Date   

Re: GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

Cheng-Yang Tan
 

Hi Christopher,
    I have a very similar setup as yours after you get the AP1100AE:

Inline image

I have the AP1100AE. I was imaging on Friday night which started out pretty calm but near midnight the winds picked up and it had wind gusts around 8 mph.

Here's my guide graphs before the winds picked up with guide error of 0.22 arcsec.

Inline image



Here's the guide graphs after the winds picked up. Guide error is now 0.45 arcs.

Inline image

The guiding definitely does get worse with wind as expected but it's still below 0.5 arcsec. And for the pixel scale that I am using, it's not a problem.

Perhaps there are better settings in PHD2 to be more aggressive in the corrections:

X guide algorithm = Hysteresis, Hysteresis = 0.100, Aggression = 0.700, Minimum move = 0.210
Y guide algorithm = Lowpass2, Aggressiveness = 80.000, Minimum move = 0.210

and the exposure time is 3s. (For whatever reasonm PHDLOG2 thinks that it is 1s, I actually have a screen capture to prove that it is 3 s).

cytan




Re: < S > keypad buttons not responding

George
 

Glenn,

Contact me. It is likely that the keypad will need to come in for repair...sounds like the key switch.

Regards,

George

George Whitney
Astro-Physics, Inc.
Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)
Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)
Email:  george@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Glenn Graham
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 12:35 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] < S > keypad buttons not responding

I’ve been using the keypad with my Mach1 mount for a few years with no issues until last night when the third row of buttons < S > stopped responding. It was independent of the current menu mode (slew choice, object choice, etc.) and the other functions associated with the other buttons operated just fine. It was working the day before and there was nothing traumatic (bump,drop, etc.). It was out in the sunshine during solar Ha observing.

I’ve got an EE background and tinkered with enough calculator and remote control keypads that my first instinct was to open it up and have a look but I resisted the urge and decided to post for advice here instead. I did a search of previous posts but didn't find anything relevant. With the entire line out, I’m hoping it is something loose/not making contact that can be remedied from home.

Thanks,
-Glenn


DEC Tracking test

Craig Young
 

I have been a major critic of APCC over the last several years due to its poor tracking performance on my 16" RC w/1600AE mount and plate scale of 0.57 arcsec/pixel.  So it was with great enthusiasm to finally get a chance to try out the new DEC arc tracking feature in APCC.  For my photometry research program it is required that the mount track on the same pixel over a 6 hour DEC arc run.  I don't use an autoguider because of all the technical issues and instead wrote a software program called ATrack which controls the mount precisely using science image plate solving in real time to make corrections to the mount tracking.  This has been successful and achieves the goal of 1 pixel over 6 hours without an autoguider.

So last night I setup a DEC arc centered of -30 DEC (I am in southern hemisphere), east sky only using 3 DEC arcs with 1 degree spacing: -31, -30 and -29.  The RA spacing was set at 5 degrees and the arc ran from -3 HA to 0 HA.  This resulted in 9 points on each arc for a total of 27 points.  APPM collected the data which took only a few minutes and built a model based on these parameters.

I then pointed the mount at -1.5 HA and -30 DEC and recorded 20 images each of 60 seconds.  No autoguider was used and ATrack was used to measure the drift and image shift numbers without doing any corrections.

The results were spectacular.  ATrack reported an inter-image drift of less than an arcsecond, typically 0.2 arcseconds across all 20 images.  Over the 20 minutes or so of testing the image drift was no more than a couple of arcseconds with the final image being less than an arcsecond from the first image in the sequence.  Residual tracking errors in each image combine to produce an image shift over the entire run but ATrack can easily correct for this by re-centering the next image.  This is done by adding a slight bias in RA and DEC to the tracking motors for a period of time, similar to what an autoguider would do when using pulse guiding corrections.

More testing is needed but I would like to request two features:
1. A tab on APPM titled "DEC ARC models" in which you define your DEC arc.  For example, a DEC arc would be defined as centered on -30 15 27 and a spacing of 1 degree.  This would result in a APPM model of three arcs, the center arc, and an arc on either side separated by 1 degree.  In addition, the RA spacing could be specified to define the number of points on each arc.  The defaults for this would be: DEC position would be current mount DEC.  DEC spacing would be 1 degree.  RA spacing would be 5 degrees.  And a checkbox for East or West or both.  A name for the arc would also be good.  I believe this would make it easier and faster to create DEC arcs.
2. APPM is used to create multiple DEC arcs, one for each object being imaged.  Then when the mount is slewed to an object, APCC looks for the DEC arc that most closely matches the object DEC and loads it.  That way the user does not have to manually do this.

In any case, well done Ray for providing us with an excellent new tracking feature and all the hard work Ray and the AP team have put into this.  This really advances the software capability of APCC and shows how good the AP mounts and software can perform.

Craig
Crystal Lake Observatory
New Zealand


< S > keypad buttons not responding

Glenn Graham
 

I’ve been using the keypad with my Mach1 mount for a few years with no issues until last night when the third row of buttons < S > stopped responding. It was independent of the current menu mode (slew choice, object choice, etc.) and the other functions associated with the other buttons operated just fine. It was working the day before and there was nothing traumatic (bump,drop, etc.). It was out in the sunshine during solar Ha observing.

I’ve got an EE background and tinkered with enough calculator and remote control keypads that my first instinct was to open it up and have a look but I resisted the urge and decided to post for advice here instead. I did a search of previous posts but didn't find anything relevant. With the entire line out, I’m hoping it is something loose/not making contact that can be remedied from home.

Thanks,
-Glenn


Re: GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

George
 

Christopher,

 

You’re most welcome.

 

…and you, please be safe.    Enjoy!

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Christopher M
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 12:30 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

 

Thank you Mr Whitney, Mr Christen.
That link on counterweights was enlightening.  When I had seen images of setups with many counter weights, I had assumed it was because the users didn't want to carry around single huge weights.  I will give that a try next time out.
As for power supply voltages, I was thinking along the lines that the higher voltages would result in higher torque and speed on the drive motors which might improve "response" bit, everything else being equal.  No matter.  This all helps me and I have put myself on the wait list for an AP1100.  :)
All the best and keep safe everyone.
C


Re: GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

Christopher M
 

Thank you Mr Whitney, Mr Christen.
That link on counterweights was enlightening.  When I had seen images of setups with many counter weights, I had assumed it was because the users didn't want to carry around single huge weights.  I will give that a try next time out.
As for power supply voltages, I was thinking along the lines that the higher voltages would result in higher torque and speed on the drive motors which might improve "response" bit, everything else being equal.  No matter.  This all helps me and I have put myself on the wait list for an AP1100.  :)
All the best and keep safe everyone.
C


Re: GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

Roland Christen
 


I suspect that the 1100 w AE dynamic response would be a bit slower than the Mach 2's response with its faster motors (based on slew speed).  Is that correct? 
Slew speed has nothing to do with dynamic response.

I would suspect that the 1100 non-AE mount would have more wind resistance than the Mach2 simply because of the larger worm wheel and heavier overall construction.

Roland

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher M <mirfak@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Sep 1, 2021 10:46 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

Thank you Mr Christen.  That helps me understand the benefits and differences of each of your Mach 2 and 1100 non-AE mounts which are similarly priced.  If I may summarise my understanding:  A Mach 2 w built in AE, will provide DYNAMIC wind resistance with the AE feedback system, while a larger and similarly priced 1100 non-AE will provide MECHANICAL wind resistance through its larger gear/drive system.  An 1100 non-AE can later be upgraded to AE to then provide both mechanical AND dynamic wind resistance.  I suspect that the 1100 w AE dynamic response would be a bit slower than the Mach 2's response with its faster motors (based on slew speed).  Is that correct?  Would the Mach 2's dynamic feedback then be even faster (ie tighter) at higher power supply voltages since its slew speeds are faster with them?

Wind resistance is important to me as my worst case is a long setup at over 55" from front of dew sheild to back of camera, and live on the prairies here in Alberta where still nights with clear skies are few and far between and no permanent observatory.  At just under 40# for my setup, it shows as being well within the Dec weight and inertial moment graph of the Mach 2, but I assumed that graph was for "general" loads, and does not factor in wind resistance.
Top photo for fun is my friend John's "ultimate wind resistance"package of a RedCat51 on his AP900.

And my (new to me) imaging package of an AP130EDT w an 8300 based camera on, yes, a G11, which has the wind resistance of a piece of tissue paper.  Note that I started with a much smaller setup so I didn't notice wind issues until I put this together.  (roll eyes)

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Encoder mount guiding with model active

Chris White
 

Wow.  Extremely cool.  Thank you. 


Re: Encoder mount guiding with model active

Roland Christen
 

The number at the bottom of the chart is in seconds, so for approx. 900 second run the Dec had one correction, the RA had 4. Correction pulse was sent only when the error exceeded 0.3 arc seconds. So, for many many guide cycles no corrections were sent, and then only occasionally.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris White <chris.white@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Sep 1, 2021 6:19 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Encoder mount guiding with model active

I'm not familiar with Maxim, so cant decipher the charts... but about how often do you find you are sending a guide pulse?  I.e.- With the encoder are you requiring a guidecorrection every few captures, or just rarely?  1600mm FL is pretty awesome to be able to run unguided. 

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

George
 

Christopher,

 

You both need more counterweights to improve performance.   See:

https://www.astro-physics.info/tech_support/accessories/mounting_acc/balance-to-optimize-guiding.pdf

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Christopher M
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 10:46 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

 

Thank you Mr Christen.  That helps me understand the benefits and differences of each of your Mach 2 and 1100 non-AE mounts which are similarly priced.  If I may summarise my understanding:  A Mach 2 w built in AE, will provide DYNAMIC wind resistance with the AE feedback system, while a larger and similarly priced 1100 non-AE will provide MECHANICAL wind resistance through its larger gear/drive system.  An 1100 non-AE can later be upgraded to AE to then provide both mechanical AND dynamic wind resistance.  I suspect that the 1100 w AE dynamic response would be a bit slower than the Mach 2's response with its faster motors (based on slew speed).  Is that correct?  Would the Mach 2's dynamic feedback then be even faster (ie tighter) at higher power supply voltages since its slew speeds are faster with them?

Wind resistance is important to me as my worst case is a long setup at over 55" from front of dew sheild to back of camera, and live on the prairies here in Alberta where still nights with clear skies are few and far between and no permanent observatory.  At just under 40# for my setup, it shows as being well within the Dec weight and inertial moment graph of the Mach 2, but I assumed that graph was for "general" loads, and does not factor in wind resistance.
Top photo for fun is my friend John's "ultimate wind resistance"package of a RedCat51 on his AP900.

And my (new to me) imaging package of an AP130EDT w an 8300 based camera on, yes, a G11, which has the wind resistance of a piece of tissue paper.  Note that I started with a much smaller setup so I didn't notice wind issues until I put this together.  (roll eyes)


Re: GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

Christopher M
 

Thank you Mr Christen.  That helps me understand the benefits and differences of each of your Mach 2 and 1100 non-AE mounts which are similarly priced.  If I may summarise my understanding:  A Mach 2 w built in AE, will provide DYNAMIC wind resistance with the AE feedback system, while a larger and similarly priced 1100 non-AE will provide MECHANICAL wind resistance through its larger gear/drive system.  An 1100 non-AE can later be upgraded to AE to then provide both mechanical AND dynamic wind resistance.  I suspect that the 1100 w AE dynamic response would be a bit slower than the Mach 2's response with its faster motors (based on slew speed).  Is that correct?  Would the Mach 2's dynamic feedback then be even faster (ie tighter) at higher power supply voltages since its slew speeds are faster with them?

Wind resistance is important to me as my worst case is a long setup at over 55" from front of dew sheild to back of camera, and live on the prairies here in Alberta where still nights with clear skies are few and far between and no permanent observatory.  At just under 40# for my setup, it shows as being well within the Dec weight and inertial moment graph of the Mach 2, but I assumed that graph was for "general" loads, and does not factor in wind resistance.
Top photo for fun is my friend John's "ultimate wind resistance"package of a RedCat51 on his AP900.

And my (new to me) imaging package of an AP130EDT w an 8300 based camera on, yes, a G11, which has the wind resistance of a piece of tissue paper.  Note that I started with a much smaller setup so I didn't notice wind issues until I put this together.  (roll eyes)


Re: Encoder mount guiding with model active

Chris White
 

I'm not familiar with Maxim, so cant decipher the charts... but about how often do you find you are sending a guide pulse?  I.e.- With the encoder are you requiring a guidecorrection every few captures, or just rarely?  1600mm FL is pretty awesome to be able to run unguided. 


Re: GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

Chris White
 

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 08:24 PM, ap@... wrote:
So if I understand (and I maybe do not) the AP1100 production is done, you missed that. I think 1600’s are next, maybe then Mach 2 again, and that list is usually long.   So my GUESS is you will get a Mach 2 call before the AP1100 call, by months at least, and neither until next year.
I was actually on the list for the 1100 from last year but declined purchase in January when my name came up. I had just purchased a 900GTO and to be honest it is an exceptional mount and does everything I need it to.  I'm actually hoping that my name doesnt come up again for another year or more as I will be moving to darker skies and building a house where I can build a bigger observatory and have a second pier... so thankfully no rush on my end!

Going to the doctor is like the dentist.  My teeth are always fine until I go to the dentist... then I end up with a cavity.  Causation or correlation?


Re: APPM Run vs Plate Solve and Recal

Bill Long
 

APPM solving using ASTAP has been great. I did nothing to the settings either. Built a model at 0.87"/px and 0.6"/px and both times it worked like a champ. 


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Ray Gralak <iogroups@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 7:47 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APPM Run vs Plate Solve and Recal
 
> Ray, I did review the images from the failed solves.  The images from the failed solves will solve if I use
> ASTAP directly.

Geoff, APPM just starts ASTAP with the settings you have configured on APPM's tab. Either way, ASTAP is doing the plate solving, not APPM.

In my testing, ASTAP seemed to be a very finicky plate solver. Tweaking the settings can make or break plate-solving an image.

-Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Collins via groups.io
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 6:30 PM
> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APPM Run vs Plate Solve and Recal
>
> Ray, I did review the images from the failed solves.  The images from the failed solves will solve if I use
> ASTAP directly.
>
> The 30+ model run finished fine with only a failed couple of solves due to a tree obstruction.  I need to adjust
> the horizon limit a little more.  Right after I finished the 30+ point run I started a 178 point run.  The plate solves
> failed other than maybe the first.
>
> The next few nights I did not try another model run. I just imaged.
>
> Tonight I tried a 178 point run and it is working perfectly.  I have the settle time set to 10 seconds.  I assume
> this is terribly excessive, but I am just going to let it run and finish.
>
>
>
> On the night of the 26th, the near full moon had risen by the time I started the second run.  Do you think that
> was the problem with that attempt and the previous attempts that week?  I assume ASTAP would solve the
> same way APPM would solve.  I certainly am using ASTAP in APPM on most attempts and on my 2 current
> successful runs.  Anyway, I am glad to be able to use full frame and 1x1 through NINA.
>
>
>
> Can I send you the results of the run so you can tell me how much flexible etc I have?
>
>







Re: APCC move axis question

Andy Ermolli
 

Here are the zipped files. 

I copied all the logs just to be safe but the ones that matter are the one with time stamp around 8:11pm on 8/31/21
I had to use google drive because the APCC file is too large to attach to this message. I have also attached a screenshot showing the box for "Enable tracking correction" checked. I believe that is where I turn on tracking correction generated by the pointing model, correct?

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oISK-px7Lr5F3j5JGzA6veCu9dCt98T8?usp=sharing


Re: APPM Run vs Plate Solve and Recal

Ray Gralak
 

Ray, I did review the images from the failed solves. The images from the failed solves will solve if I use
ASTAP directly.
Geoff, APPM just starts ASTAP with the settings you have configured on APPM's tab. Either way, ASTAP is doing the plate solving, not APPM.

In my testing, ASTAP seemed to be a very finicky plate solver. Tweaking the settings can make or break plate-solving an image.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Collins via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 6:30 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APPM Run vs Plate Solve and Recal

Ray, I did review the images from the failed solves. The images from the failed solves will solve if I use
ASTAP directly.

The 30+ model run finished fine with only a failed couple of solves due to a tree obstruction. I need to adjust
the horizon limit a little more. Right after I finished the 30+ point run I started a 178 point run. The plate solves
failed other than maybe the first.

The next few nights I did not try another model run. I just imaged.

Tonight I tried a 178 point run and it is working perfectly. I have the settle time set to 10 seconds. I assume
this is terribly excessive, but I am just going to let it run and finish.



On the night of the 26th, the near full moon had risen by the time I started the second run. Do you think that
was the problem with that attempt and the previous attempts that week? I assume ASTAP would solve the
same way APPM would solve. I certainly am using ASTAP in APPM on most attempts and on my 2 current
successful runs. Anyway, I am glad to be able to use full frame and 1x1 through NINA.



Can I send you the results of the run so you can tell me how much flexible etc I have?


Re: APPM Run vs Plate Solve and Recal

Geoffrey Collins
 

Ray, I did review the images from the failed solves.  The images from the failed solves will solve if I use ASTAP directly. 

The 30+ model run finished fine with only a failed couple of solves due to a tree obstruction.  I need to adjust the horizon limit a little more.  Right after I finished the 30+ point run I started a 178 point run.  The plate solves failed other than maybe the first. 

The next few nights I did not try another model run. I just imaged.  

Tonight I tried a 178 point run and it is working perfectly.  I have the settle time set to 10 seconds.  I assume this is terribly excessive, but I am just going to let it run and finish.

On the night of the 26th, the near full moon had risen by the time I started the second run.  Do you think that was the problem with that attempt and the previous attempts that week?  I assume ASTAP would solve the same way APPM would solve.  I certainly am using ASTAP in APPM on most attempts and on my 2 current successful runs.  Anyway, I am glad to be able to use full frame and 1x1 through NINA.

Can I send you the results of the run so you can tell me how much flexible etc I have?


Re: APCC move axis question

Andy Ermolli
 

Yep I am sure but I will redo it later and post. Sorry about not using the APCC log zipper, I wasn't aware that it existed.


Re: APCC move axis question

Ray Gralak
 

Andy,

Are you sure you have the correct log file? I don’t see any of the tracking rate debug output. In fact, the log indicates there is no tracking rate correction.

And can you please use the APCC Log Zipper instead of the ASCOM log zipper? You can run the APCC log zipper from APCC's tool menu.

Thanks,

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Andy Ermolli
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 4:45 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC move axis question

Here are my most recent logs. I tried move axis with NINA and tracking corrections enabled in APCC.
I pushed each direction button for about 15 seconds. The move axis speed was set to 3 degrees per second.
NINA 64 bit 1.11 nightly #135.
AP Mach1 GTOCP3 with V2 chip. The mount did not move.


Re: GTO vs AE/AEL data #Absolute_Encoders

ap@CaptivePhotons.com
 

Chris wrote:

 

  • > Once you go ahead and get on both lists, you can celebrate with a nice dinner where someone will offer desert of Apple Pie or Ice Cream.  You will be prepared for this choice, and quickly say: Both.
  • The good news is, I put my name on both lists earlier this summer!  So... now onto more important discussion:  Pie or cake? 

_._,_._,_

So if I understand (and I maybe do not) the AP1100 production is done, you missed that. I think 1600’s are next, maybe then Mach 2 again, and that list is usually long.   So my GUESS is you will get a Mach 2 call before the AP1100 call, by months at least, and neither until next year.

 

You might want to call and check, they may not tell you precisely when, but they will probably give you a rough idea. I’m guessing you have a little more time to do the analytical modeling based on desert choices before you have to actually say “yes” to either mount.

 

With the exception of Apple pie, which I usually take over most anything, I would say “Cake”.  Well, if “both” is not an option.

 

The good news is that even despite Covid, we generally do not need to be on a waiting list months long to get desert.  😊

 

The bad news is that I have a physical coming up, and I have not been on a waiting list for desert.  

 

Linwood

10081 - 10100 of 90639