Hi,

When I test this on the bench with the GOTCP3 (V2 chip) removed from the mount and disconnected from motors (AP1200), will it impair stored data on gear phase / PEM / disrupt operation once re-connected to the mount ??

Thanks,
Gert

Hi Joe,

The mount could have stopped tracking if you had disconnected APCC from the mount for a while, then reconnected. The mount will stop tracking after the safety park timer expires unless you turn off Safety-Park in APCC. Reconnecting to the mount will then show the mount in the parked and "tracking off" state.

And you would have seen warning errors in APCC if it could not communicate with the mount. To see that behavior, try pulling the serial, USB, or Ethernet cable while APCC is running, assuming you are not using WiFi.

-Ray Gralak
Author of PEMPro
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): https://www.astro-physics.com/apcc-pro
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

Hi Gert,

Since a PC is the "terminal", so the CPx is the data communications equipment, DCE.  A standard straight-through RS-232 cable is used from a computer or USB-to-serial-converter, to the unit.

We use dumb data terminal programs like TeraTerm and HyperTerm *ALL* the time, in exactly the manner you describe.  The command set has it's origins in the old LX200 textual command set, so it is easy to issue them manually for diagnostic purposes.  The command set is published on the AP web-site.  However, examples of commands I use regularly to determine if a unit is alive, "reachable", and that I am even using the correct comm port in the computer, include "read version"  :V# (three characters), and "read local time"  :GL# (4 characters).  You'll want the terminal emulator "local echo" enabled as the CPx does not "echo".

The moment you power up the unit, it will transmit a single character, "1".  That way you know the unit is powered and the embedded software is actually trying to doing something.  This may be the single most powerful diagnostic feature. The serial communication parameters are also published on the AP website.  But to summarize here for ease in setting up the terminal emulator:
9600 baud, No Parity, 8 bits, 1 stop bit, No handshake.  Occasionally, folks "complain" about the lack of parity, but the serial interface remains the most reliable by far.

Happy Hacking!

Regards,
Mike Hanson

Hi Woody,

Thank you for the kind feedback. My own experience is that these things don't work for me 'out of the box' so I have to travel the path of step by step debug / understanding / fixing / deployment. To me that also let's me understand why something works, and what I did to make it work. I'll keep looking for a way to establish a known-good terminal to GTOCP3 communication by existing cable and then step by step deploy the BT.

Thanks & Clear Skies,
Gert

Hello All,

I am in a mighty struggle with serial protocol. Esp. how many configurations there are that will make it not work.

Ultimate plan is to use a serial Bluetooth dongle at the mount (AP1200 with GTOCP3 V2 chip).

But for now I just want to see that a text terminal program on the PC can talk to the PC can talk to the GTOCP3 and get ASCII answers. And that's just my question. If I hook up the laptop to the GTOCP3 (the way I up to now always do) via serial cable and serial-to-USB adapter, is there a simple 'Hello' -> 'OK' conversation that I can have with the controller? Just so that I can see that communication is established. Something like an 'AT' ->'OK'. In plain ASCII. Using 'PuTTY' on the laptop. What's the procedure? I understand that the AP driver sends tons of data between the laptop and the mount. I don't even want to include the driver here. Just type on the keyboard, see the echo, hit a command + enter, and see the answer from the controller. (preferably a non-destructive command)

BTW, the BT adapter wants to know if the port is DCE or DTE. Can someone answer for the GTOCP3 ??

Thanks,
Gert

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 03:38 PM, Ray Gralak wrote:

Probably not. The worm would not vary between worm cycles.

Most of the time it doesn't.  That was unusual.  I haven't been able to repeat the low number or the spread between runs.  Remeshing the gears hasn't made much difference.  I've considered swapping the DEC and RA drives.  Several weeks ago, while I was cleaning and relubing the drives, George warned me that the RA drive has the better worm and that I should be careful not to mix up the parts.  But surely the DEC worm is better than what I'm getting.

Please affirm: PEMPro, while it's doing a PE run,
knows the exact rotational position of the worm any moment,

Yes.

It is my belief that the worm is simply worn out

Probably not. The worm would not vary between worm cycles. More likely it is a gear mesh and/or differences between worm wheel teeth. If there is dirt, grit, etc., on some teeth that could also cause variations between worm cycles.

-Ray Gralak
Author of PEMPro
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): https://www.astro-physics.com/apcc-pro
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of CurtisC via groups.io
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 12:59 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] PEMPro vs PHD2 #Guiding

[Edited Message Follows]

Ray: Thank you for looking at my data.

During the afternoon of Sep 2, prior to the runs I sent to you, I removed the RA box. I thought maybe there was
"gunk" deep in the teeth of the worm. Maybe that was the cause of my bad numbers. So I made a special point of
cleaning out the teeth in the center part of the worm with a toothbrush and paper towels pressed over a fingernail.
I'd already cleaned out the teeth a month ago, but this was a special effort to get to the bottom of it, so to speak. I
then put more lube on the worm and reassembled the motor to the mount. Since I'd spun the worm several times, I
had no choice but to do a PEMPro run. That produced the 6-something curve. I reran the curve late in the
evening, hoping I'd see evidence of a consistent improvement. I don't want to rely on an anomalous one-off curve
to program the mount. The second run gave me the 11-something result. I attribute the "good" curve to new
grease in the teeth of the worm, grease that was redistributed during subsequent imaging with the mount and then
the late PEMPro run (was there more than one? I forget.) Since the evening of Sep 2-3, subsequent remeshings
and PEMPro runs have produced p-to-p in the area of 18 and 19. The curves are smooth. Last night I had 19 p-
to-p. But, with PEC on, the corrected curve was 0.87, which I thought was pretty good. All of this is with
fundamentals 1, 2, and 3 checked.

Thank you again, Ray.

Please affirm: PEMPro, while it's doing a PE run, knows the exact rotational position of the worm any moment,
does it not? When the dots start appearing on the graph, the starting location isn't random. The starting location
and subsequent dots correspond to real, definable positions on the worm. Sometime during the recent weeks, a
consistent broad hump in the middle of the curve was replaced by a consistent broad trough. I attribute this to my
fiddling with the worm.

To continue, during these recent weeks, I've spent a lot of time in the message archives of this forum, looking at
any discussions about Mach1 PE, worms, motor boxes, PEMPro, etc. Naturally, I've paid special attention to any
comments from you and Roland, and the rare comment from George and Howard. I ran into some of my own
posts from 2014, where I was reporting consistent PE of 11-something. That is, the curves produced by this worm
now are worse than they were 6+ years ago.

It is my belief that the worm is simply worn out. Perhaps all of those years between its manufacture and my
relubing the mount took a toll. That is, I'm confident that the worm was spectacular when it left the factory in Mar
2010. The poor results I've been getting since then are due to my own negligence.

I have some outstanding messages to two members of the A-P staff, and one A-P staffer requested some PEMPro
data, which I sent to him. I haven't heard back. But it's vacation time, and now we have the Labor Day weekend.
In the meantime, I decided that as long as the curves are smooth, I'll live with the native PE -- that is, unless
someone can identify a specific, correctable error that I'm making in my procedures. I put my name on the "notify
me" list for the Mach2. When (if!) I get a Mach2, I'll probably send my Mach1 to A-P for refurbishment. That, way,
when I offer it for sale, I can confidently say that it's up-to-spec and has been blessed by A-P.

Ray: Thank you for looking at my data.

During the afternoon of Sep 2, prior to the runs I sent to you, I removed the RA box.  I thought maybe there was "gunk" deep in the teeth of the worm.  Maybe that was the cause of my bad numbers.  So I made a special point of cleaning out the teeth in the center part of the worm with a toothbrush and paper towels pressed over a fingernail.  I'd already cleaned out the teeth a month ago, but this was a special effort to get to the bottom of it, so to speak.  I then put more lube on the worm and reassembled the motor to the mount.  Since I'd spun the worm several times, I had no choice but to do a PEMPro run.  That produced the 6-something curve.  I reran the curve late in the evening, hoping I'd see evidence of a consistent improvement.  I don't want to rely on an anomalous one-off curve to program the mount.  The second run gave me the 11-something result.  I attribute the "good" curve to new grease in the teeth of the worm, grease that was redistributed during subsequent imaging with the mount and then the late PEMPro run (was there more than one?  I forget.)  Since the evening of Sep 2-3, subsequent remeshings and PEMPro runs have produced p-to-p in the area of 18 and 19.  The curves are smooth.  Last night I had 19 p-to-p.  But, with PEC on, the corrected curve was 0.87, which I thought was pretty good.  All of this is with fundamentals 1, 2, and 3 checked.

Thank you again, Ray.

Please affirm: PEMPro, while it's doing a PE run, knows the exact rotational position of the worm any moment, does it not? When the dots start appearing on the graph, the starting location isn't random.  The starting location and subsequent dots correspond to real, definable positions on the worm.  Sometime during the recent weeks, a consistent broad hump in the middle of the curve was replaced by a consistent broad trough.  I attribute this to my fiddling with the worm.  

To continue, during these recent weeks, I've spent a lot of time in the message archives of this forum, looking at any discussions about Mach1 PE, worms, motor boxes, PEMPro, etc.  Naturally, I've paid special attention to any comments from you and Roland, and the rare comment from George and Howard.  I ran into some of my own posts from 2014, where I was reporting consistent PE of 11-something.  That is, the curves produced by this worm now are worse than they were 6+ years ago. 

It is my belief that the worm is simply worn out.  Perhaps all of those years between its manufacture and my relubing the mount took a toll.  That is, I'm confident that the worm was spectacular when it left the factory in Mar 2010.  The poor results I've been getting since then are due to my own negligence.  

I have some outstanding messages to two members of the A-P staff, and one A-P staffer requested some PEMPro data, which I sent to him.  I haven't heard back.  But it's vacation time, and now we have the Labor Day weekend.  In the meantime, I decided that as long as the curves are smooth, I'll live with the native PE -- that is, unless someone can identify a specific, correctable error that I'm making in my procedures.  I put my name on the "notify me" list for the Mach2.  When (if!) I get a Mach2, I'll probably send my Mach1 to A-P for refurbishment.  That, way, when I offer it for sale, I can confidently say that it's up-to-spec and has been blessed by A-P.

Thank you again, Ray.

Looks like it will have to wait until I come back to my farm in a couple weeks to get the motor off. The button bolt between the two regular hex bolts on the right was so tight I could not get it loosened. It uses a 1/8 Allen wrench correct? Hopefully not, but I may have to drill that screw out to get it removed.

Curtis,

I looked at your logs, and unless the image scale had changed, I do not have a definitive explanation for the dramatic change in periodic error. It may be due to the RA gear mesh needing adjustment. You may want to contact A-P for help on this.

-Ray Gralak
Author of PEMPro
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): https://www.astro-physics.com/apcc-pro
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

Hi Ajay,

This is a hypothesis. I think the reason CCD Ware was suspected by Google
and other malware detection

Nice hypothesis, but that had nothing to do with this.

Best regards,

-Ray Gralak
Author of PEMPro
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): https://www.astro-physics.com/apcc-pro
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Ajay Narayanan
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 10:25 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] PEMPro vs PHD2 #Guiding

This is a hypothesis. I think the reason CCD Ware was suspected by Google and other malware detection
programs is because of "Ware" in the name. Warez is a term used by software pirates to describe the goods
(software) they peddle across the internet. Often these sites seed all malware by enticing people with cheap or free
software. See this link but be aware that there are not safe for work pictures related other articles about the dark
web: https://darkwebjournal.com/warez-sites/

Ajay

On 9/7/2020 12:43 PM, vincent.visonneau wrote:

Hi
I would like to replace the old grease of my 900gto.
I think i must buy few lithium 3-1 grease, is there some tips to not
damage my mount..

A-P sells a re-greasing kit that contains two types of grease, a brush, and instructions. Contact A-P directly; I don't think it's on the website (but I could be wrong).

--- Mike

Hi Vincent

There have been several discussion threads on the forum concerning the type of grease to be used (search for messages about "grease"). One of the recommended types is Aeroshell 33, but Rather than risk giving you the wrong specification for the grease, it would be better for you to call Astro-Physics directly because I think their greases are custom blended. They sell mount re-greasing kits with the two different types of grease needed to re-grease the mount. If the shipping overseas takes too long they can probably tell you what king of grease to look for locally.

I do remember one forum thread where Roland recommended to avoid greases containing sulfur (e.g. Aeroshell 33MS) because it will damage brass and bronze gears.


Best Regards

Michael Hambrick
ARLANXEO
TSR Global Manufacturing Support
PO Box 2000
Orange, TX 77631-2000
Phone: +1 (409) 882-2799
email: mike.hambrick@...