I don't want any accidental movement).

- I take my flats.

- I release the clutch knobs and move the mount back to Park 3.

- I tighten the clutch knobs again.

 

Is this procedure okay or is it better to move the mount using my computer (or keypad)? I know I'm not going to damage anything, but I'm afraid it might affect the precise tracking or something.

 

Thank you,

 



Re: War & Peace in Scorpius

Jos� Joaqu�n P�rez Guy
 

Many thanks Geof!

El dom., 19 ago. 2018 a las 18:56, Geof Lewis geoflewis@... [ap-gto] (<ap-gto@...>) escribió:
 

Dear José
Both versions are superb images, thank you for sharing them and the capture details.
Regards,

Geof

From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of PEREZ, José Joaquín cotejardinero@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: 19 August 2018 22:44
To: ap-ug@...; tekic545@... [ap-gto]
Subject: [ap-gto] War & Peace in Scorpius
 
 

Dear Group , I woul like to share with you one of the last images from El Sauce Observatory



Hope you like it and greetings from Chile!!


--