On 12/15/2020 11:22 AM, Brian Valente wrote:
According to this data (again just the front and back portions) your primary PE is < 1.75" and your secondaries are? <0.75"
If you are comfortable with that mount PE analysis from this data, I'd say you have a fantastically performing mount and you don't need any sort of effort regarding periodic error correction going forward.
Thanks, that is the validation I have been asking for. This morning before I got your Email, I went through a similar analysis looking at the PEC and non-PEC portions of that log in the PHD2 log viewer. My conclusion was the same as yours.... based on that guide log, my mount is doing quite OK. And even better with PEC on in spite of the fact that the bearing signal is included in the PEC training and therefore plays back at a random phase.
BTW, the errors shown in the log viewer are (I think) RMS. The peak is a bit worse and the scatter plot mirrors my star shape for the session. At some point I would like to address that but not before I confirm all this with an unguided log analysis.
I also cannot overlook the fact that most of the time my stars are round, so whatever was going on that night is possibly not the norm. I can't speak to the SIZE of my stars but I don't stress over that since I am imaging with a 25 year old Meade 8" LX200 OTA. I'd be happier with a nice refractor ;)
I could have gotten to this understanding a couple days ago.... I am looking at the same log in the same viewer after all. But I had interpretation questions that are not addressed in the documentation for the PHD2 log viewer. Hence the questions to the community here. I have learned several things from this.... maybe someone else has as well.
BTW, in your reply the embedded images came through just fine. Go figure ;)
Thanks again,
Paul
--
Paul Goelz
Rochester Hills, MI USA
pgoelz@...
www.pgoelz.com
