Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
Re: Best Way To Determine Periodic Error?
There are a few inaccuracies here regarding (at least) the Gemini II; 1. it's tempting to use a poor seeing night for PEC, but generally you want a good night to do PEC. it's better to use full moon nights that are clear for PE recordings and corrections. You don't want to be introducing RMS errors, lost star events etc. ?into your collected data: this is the data on which your improvements will be based, to the better the input the better the output. 2. the PEC is indexed to the RA, it does not need to be parked or treated with kid gloves. It's not in volatile sram, so if your battery dies, power dies, etc. it will be retained. The only time you need to re-run PEC is if you adjust the RA worm/worm gear. You may also want to re-do pec maybe every 6-12 months, particularly with newer mounts as things get broken in 3. In a correctly functioning Losmandy mount, your primary periodic error will be the highest. There will likely be harmonic errors at different fundamentals: 2x, 3x, etc. but they will be substantially lower than the primary period. Proper PE should substantially improve the primary period error, and can substantially improve the harmonics, if you know what you're doing (there's some artistry here but again we are talking about much smaller errors). At this level PE correction is an iterative thing. There are a number of variables (most importantly the fitting algorithm) that can help refine the error, but it takes a bit of effort here. 4. Gemini's built-in PEC recording is good for visual, but imo is really not accurate enough for today's highly demanding imaging. Just remember a bad PEC curve is worse than no PEC at all 5. PECPrep is good for reviewing data, but I don't think it's well suited for Gemini. The PHD->PECPrep route is full of possible problems, and i've seen more than my share of people who present these results that turn out to have errors in them. And with PECPrep you can't actually do anything to correct the errors, so I'm not sure why you'd go that route anyways. PEMPro is pretty much the gold standard and best option for excellent PEC results with Gemini, including recording analysis, PE correction and results verification. I should probably say it's the only realistic option for PEC regarding precision imaging? 6. Regarding this comment: >>>An excellent G11 mount will have about 1 arcsec RMS.? You should be happy with 2 arcsec or better (was spec'd by Losmandy for the Titan mount!).? Above 3 arcsec to me suggests there are some adjustments to make. <<< I'm not sure how you determine or define this? I assume you mean +/- arcsec performance. If so , those numbers are possible but it's pretty unrealistic. Losmandy Mounts including G11, G11T, Titan are all rated +/- 5" By comparison the ~$10k Paramount MX is +/- 3.5" (7" peak to peak) so by this measure it needs some adjustments?? With proper PEC you can reduce the primary PE by about half. Even better is possible. My stock G11 with PEC is currently operating +/- 1.5" (3" peak to peak). I could possibly go lower, but at this point, the mount's PE is not the constraining factor in my imaging. Let's at least be in the right ballpark on expectations.? On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:24 PM Michael Herman <mherman346@...> wrote:
--
Brian? Brian Valente portfolio |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss