On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 08:21 PM, Paul Kanevsky wrote:
rcseconds more PE than the spec. That number is likely to change over time, and even during a period of better seeing or a different number of worm cycles collected for analysis.
?
The main error was at the 1x worm cycle before PEC, and that was reduced to nearly nothing with PEC. The other error that seemed to increase at 42 seconds is not something that is affected by PEC, so the slight increase was likely due to some noise/variation between tests rather than anything else. Overall, a 2 arcsecs PE is an excellent result. You may be able to try to eliminate the 42sec error by using PHD2 PPEC, but I wouldn't worry too much about it, either, as this should be easy to guide out, whether it's corrected or not.
?
Thanks, Paul. Seeing was about as bad as it gets around here when I captured this data (I would not have bothered imaging anything). Even my polar alignment was questionable. It was clear so I was excited to get out there and do anything. My gut also told me to be pretty happy with these results, both uncorrected and corrected, but with zero experience with this mount and limited experience with PEC, I wasn't sure what I should expect. I've seen enough error curves to suspect the corrected one is decent enough by most standards for mounts under the price point at which my wife would kick me out of the house.?
?
George
?
