Date   

Re: Which Camera?

Woody Schlom
 

Christopher,

 

I have a couple of flat USB3 (not ZWO’s) that I mostly use for charging my Android phone and tablet.  But they’re real USB3 cables and I can download photos and the like. 

 

Their jackets are semi-transparent Silicone and I can see the wires inside – and they’re all straight and not twisted.  They look kind of similar to TELCO flat modular cable – which is also not twisted.

 

Woody

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Woody Schlom
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 9:34 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which Camera?

 

Christopher, 

 

If you say so. But I've seen specs. for USB cables with untwisted pairs.  Don't remember if it was USB2 or USB3. But either way I don't want one of those.

 

Woody 

 

On July 4, 2021 8:47:54 PM "Christopher Erickson" <christopher.k.erickson@...> wrote:

All flat cables still have twisted pairs inside. USB specification.


-Christopher Erickson
Observatory engineer
Waikoloa, HI 96738
www.summitkinetics.com
   

 

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 7:20 PM Kenneth Tan <ktanhs@...> wrote:

I have used their flat cables without any problems. 

 

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 10:02, Michael 'Mikey' Mangieri <mjmangieri@...> wrote:

Just a quick FYI … I have never had an issue with the supplied cables. I direct connect to a NUC on the pier.
> On Jul 4, 2021, at 6:46 PM, Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
>
>
I throw away all the USB cables that come with my ZWO cameras and buy higher quality cables.
>
> Robert
>> On Jul 4, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Woody Schlom <woody_is@...> wrote:
>>
>>
Mike,
>>
>> Flat USB3 cable "high-quality?"  That's news to me.  Flat means the data pairs aren't twisted.  And that means they're much more prone to interference and noise.  And none of the flat USB cables I'm familiar with are shielded at all.  And again, that means possible noise from interference.
>>
>> As for my "high-quality" USB3 cables I use the L-com ones with AWG 28/26/24 wires inside.  The data pairs are all twisted and the power wires are the #24 ones.  The cables are also double-shielded (foil plus braided over that) and have ferrite cores on the ends.  Expensive, but very good cables.
>>
>> Many (most?) USB3 cables use AWG 30 wires, with #28 wire for power if you're lucky.  And most consumer-grade USB3 cables don't even give specs. -- so you have no way of knowing the size or type of wires inside, whether they're twisted, or how many shields or of what type they they're using -- if any.
>>
>> Woody
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of
>>> Mike Dodd
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:19 AM
>>> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
>>> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which Camera?
>>>
>>>>> On 7/4/2021 1:42 AM, Jeffc wrote:
>>>>> The cable that ships with the QHY268M is so-so ok [...] Finding good
>>>>> cables is a bit difficult.
>>>
>>> That reminds me....
>>>
>>> In 2019 I had a serious problem with my ZWO ASI1600MC Pro hanging-up
>>> and not downloading an image. It even went back to China for an engineer to
>>> check out.
>>>
>>> (Nothing was wrong with the camera; the problem turned out to be a USB
>>> webcam I was using to view the observatory was hogging the USB traffic on
>>> the PC, even though it was USB 2, and the '1600 was USB 3. When I
>>> disconnected the webcam, the '1600 worked perfectly.)
>>>
>>> BUT, in my extensive email conversation with Chad, the ZWO engineer in
>>> China, he mentioned that many USB 3 cables are of inferior quality, and the
>>> flat cable they provide is the only one they can confirm works with their
>>> cameras. IOW his first suspect was the USB 3 cable to the camera.
>>>
>>> Chad also told me that powered USB 3.0 extenders often cause problems,
>>> and he recommended using only a high-quality brand-name extender. I have
>>> a Plugable no. USB3-5M-D: <https://www.ebay.com/itm/264095004596>
>>> (This is an eBay link, but the vendor is Plugable itself.)
>>>
>>> Bottom line.... Even though my camera's problem was caused by a USB 2
>>> webcam, I learned a lot about USB 3 cables and active extenders from an
>>> engineer with experience with them.
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> BTW, I am extremely impressed with ZWO's support in resolving this issue.
>>> Chad was quite knowledgeable and responded to my emails quickly (12-hour
>>> time difference, so I usually had an answer to an 11pm email when I woke up
>>> the next morning).
>>>
>>> Chad convinced me to send the '1600 to him (via the dealer), and he
>>> personally performed the tests (including in hot and cold chambers), then
>>> told me the results (nothing wrong). He shipped the camera back to me
>>> directly at no charge.
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> That's what I know about USB cables and ZWO cameras, and ZWO customer
>>> support.
>>>
>>> --- Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>





 


Re: Musing about my next mount...

Jeffc
 

Here's my 2 cents.. tho i'm having a bit of a problem parsing the "requirements"...
Essentially.. you want a permanent mount for visual use in the observatory , in addition to the AP1600?
And another third mount for travelling doing imaging OR visual?
But you would remove (one of) the OTAs from the observatory when travelling?

So.. the 1600 will be in the observatory for imaging since it has encoders, correct?

Option A:   

Step 1. Put the  existing 1100 in the observatory for visual use with the C14.   I presume there is some requirement that once installed in the observatory the mount can't be used for "double duty" in the field.   But the OTA would move from the observatory for use in the field.   I suppose the idea of a "permanent" mount is understandable. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Step 2. Buy an AP1100 with encoders.  This will be used "in the field" (travelling) for imaging (w/ AP130) or visual (w/ the C14) (but not at the same time).
(Probably a Mach2 is not appropriate for the C14.  Fwiw I use a Meade 12 ACF on my Mach2, even for imaging along with camera, GEG, etc.. I'm almost maxed out on the counterweight shaft.)

Option B:

Step 1. Upgrade the AP1100 adding encoders (is that still doable? -- i thought it was in the past), and use this as your travelling imaging / visual mount.
Step 2. Get a used AP mount (AP900, 1100, 1200) etc for visual use with the C14 in the observatory.   I suspect "used AP1100" is not economical since you already have that same exact model.


If you were going to be travelling for imaging (e.g. with an AP130)  and travelling for visual use with something smaller than the C14 , I would suggest seriously considering the Mach2 (which has encoders of course).
After getting the hang of APPM in the field, I'm really enjoying the performance of the Mach2.   Sure the smaller Mach1 would be nice, but I'm very happy with the Mach2 even with the additional "heft".   (Since using the mach2 I'm not sure I would bother with a Mach1 for imaging.  Dark-sky time is too precious.)
Fwiw, I also have an 1100 (w/o encoders) in addition to the Mach2; While the Mach2 doesn't separate, the Mach2 is much more compact in the car for me than the 1100.    (And I transport my 1100 as one piece anyhow; there isn't a huge "total weight" difference.)
In any event, as you may have guessed, I've not used the non-encoder 1100 since the Mach2 arrived.  

But it sounds like you need a mount that can carry the C14.. that seems to be the baseline... and that's probably a bit much of the Mach2 (tho it is only visual use)... which means the AP1100 would be the next up.   However, if this is to be used as an imaging mount also, then (imo) the mount should have encoders.

-jeff

Ps. There was a Mach 1 on CN on saturday, so these mounts do come up for sale periodically:  https://www.cloudynights.com/classifieds/item/260812-mach1-gtocpo3-complete-setup/


Re: Which Camera?

Kenneth Tan
 

I have used startech cables and especially their usb hubs. Very good quality.

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:34, <jimwc@...> wrote:


Re: Which Camera?

jimwc@...
 

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 08:25 AM, ap@... wrote:
Christopher
I use 2 venders for my USB cables.
Cables to Go and Star Tech 
IMHO if you are going more than 10 feet I would consider a Ethernet converter. ICRON makes 2 versions.
take your pick. but if you are using USB3 I would consider the Raven 3104.
Jim 


Re: Which Camera?

jimwc@...
 

Christopher
I have used cables from two sources, both with good results.
1. Cables to go
2. Star Tech.


Re: Which Camera?

jimwc@...
 


USB 2 VS USB3 problems solved

jimwc@...
 

I am still waiting on my Mach 2 but I thought I would chime in on how I solved my USB problems.
Right now I have a Celestron CGX mount I had nothing but trouble getting my mount to talk to my computer over a extended USB3 of about 30 feet using a powered USB3 hub.


I found that most mounts, focuser adapters etc. use USB2 where Cameras use USB3 because of band width. simply put
USB3 caries more data. I have heard (not Confirmed) that if you use a USB2 and USB3 over a USB3 hub it drags the USB3 down to a USB2 level.
also on some laptop computers USB 2 and USB3 inputs use the same controller per side of the computer so if you plug a USB2 and a USB3 on the same side it drags the USB3 down. 

My solution is use a Ethernet adapter ICRON makes two versions one is USB2 and one is USB3 I chose the USB3 because the Computer end (RCV) has a USB3 output,
and my computer has only USB3 inputs (that's the way all computers are going). It also will accept USB2 inputs to the Mount end (TX) with no problem.
they say that the max cable length between the TX end and RCV end is ~300 feet.
the ICRON Raven 3104 solved my problems. I am sure there is other brands but I can not vouch for them.
Jim


.


Re: Which Camera?

Anant Hariharan
 

I have the QHY600 M Pro version with SGP with Eagle 4 running latest windows no connection problem or cooling problem whatever. The data is voluminous ~120mb per sub

However back Focus is very tricky with 130 GTX with the Quad.

Don’t go by the specs by Qhy if you don t have the qhycfw filter wheel, it is more of +/- 1 to 2 mm depending on the set up.



Clear Skies..

 

On Jul 3, 2021, at 9:24 PM, Cheng-Yang Tan via groups.io <cytan299@...> wrote:

I was just about to pull the trigger on the ASI2600 after reading these posts about QHY268 connection problems. Well, the ASI2600 has the same problem:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/764419-zwo-2600mc-apt-error-cant-read-the-image/

I guess I'll be waiting until these problems are sorted out.

cytan


Re: Musing about my next mount...

thefamily90 Phillips
 

I would get on APs wait list for the 1100 and Mach2. Then I would put want ads up on AMart and CN. I have gotten an AP600 Goto and two Mach1s that way in the last year.
I would only buy another brand as a last ditch effort. After about 30 years I am just beginning to understand how to use the AP Keypad..,

JimP

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:29 PM W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:
Since retiring, I am changing how I regard my astronomy gear.

I have an AP1600 with Absolute Encoders, and an AP1100 (without encoders).  I keep them both up to date with the latest CP4 firmware, etc.  I also tend of purchase available upgrades (such as the counterweight shaft part with the steel insert; and I will upgrade them both to the new gearboxes with the release levers, if they ever become available) to keep them current.

I also have two Celestron AVX mounts that I use for grab-and-go visual observing with small telescopes.

The AP1600 was my "lifetime mount", and it was an early sample.  I added the AP1100 almost 4 years ago and intended it to be either my travel imaging mount, or as the visual mount for my C14.

Now that I'm retired, I'll be doing more traveling to dark sky sites.  I'll also be building an observatory on my property, which has Bortle 3 skies.  The goal with the observatory will be to make that the permanent home for the AP1600, and I'll stop schlepping it out to dark sky sites.  The problem with that, is that I then have an imaging mount, or a visual mount for the C14, but not both at the same time.

So I need to figure out how feasible it is to buy another mount so that I can do both visual with the C14, and imaging with another scope.  A Mach1 would have been a no-brainer, but they aren't available new anymore.  Here are the options that I'm considering:

1) Find a used Mach1.
2) Buy a new Mach2.
3) Buy another AP1100 (to me, the AP1100 is more portable than the Mach2, since the 1100 separates the halves - also, I *love* my AP1100).
4) Buy a non-AP mount to carry the C14 for visual.
5) Buy a non-AP mount to carry an imaging scope, which would be no larger than an AP130GTX.
6) Patiently wait to see if Astro-Physics announces a new, light weight imaging mount.

Given that this is an Astro-Physics forum, naturally I think that everyone will be biased towards the first 3 options (as am I).  My most likely next step is to put my name on the notification list for a Mach2, since they are far enough out that if another option presents itself in the short term, I could change my mind.

But I figured that I'd ask the group for their thoughts.


Re: Musing about my next mount...

W Hilmo
 

I would use the Mach1 as the portable imaging mount.  Most of the time, it would be carrying the 130GTX.  Occasionally, I would mount my 80mm refractor for wide field work.

 

That said, I put my C14 on a Celestron CGE for over 10 years for visual use.  I am *much* happier with it on the AP1100, but even a Mach1 would be a huge step up in stability from a CGE.

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Christopher Erickson
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 3:44 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Musing about my next mount...

 

The biggest OTA I would put on a Mach1 or Mach2 would be a C11. And in fact a C11 on my Mach1 isn't as stable as I would like.

 

IMHO, an 1100 or a 900 is perfect for a C14. I have used both mounts with my C14 and they work great.

YMMV.


-Christopher Erickson
Observatory engineer
Waikoloa, HI 96738
www.summitkinetics.com
   

 

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 3:29 PM W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:

Since retiring, I am changing how I regard my astronomy gear.

I have an AP1600 with Absolute Encoders, and an AP1100 (without encoders).  I keep them both up to date with the latest CP4 firmware, etc.  I also tend of purchase available upgrades (such as the counterweight shaft part with the steel insert; and I will upgrade them both to the new gearboxes with the release levers, if they ever become available) to keep them current.

I also have two Celestron AVX mounts that I use for grab-and-go visual observing with small telescopes.

The AP1600 was my "lifetime mount", and it was an early sample.  I added the AP1100 almost 4 years ago and intended it to be either my travel imaging mount, or as the visual mount for my C14.

Now that I'm retired, I'll be doing more traveling to dark sky sites.  I'll also be building an observatory on my property, which has Bortle 3 skies.  The goal with the observatory will be to make that the permanent home for the AP1600, and I'll stop schlepping it out to dark sky sites.  The problem with that, is that I then have an imaging mount, or a visual mount for the C14, but not both at the same time.

So I need to figure out how feasible it is to buy another mount so that I can do both visual with the C14, and imaging with another scope.  A Mach1 would have been a no-brainer, but they aren't available new anymore.  Here are the options that I'm considering:

1) Find a used Mach1.
2) Buy a new Mach2.
3) Buy another AP1100 (to me, the AP1100 is more portable than the Mach2, since the 1100 separates the halves - also, I *love* my AP1100).
4) Buy a non-AP mount to carry the C14 for visual.
5) Buy a non-AP mount to carry an imaging scope, which would be no larger than an AP130GTX.
6) Patiently wait to see if Astro-Physics announces a new, light weight imaging mount.

Given that this is an Astro-Physics forum, naturally I think that everyone will be biased towards the first 3 options (as am I).  My most likely next step is to put my name on the notification list for a Mach2, since they are far enough out that if another option presents itself in the short term, I could change my mind.

But I figured that I'd ask the group for their thoughts.


Re: Is APCC Pro .17 the latest available? #APCC

W Hilmo
 

" BTW, why would you want to use beta software from any manufacturer at a dark site? That seems like a risky decision that could cost you imaging time if something goes wrong."

Amen to that. I travel many times per year to dark sky sites, and consider the time before travel to be a "no fly zone" for configuration changes or software updates. I like to have a few weeks to thoroughly test and stabilize the system ahead of this kind of trip. Once everything is working the way that I want, I touch *nothing*.

-Wade

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ray Gralak
Sent: Saturday, July 3, 2021 4:10 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Is APCC Pro .17 the latest available? #APCC

Headed out to the desert without internet for several days and wanted
to get everything up to date before I do so. Is there a beta or developer snapshot of a newer version than 1.8.8.17 I can download?

Also how close are you to 1.9 with ASTAP support? Thanks
No, we have not made any public beta or developer snapshots.

ASTAP is completely supported and tested in 1.9 but there are last-minute documentation updates and release management details being worked on.

BTW, why would you want to use beta software from any manufacturer at a dark site? That seems like a risky decision that could cost you imaging time if something goes wrong.

-Ray


Re: Musing about my next mount...

Christopher Erickson
 

The biggest OTA I would put on a Mach1 or Mach2 would be a C11. And in fact a C11 on my Mach1 isn't as stable as I would like.

IMHO, an 1100 or a 900 is perfect for a C14. I have used both mounts with my C14 and they work great.

YMMV.

-Christopher Erickson
Observatory engineer
Waikoloa, HI 96738
www.summitkinetics.com
   


On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 3:29 PM W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:
Since retiring, I am changing how I regard my astronomy gear.

I have an AP1600 with Absolute Encoders, and an AP1100 (without encoders).  I keep them both up to date with the latest CP4 firmware, etc.  I also tend of purchase available upgrades (such as the counterweight shaft part with the steel insert; and I will upgrade them both to the new gearboxes with the release levers, if they ever become available) to keep them current.

I also have two Celestron AVX mounts that I use for grab-and-go visual observing with small telescopes.

The AP1600 was my "lifetime mount", and it was an early sample.  I added the AP1100 almost 4 years ago and intended it to be either my travel imaging mount, or as the visual mount for my C14.

Now that I'm retired, I'll be doing more traveling to dark sky sites.  I'll also be building an observatory on my property, which has Bortle 3 skies.  The goal with the observatory will be to make that the permanent home for the AP1600, and I'll stop schlepping it out to dark sky sites.  The problem with that, is that I then have an imaging mount, or a visual mount for the C14, but not both at the same time.

So I need to figure out how feasible it is to buy another mount so that I can do both visual with the C14, and imaging with another scope.  A Mach1 would have been a no-brainer, but they aren't available new anymore.  Here are the options that I'm considering:

1) Find a used Mach1.
2) Buy a new Mach2.
3) Buy another AP1100 (to me, the AP1100 is more portable than the Mach2, since the 1100 separates the halves - also, I *love* my AP1100).
4) Buy a non-AP mount to carry the C14 for visual.
5) Buy a non-AP mount to carry an imaging scope, which would be no larger than an AP130GTX.
6) Patiently wait to see if Astro-Physics announces a new, light weight imaging mount.

Given that this is an Astro-Physics forum, naturally I think that everyone will be biased towards the first 3 options (as am I).  My most likely next step is to put my name on the notification list for a Mach2, since they are far enough out that if another option presents itself in the short term, I could change my mind.

But I figured that I'd ask the group for their thoughts.


Musing about my next mount...

W Hilmo
 

Since retiring, I am changing how I regard my astronomy gear.

I have an AP1600 with Absolute Encoders, and an AP1100 (without encoders).  I keep them both up to date with the latest CP4 firmware, etc.  I also tend of purchase available upgrades (such as the counterweight shaft part with the steel insert; and I will upgrade them both to the new gearboxes with the release levers, if they ever become available) to keep them current.

I also have two Celestron AVX mounts that I use for grab-and-go visual observing with small telescopes.

The AP1600 was my "lifetime mount", and it was an early sample.  I added the AP1100 almost 4 years ago and intended it to be either my travel imaging mount, or as the visual mount for my C14.

Now that I'm retired, I'll be doing more traveling to dark sky sites.  I'll also be building an observatory on my property, which has Bortle 3 skies.  The goal with the observatory will be to make that the permanent home for the AP1600, and I'll stop schlepping it out to dark sky sites.  The problem with that, is that I then have an imaging mount, or a visual mount for the C14, but not both at the same time.

So I need to figure out how feasible it is to buy another mount so that I can do both visual with the C14, and imaging with another scope.  A Mach1 would have been a no-brainer, but they aren't available new anymore.  Here are the options that I'm considering:

1) Find a used Mach1.
2) Buy a new Mach2.
3) Buy another AP1100 (to me, the AP1100 is more portable than the Mach2, since the 1100 separates the halves - also, I *love* my AP1100).
4) Buy a non-AP mount to carry the C14 for visual.
5) Buy a non-AP mount to carry an imaging scope, which would be no larger than an AP130GTX.
6) Patiently wait to see if Astro-Physics announces a new, light weight imaging mount.

Given that this is an Astro-Physics forum, naturally I think that everyone will be biased towards the first 3 options (as am I).  My most likely next step is to put my name on the notification list for a Mach2, since they are far enough out that if another option presents itself in the short term, I could change my mind.

But I figured that I'd ask the group for their thoughts.


Re: Which Camera?

ap@CaptivePhotons.com
 

Christopher Erickson wrote:

 

>>> All flat cables still have twisted pairs inside. USB specification.

 

Has anyone cut open a ZWO cable and looked?  They sure do not feel to the hand like there is room to twist the pairs, but really tiny wires maybe…

 

But I think the bigger issue is there appears to be no reliable certification or other source of “these cables are good” and “these not so much”. 

 

I’ve bought a huge collection of amazon cables, for example, and tossed quite a few (even more cheap hubs). To me it’s basically one-strike-and-you-are-out, because time is more important than the cost of the cable.  I have not had a ZWO flat cable fail – but I also do not use them, they just look inadequate.  Unfair assumption perhaps.

 

But once I find one that works well, I buy some more of them.  Same applies especially to USB C cables, also hard to find reliable ones.

 

So for me it’s survival of the fittest cable.  Not a real reliable technique, except over decades, by which time they change.

 

Someone mentioned, I think the word was “consumer”… but I’ve also not seen clear indication that paying a lot more from specialty vendors results in better cables (though for hubs I think moreso it does). I’d love a source of hyper-reliable USB cables in various flavors and lengths even if it cost 3-4x Amazon.  Mostly I just see ones that cost 3-4x, no real reputation of that much better (well, other than their own marketing).

 

When USB C came out there were some independent testing – I think one Google engineer was doing it?   Kind of dried up.  Does anyone know of any independent testing of cables still happening?

 

 


Re: Which Camera?

Woody Schlom
 

Christopher, 

If you say so. But I've seen specs. for USB cables with untwisted pairs.  Don't remember if it was USB2 or USB3. But either way I don't want one of those.

Woody 

On July 4, 2021 8:47:54 PM "Christopher Erickson" <christopher.k.erickson@...> wrote:

All flat cables still have twisted pairs inside. USB specification.

-Christopher Erickson
Observatory engineer
Waikoloa, HI 96738
www.summitkinetics.com
   

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 7:20 PM Kenneth Tan <ktanhs@...> wrote:
I have used their flat cables without any problems. 

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 10:02, Michael 'Mikey' Mangieri <mjmangieri@...> wrote:
Just a quick FYI … I have never had an issue with the supplied cables. I direct connect to a NUC on the pier.
> On Jul 4, 2021, at 6:46 PM, Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
>
> I throw away all the USB cables that come with my ZWO cameras and buy higher quality cables.
>
> Robert
>> On Jul 4, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Woody Schlom <woody_is@...> wrote:
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Flat USB3 cable "high-quality?"  That's news to me.  Flat means the data pairs aren't twisted.  And that means they're much more prone to interference and noise.  And none of the flat USB cables I'm familiar with are shielded at all.  And again, that means possible noise from interference.
>>
>> As for my "high-quality" USB3 cables I use the L-com ones with AWG 28/26/24 wires inside.  The data pairs are all twisted and the power wires are the #24 ones.  The cables are also double-shielded (foil plus braided over that) and have ferrite cores on the ends.  Expensive, but very good cables.
>>
>> Many (most?) USB3 cables use AWG 30 wires, with #28 wire for power if you're lucky.  And most consumer-grade USB3 cables don't even give specs. -- so you have no way of knowing the size or type of wires inside, whether they're twisted, or how many shields or of what type they they're using -- if any.
>>
>> Woody
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of
>>> Mike Dodd
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:19 AM
>>> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
>>> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which Camera?
>>>
>>>>> On 7/4/2021 1:42 AM, Jeffc wrote:
>>>>> The cable that ships with the QHY268M is so-so ok [...] Finding good
>>>>> cables is a bit difficult.
>>>
>>> That reminds me....
>>>
>>> In 2019 I had a serious problem with my ZWO ASI1600MC Pro hanging-up
>>> and not downloading an image. It even went back to China for an engineer to
>>> check out.
>>>
>>> (Nothing was wrong with the camera; the problem turned out to be a USB
>>> webcam I was using to view the observatory was hogging the USB traffic on
>>> the PC, even though it was USB 2, and the '1600 was USB 3. When I
>>> disconnected the webcam, the '1600 worked perfectly.)
>>>
>>> BUT, in my extensive email conversation with Chad, the ZWO engineer in
>>> China, he mentioned that many USB 3 cables are of inferior quality, and the
>>> flat cable they provide is the only one they can confirm works with their
>>> cameras. IOW his first suspect was the USB 3 cable to the camera.
>>>
>>> Chad also told me that powered USB 3.0 extenders often cause problems,
>>> and he recommended using only a high-quality brand-name extender. I have
>>> a Plugable no. USB3-5M-D: <https://www.ebay.com/itm/264095004596>
>>> (This is an eBay link, but the vendor is Plugable itself.)
>>>
>>> Bottom line.... Even though my camera's problem was caused by a USB 2
>>> webcam, I learned a lot about USB 3 cables and active extenders from an
>>> engineer with experience with them.
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> BTW, I am extremely impressed with ZWO's support in resolving this issue.
>>> Chad was quite knowledgeable and responded to my emails quickly (12-hour
>>> time difference, so I usually had an answer to an 11pm email when I woke up
>>> the next morning).
>>>
>>> Chad convinced me to send the '1600 to him (via the dealer), and he
>>> personally performed the tests (including in hot and cold chambers), then
>>> told me the results (nothing wrong). He shipped the camera back to me
>>> directly at no charge.
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> That's what I know about USB cables and ZWO cameras, and ZWO customer
>>> support.
>>>
>>> --- Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>








Re: Meridian Limits files #APCC

Eric Claeys
 

+++++ to the idea of showing what meridian limits file is being used.  I have a couple that are very similar and the only way to make sure I have the correct one is to reload it.

Eric


Re: Which Camera?

Christopher Erickson
 

All flat cables still have twisted pairs inside. USB specification.

-Christopher Erickson
Observatory engineer
Waikoloa, HI 96738
www.summitkinetics.com
   

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 7:20 PM Kenneth Tan <ktanhs@...> wrote:
I have used their flat cables without any problems. 

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 10:02, Michael 'Mikey' Mangieri <mjmangieri@...> wrote:
Just a quick FYI … I have never had an issue with the supplied cables. I direct connect to a NUC on the pier.
> On Jul 4, 2021, at 6:46 PM, Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
>
> I throw away all the USB cables that come with my ZWO cameras and buy higher quality cables.
>
> Robert
>> On Jul 4, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Woody Schlom <woody_is@...> wrote:
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Flat USB3 cable "high-quality?"  That's news to me.  Flat means the data pairs aren't twisted.  And that means they're much more prone to interference and noise.  And none of the flat USB cables I'm familiar with are shielded at all.  And again, that means possible noise from interference.
>>
>> As for my "high-quality" USB3 cables I use the L-com ones with AWG 28/26/24 wires inside.  The data pairs are all twisted and the power wires are the #24 ones.  The cables are also double-shielded (foil plus braided over that) and have ferrite cores on the ends.  Expensive, but very good cables.
>>
>> Many (most?) USB3 cables use AWG 30 wires, with #28 wire for power if you're lucky.  And most consumer-grade USB3 cables don't even give specs. -- so you have no way of knowing the size or type of wires inside, whether they're twisted, or how many shields or of what type they they're using -- if any.
>>
>> Woody
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of
>>> Mike Dodd
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:19 AM
>>> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
>>> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which Camera?
>>>
>>>>> On 7/4/2021 1:42 AM, Jeffc wrote:
>>>>> The cable that ships with the QHY268M is so-so ok [...] Finding good
>>>>> cables is a bit difficult.
>>>
>>> That reminds me....
>>>
>>> In 2019 I had a serious problem with my ZWO ASI1600MC Pro hanging-up
>>> and not downloading an image. It even went back to China for an engineer to
>>> check out.
>>>
>>> (Nothing was wrong with the camera; the problem turned out to be a USB
>>> webcam I was using to view the observatory was hogging the USB traffic on
>>> the PC, even though it was USB 2, and the '1600 was USB 3. When I
>>> disconnected the webcam, the '1600 worked perfectly.)
>>>
>>> BUT, in my extensive email conversation with Chad, the ZWO engineer in
>>> China, he mentioned that many USB 3 cables are of inferior quality, and the
>>> flat cable they provide is the only one they can confirm works with their
>>> cameras. IOW his first suspect was the USB 3 cable to the camera.
>>>
>>> Chad also told me that powered USB 3.0 extenders often cause problems,
>>> and he recommended using only a high-quality brand-name extender. I have
>>> a Plugable no. USB3-5M-D: <https://www.ebay.com/itm/264095004596>
>>> (This is an eBay link, but the vendor is Plugable itself.)
>>>
>>> Bottom line.... Even though my camera's problem was caused by a USB 2
>>> webcam, I learned a lot about USB 3 cables and active extenders from an
>>> engineer with experience with them.
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> BTW, I am extremely impressed with ZWO's support in resolving this issue.
>>> Chad was quite knowledgeable and responded to my emails quickly (12-hour
>>> time difference, so I usually had an answer to an 11pm email when I woke up
>>> the next morning).
>>>
>>> Chad convinced me to send the '1600 to him (via the dealer), and he
>>> personally performed the tests (including in hot and cold chambers), then
>>> told me the results (nothing wrong). He shipped the camera back to me
>>> directly at no charge.
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> That's what I know about USB cables and ZWO cameras, and ZWO customer
>>> support.
>>>
>>> --- Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>







Re: Which Camera?

Kenneth Tan
 

I have used their flat cables without any problems. 

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 10:02, Michael 'Mikey' Mangieri <mjmangieri@...> wrote:
Just a quick FYI … I have never had an issue with the supplied cables. I direct connect to a NUC on the pier.
> On Jul 4, 2021, at 6:46 PM, Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
>
> I throw away all the USB cables that come with my ZWO cameras and buy higher quality cables.
>
> Robert
>> On Jul 4, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Woody Schlom <woody_is@...> wrote:
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Flat USB3 cable "high-quality?"  That's news to me.  Flat means the data pairs aren't twisted.  And that means they're much more prone to interference and noise.  And none of the flat USB cables I'm familiar with are shielded at all.  And again, that means possible noise from interference.
>>
>> As for my "high-quality" USB3 cables I use the L-com ones with AWG 28/26/24 wires inside.  The data pairs are all twisted and the power wires are the #24 ones.  The cables are also double-shielded (foil plus braided over that) and have ferrite cores on the ends.  Expensive, but very good cables.
>>
>> Many (most?) USB3 cables use AWG 30 wires, with #28 wire for power if you're lucky.  And most consumer-grade USB3 cables don't even give specs. -- so you have no way of knowing the size or type of wires inside, whether they're twisted, or how many shields or of what type they they're using -- if any.
>>
>> Woody
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of
>>> Mike Dodd
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:19 AM
>>> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
>>> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which Camera?
>>>
>>>>> On 7/4/2021 1:42 AM, Jeffc wrote:
>>>>> The cable that ships with the QHY268M is so-so ok [...] Finding good
>>>>> cables is a bit difficult.
>>>
>>> That reminds me....
>>>
>>> In 2019 I had a serious problem with my ZWO ASI1600MC Pro hanging-up
>>> and not downloading an image. It even went back to China for an engineer to
>>> check out.
>>>
>>> (Nothing was wrong with the camera; the problem turned out to be a USB
>>> webcam I was using to view the observatory was hogging the USB traffic on
>>> the PC, even though it was USB 2, and the '1600 was USB 3. When I
>>> disconnected the webcam, the '1600 worked perfectly.)
>>>
>>> BUT, in my extensive email conversation with Chad, the ZWO engineer in
>>> China, he mentioned that many USB 3 cables are of inferior quality, and the
>>> flat cable they provide is the only one they can confirm works with their
>>> cameras. IOW his first suspect was the USB 3 cable to the camera.
>>>
>>> Chad also told me that powered USB 3.0 extenders often cause problems,
>>> and he recommended using only a high-quality brand-name extender. I have
>>> a Plugable no. USB3-5M-D: <https://www.ebay.com/itm/264095004596>
>>> (This is an eBay link, but the vendor is Plugable itself.)
>>>
>>> Bottom line.... Even though my camera's problem was caused by a USB 2
>>> webcam, I learned a lot about USB 3 cables and active extenders from an
>>> engineer with experience with them.
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> BTW, I am extremely impressed with ZWO's support in resolving this issue.
>>> Chad was quite knowledgeable and responded to my emails quickly (12-hour
>>> time difference, so I usually had an answer to an 11pm email when I woke up
>>> the next morning).
>>>
>>> Chad convinced me to send the '1600 to him (via the dealer), and he
>>> personally performed the tests (including in hot and cold chambers), then
>>> told me the results (nothing wrong). He shipped the camera back to me
>>> directly at no charge.
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> That's what I know about USB cables and ZWO cameras, and ZWO customer
>>> support.
>>>
>>> --- Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>







Re: Which Camera?

Michael 'Mikey' Mangieri
 

Just a quick FYI … I have never had an issue with the supplied cables. I direct connect to a NUC on the pier.

On Jul 4, 2021, at 6:46 PM, Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I throw away all the USB cables that come with my ZWO cameras and buy higher quality cables.

Robert
On Jul 4, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Woody Schlom <woody_is@cox.net> wrote:

Mike,

Flat USB3 cable "high-quality?" That's news to me. Flat means the data pairs aren't twisted. And that means they're much more prone to interference and noise. And none of the flat USB cables I'm familiar with are shielded at all. And again, that means possible noise from interference.

As for my "high-quality" USB3 cables I use the L-com ones with AWG 28/26/24 wires inside. The data pairs are all twisted and the power wires are the #24 ones. The cables are also double-shielded (foil plus braided over that) and have ferrite cores on the ends. Expensive, but very good cables.

Many (most?) USB3 cables use AWG 30 wires, with #28 wire for power if you're lucky. And most consumer-grade USB3 cables don't even give specs. -- so you have no way of knowing the size or type of wires inside, whether they're twisted, or how many shields or of what type they they're using -- if any.

Woody



-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Mike Dodd
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:19 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which Camera?

On 7/4/2021 1:42 AM, Jeffc wrote:
The cable that ships with the QHY268M is so-so ok [...] Finding good
cables is a bit difficult.
That reminds me....

In 2019 I had a serious problem with my ZWO ASI1600MC Pro hanging-up
and not downloading an image. It even went back to China for an engineer to
check out.

(Nothing was wrong with the camera; the problem turned out to be a USB
webcam I was using to view the observatory was hogging the USB traffic on
the PC, even though it was USB 2, and the '1600 was USB 3. When I
disconnected the webcam, the '1600 worked perfectly.)

BUT, in my extensive email conversation with Chad, the ZWO engineer in
China, he mentioned that many USB 3 cables are of inferior quality, and the
flat cable they provide is the only one they can confirm works with their
cameras. IOW his first suspect was the USB 3 cable to the camera.

Chad also told me that powered USB 3.0 extenders often cause problems,
and he recommended using only a high-quality brand-name extender. I have
a Plugable no. USB3-5M-D: <https://www.ebay.com/itm/264095004596>
(This is an eBay link, but the vendor is Plugable itself.)

Bottom line.... Even though my camera's problem was caused by a USB 2
webcam, I learned a lot about USB 3 cables and active extenders from an
engineer with experience with them.

----------
BTW, I am extremely impressed with ZWO's support in resolving this issue.
Chad was quite knowledgeable and responded to my emails quickly (12-hour
time difference, so I usually had an answer to an 11pm email when I woke up
the next morning).

Chad convinced me to send the '1600 to him (via the dealer), and he
personally performed the tests (including in hot and cold chambers), then
told me the results (nothing wrong). He shipped the camera back to me
directly at no charge.
----------

That's what I know about USB cables and ZWO cameras, and ZWO customer
support.

--- Mike












Re: Which Camera?

Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

I throw away all the USB cables that come with my ZWO cameras and buy higher quality cables.

Robert

On Jul 4, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Woody Schlom <woody_is@cox.net> wrote:

Mike,

Flat USB3 cable "high-quality?" That's news to me. Flat means the data pairs aren't twisted. And that means they're much more prone to interference and noise. And none of the flat USB cables I'm familiar with are shielded at all. And again, that means possible noise from interference.

As for my "high-quality" USB3 cables I use the L-com ones with AWG 28/26/24 wires inside. The data pairs are all twisted and the power wires are the #24 ones. The cables are also double-shielded (foil plus braided over that) and have ferrite cores on the ends. Expensive, but very good cables.

Many (most?) USB3 cables use AWG 30 wires, with #28 wire for power if you're lucky. And most consumer-grade USB3 cables don't even give specs. -- so you have no way of knowing the size or type of wires inside, whether they're twisted, or how many shields or of what type they they're using -- if any.

Woody



-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Mike Dodd
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:19 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which Camera?

On 7/4/2021 1:42 AM, Jeffc wrote:
The cable that ships with the QHY268M is so-so ok [...] Finding good
cables is a bit difficult.
That reminds me....

In 2019 I had a serious problem with my ZWO ASI1600MC Pro hanging-up
and not downloading an image. It even went back to China for an engineer to
check out.

(Nothing was wrong with the camera; the problem turned out to be a USB
webcam I was using to view the observatory was hogging the USB traffic on
the PC, even though it was USB 2, and the '1600 was USB 3. When I
disconnected the webcam, the '1600 worked perfectly.)

BUT, in my extensive email conversation with Chad, the ZWO engineer in
China, he mentioned that many USB 3 cables are of inferior quality, and the
flat cable they provide is the only one they can confirm works with their
cameras. IOW his first suspect was the USB 3 cable to the camera.

Chad also told me that powered USB 3.0 extenders often cause problems,
and he recommended using only a high-quality brand-name extender. I have
a Plugable no. USB3-5M-D: <https://www.ebay.com/itm/264095004596>
(This is an eBay link, but the vendor is Plugable itself.)

Bottom line.... Even though my camera's problem was caused by a USB 2
webcam, I learned a lot about USB 3 cables and active extenders from an
engineer with experience with them.

----------
BTW, I am extremely impressed with ZWO's support in resolving this issue.
Chad was quite knowledgeable and responded to my emails quickly (12-hour
time difference, so I usually had an answer to an 11pm email when I woke up
the next morning).

Chad convinced me to send the '1600 to him (via the dealer), and he
personally performed the tests (including in hot and cold chambers), then
told me the results (nothing wrong). He shipped the camera back to me
directly at no charge.
----------

That's what I know about USB cables and ZWO cameras, and ZWO customer
support.

--- Mike







7161 - 7180 of 86399