Hi!
I've looked at the log file both with the PHD2 log viewer and the
PEMPro log viewer, and as far as I can see, this is guided data,
not unguided. That would mean that this low PE is after guiding,
not the mount's PE.
Are you sure this is supposed to be unguided?
Magnus
Den 2020-04-25 kl. 22:39, skrev Brian
Valente:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
interesting
this shows the main period as 211 seconds? i'm not sure
what to make of that
I
get that - I think some of the difference is that I hadn't
lapped the
bearing in the further worm block for a sliding fit in the
earlier data
I no longer have the PHD2 log files for the 2014 PecPrep data.
I've uploaded the log files from yesterday to the website:
</g/Losmandy_users/files/David%20Partridge/PHD2_GuideLog_20
20-04-24_175626.txt>
David
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf
Of Magnus Larsson
Sent: 25 April 2020 14:42
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users_io] McLennan gearbox PE results
Hi!
That is really impressive. And a bit odd, isn't it? If I read
the graphs
correctly, the first fundamental is far lower in your second
situation
(the McLennan boxes). But that fundamental should in principle
not be
dependent on gearbox, should it? I mean, the gearbox would
contribute
other frequencies, but not the 239 sec one (that seems ti be
243.7 secs
in your graph).
Would it be possible for you to share the PHD2 logfiles, just
to play
with and compare with mine in PEMPro log viewer?
Magnus
Den 2020-04-25 kl. 13:35, skrev David C. Partridge:
> You may remember that not long ago I replaced the
Losmandy gearboxes on my
> G11 (which had seen better days) with McLennan
gearboxes.? All I was able
to
> say at the time about possible improvements was that they
were a LOT
> quieter.
>
> Last night was the first opportunity I've had to record
the PE data since
I
> fitted the McLennan gearboxes.
>
> I used PecPrep to record the PE over almost six worm
cycles, and the
results
> were quite? excellent - far better that I could have
hoped for.
>
> With the original Losmandy gearboxes the results I
obtained were quite
good:
> 4.83 arc-seconds Peak to Peak
>
>
</g/Losmandy_users/files/David%20Partridge/Before%20PEC%20T
> raining.PNG>
>
> The results from last night by contrast were nothing
short of outstanding:
> 1.6 arc-seconds Peak to Peak (RMS 0.33 arc-seconds)
>
>
</g/Losmandy_users/files/David%20Partridge/24%20April%20202
> 0%20PE.png>
>
> This is so good that quite honestly I don't think I'll
bother with PEC
> training.
>
> Note that I didn't edit the PecPrep files to enter the
gearbox information
> for the McLennan gearboxes (though that wouldn't change
the results).
>
> This is using the original worm (not the HP worm) and
twin worm blocks,
> ABEC-5 bearings, a Belville washer in the block furthest
from the gearbox
> and the bearing in that worm block lapped to a sliding
fit.
>
> Keep well and clear skies
> David
>
>
>
>
>
--
Brian?
Brian Valente
portfolio