Hi Magnus,

I use to buy ABEC5 when I was roller blading. You can find them anywhere in Europe I believe, at least in Switzerland they are very easy to find.

Now dimensions is another thing, imperial are hard to find and expensive. For imperial, best bet you could try to show up in a Harley Davison work shop and ask them if would sell any spares. A friend of mine did and it worked ;-)

Cheers,
Carl

开云体育

Hi!

Good idea! (to ask Losmandy) Actually, did not even think of it....

Sonny, you got me there, almost got a fit... SKF is soo Swedish :) almost an international incident, giving them away to Germany... :)

Yes, I find SKF-stuff, just want to be sure that I get what you guys have experience of. And in inches....Thanks, knew nothing of Electric Motor Grade.

Magnus

Hi Magnus,
I have to ask, why not order from Losmandy and get the exact correct bearings?
And if you ask real nice, maybe Brian or Tanya could plain wrap them to make it look like a private mail package.

I don't think some bearings would cause an International incident. LOL!

Aren't SKF a German brand? Nope Swedish, answered my own question. I've installed a ton of SKF, and FAG, bearings in my lifetime. When you are looking for higher quality bearings, Electric Motor Grade are usually pretty high up, or were. Grade 2 out of a 1-10 scale.

PS: I wouldn't order a bag of manure from China. No telling what shi-tuff they'd put in it. And I know their manufacturing is garbage.
--
SonnyE


(I suggest viewed in full screen)

I don't know off hand if there are any European suppliers of R4ZZ bearings (>= ABEC5), but it looks like Boca Bearings (where I got some of mine) on EBAY appear to ship to Sweden (assumption based on your name).? I have some ABEC7 from McMaster Carr that I have yet to try, but when I rotate in hand, they don't feel as smooth as the ABEC5 from Boca that were the best of my lot (better than some ABEC7).? If you are going to order, I would order more than you need, and pick the best ones.

Keith

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 01:35 PM, Sebastian Kotulski wrote:

Tonight it looks better than last time, but I want more.

I see you cut your time in half. Now cut it again.
It's a matter of dialing things in to your liking. Keep tweaking PHD's settings.

And don't fiddle with your mounts mechanical's....
?
--
SonnyE


(I suggest viewed in full screen)

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 02:54 PM, Timothy Campbell wrote:

That depends on the rings. ?These rings are rock solid and a huge improvement in stability: ??

Thanks for that link, Timothy. Always glad to take a look at things beyond the mainstream. Considering something to do with my extra Losmandy bar in the way of making my imaging train more stable.
__________________________________________________________
I would second the advice of reducing the correction time in PHD. Default is 1 second, I sometimes use 0.5 seconds. Why?
Because smaller corrective actions can help keep the rig working in a much closer proximity, than taking giant steps to try and correct 4 seconds of drift and error. Little blips, not big jumps.
Something that helped me with PHD was these tutorials, and . Then I was able to do some minor changes to get the guiding I needed for my imaging. Changes in the PHD program to experiment with how PHD interacted with my mount. (An AVX POS, and now my GM811G which is galaxies away from the Asian Junks.)
But each set-up and Mount, IMHO, requires the individual to experiment a bit, to find what works ideally for your exact needs. Because the biggest inconsistency in this is that we all run vastly different set-ups, in different locations.
But try to begin at something more basic, then work from there.

I would not, and do not endorse, any mechanical tweaking. You could very easily create more problems than you could correct.
So don't dig a hole you can't climb out of. Fiddle with the PHD program all you want.
But don't trust PHD to be a Standard by which you can reliably do any changes to your mount itself.
PHD is a guiding program, and a damn good one. But it is not of the caliber to go trusting to be changing things we do not usually have a proper understanding of.
In fact, I do not worry a lot about the graph in PHD. It is entertaining, but that is it.
The Proof in the Puddin is in the image you gather. Spend enough time finding the settings in PHD that work well with your equipment.
And don't look at PHD as a calibrator for your Mount. Because it is far from worthy of such trust.

But little Blips of correction, and smaller steps, with more often (Shorter) intervals.
As you begin to see a smoother graph, then you can change your "y" to smaller amounts, and see how your settings are refining your guiding pulses.
Some of my graphs are nothing to write home about, they look awful. If you think yours are just too ugly, change your "y" to 16 and fool your friends with how flat your graph is. ;^)
I was born in the dark, but it wasn't last night.

?
--
SonnyE


(I suggest viewed in full screen)

Hello all!

Summer is quickly approaching and with it too bright nights here for observing. But not for tinkering :)

I'm been tinkering some with my mount, and I was thinking of at one point in time try to upgrade my bearings. Now, what is recommended here are bearings sold by McMaster-Carr. Well, they do not ship to Europe - there are some export regulations. So I'm a bit at loss. Of course, living in the country where ball bearings were invented (:)), there are of course high quality stuff here. But in millimeters.... so I'm a bit lost in dimension and quality stuff. I've found some of the right dimension produced in China, but I am quite uncertain about the quality.

So: would anyone of you know of a place in Europe where I can order bearings of the right dimensions? We're talking a G11 here.

Or: if anyone of you living in the US is going to order from McMaster-Carr - would you consider ordering a few extras and sell to me? :) Private selling would not be stopped by export regulations, I believe....

Best,

Magnus

My thinking is along the same lines as Chip Louie.
But will add that you must consider the Human Element in your quest for perfection.
One graph does not an average make. It takes many motions to find an average.
At the degree of accuracy we hope to attain, I'm of the opinion any Human contact can throw off the data you are seeking.
Maybe you are being a wee bit too critical?

That said, I know I got more out of my AVX than most would due to my background in Electrical/Mechanical work.
But my AVX was a well defined POS, in comparison to my Losmandy mount.
And I never expected my AVX to live up to the hype. But it was my first climbing axe to scale the learning curve to Astro Imaging.
And from the 4 years of anxiety and failure it gave me to learn from, I'm very glad to be rid of it, and the Asian business model, and lack of engineering.
But it was not the first silk purse I had made from a sow's ear.

I know how just being in the proximity of my mount can affect it's results. Let alone being in contact with it, such as swinging the arc for polar testing.
From my own experience, Polar Alignment it important, but is in fact a mere starting point. And not worthy of the criticality you have been made to place on it.
It is a preliminary setting, a starting point. From which the mount learns the locations of other Stars to build a model of the night skies at the precise time we are using our mounts, and at the precise location we are at on this gob of mud called Earth.
When we select "Align", we are setting the precise location the targeted Star is at at that moment, and setting coordinates for the Gemini Computer to reference. And Polar Alignment is only a beginning point.
Not the end all, be all, to the entire rhapsody of the evening.

I applaud your desire for accuracy, but question your experience to attain the accuracies you appear to be demanding.
Go beyond the desire for perfect Polar Alignment. Get into your Alignment, or Modeling in Losmandy terms, and build a Model, sans Human Contact, and see how close the stars become as more are added. (Now there is where I chose to obsess. I will target as many as it takes until they are landing as close to dead center as is practical. Key here is as close, not dead centered.)? ;^)?
When I begin, I always give PA a check, then move right into my Model building for that session, at that moment in time, and currant location in relation to the night sky. I never dwell on PA, just a check, and on with it.
Then the rest of the Aligning gives the coordinates for the accuracy to bring your objects close to the center of your instrument. Key word here is close, not exact.
When I hear someone say "Perfect", I know they are BSing me. Because Perfect is a goal that is unobtainable.
In this sport, we get really, really, close. Aiming our telescopes as never before was possible. But don't look for perfection.
After all, we are at the bottom of a pond looking up through the atmosphere.
So enjoy, don't obsess.

--
SonnyE


(I suggest viewed in full screen)

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:02 PM, Sebastian Kotulski wrote:

Planetary/Lunar? imaging with my SCT is so easy compared to DS imaging.

Yes indeed! Getting 300 second or 1200 second exposures where you want your stars to be perfect across the frame will reveal all kinds of issues. Any little mechanical or optical fault will show its ugly face. But there is an enormous sense of accomplishment when you get it right.

In this case, I'd concur with Chip. Your 300s exposure shows pretty good stars are the center. The corners are where the issue is. It is likely some combination of spacing and tilt.

I'm glad my instrument is more of a normal size.
It doesn't send the girls shrieking and running when they see it....

--
SonnyE


(I suggest viewed in full screen)

D'oh, I got it now Brendan!
Thanks for your post, Mate!
I had never ventured into the "The Blue Screen" before.
I use one of those little rubber tipped touch screen tools. Touch screens don't usually like my size extra large hands and big digits.
Besides, I don't like looking through finger smudges on my screens.

I went a step further and finally have my Gemini clock in sync with my computers time. I did my Gemini "tune up" disconnected from my computers, so the setting of the time may be a moot point.
But it kept showing off on the seconds until I finally had my second "D'oh" moment and pressed "Set" at the precise moment the seconds came together. Now the clock is right.

At light speed, a second off might have me impacting some space rock on my way to a Nebula....

Now stop laughing at my dumb butt. It can't be good for your recovery.

Thank You for a learning moment. I really appreciate it!
Get well soon, and back to enjoying the Night Skies!
--
SonnyE


(I suggest viewed in full screen)

开云体育

Dear Brendan,

I deeply appreciate your going to all this trouble, especially since you're doing so from a hospital bed. I wish you a swift recovery.
Thanks, again.

Sincerely,
Erik

It’s hard to explain ?but the boot process shows a logo screen ( a pretty Gemini 2 logo and credits) then pauses for a short time at ?“a blue screen” which states ?“touch to calibrate”. ?

This should have shown up on first use. ?This “Blue ?LCD Calalibration,BLC”) screen is only there for a second or so on boot. By pressing the screen it enters the system into a LCD calibration routine to make “stylus or finger touch” more accurate.?
If this is not done, ?you’re ?screen presses could be interpreted as something completely different to what you intended ? It’s wits a simple thing to do and once done should be ok unless you have dust issues (dust gets caught at screen edge on HC housing rubber gasket causing wild screen presses) or updates ?

?

showing how to do it.?

Here is what the BLC Screen looks like:

it’s a simple process ? ? . sometimes it’s called “screen alignment”. Here is the video showing the HC Boot logo screen and blue calibration screen .....but ...in this the user does not touch the blue screen to enter “calibration”. I wish they did to show you. ? Once you have done it you will say “D’oh” I understand now!

I cannot help much more atm still in hospital (again) ?and for awhile. ?We need a video showing someone doing this BLC process ....

Brian...new video needed?


--
Brendan

Hi Sebastian,
I'll go out in a limb and start sawing.
When I run across these sorts of posts, my first thought is: "Are you moving around by your mount/telescope at all during the imagining?"
My personal experiences drove me indoors to remove my vibrations from being imposed on my images. I looked through your examples, and found inconsistencies that enforced my question.
No mount, and no telescope on a mount, can compensate for human imposed ground vibrations.
Further, I see you are talking about DSLR's. Those can impose their own problematic vibrations due to their nature of the moving parts. So because I was wearing out my DSLR camera fast enough taking Soccer pictures of the Grand-kids, I opted for an Astro Camera at my onset to this vain of insanity.
As I worked through your examples, I found out there in the 5 minute (300s) range things stabilized. I commend your guiding and tracking, and I see no problem there. You are doing great! So I think (IMHO) what you may be seeing in the other images amounts to vibrations induced by A. Human vibrations. or B. DSLR Camera induced vibrations.
Food for thought.?
--
SonnyE


(I suggest viewed in full screen)

Sebastian:

A couple things come to mind.

If you are seeing aberrations at very short exposures, it is more than likely something in the optics. At 5 seconds there is very little movement in the mount. You may just want to try some 5 second exposures with the mount turned off, or tracking stopped.? If the artifacts are still there, that should tell you if it's mount or not. With longer exposures, your stars should streak all in one direction, the RA direction mostly. But they should not be egg shaped.

You may wish to try turning individual components 90 degrees where possible: camera, focal reducer, etc. and even the scope within the rings. You may be able to see which parts will move the direction of your elongations. If you turn your whole setup 90 degrees within the rings and the elongation changes 90 degrees too, it is your optics for sure. Refractors can be out of collimation too, perhaps there is a pinched lens somewhere. Also choosing an object, aka a galaxy, where you can see image rotation easily, will prove better than a globular cluster where all is sort of roundish.

Hope the above give you some options to try.

John

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 06:22 PM, Brian Valente wrote:

1, how would describe your current guiding?

- are you not able to guide, and looking for basic setup

- you are guiding, but you have poor results

- you are guiding, but not sure your results are good (or good enough)

- guiding just fine, but looking for added tips

?

2. what is it you hope to get out of this session?

1. My guiding seems to be excellent to me, and my needs.
But I'm always interested in trying to learn more, or gather tips from others.
Numbers and logs don't do a lot for me. But I can usually learn something from sitting in.

2. Maybe a few tips and tricks I don't already know, or to gather some knowledge I missed along my way.

I would like to request more attention be paid to the chat feature of these sessions. Not being on video, I felt the chat fed questions were overlooked.

If I may, I did find two PHD videos that got me up and running when I was trying to get a grip on PHD. After going through the 2 of them, and dialing in the settings initially, I was up and running. Push Here Dummy is not nearly as simple as many would be lead to believe. So I have shared the video's that helped me numerous times over the years, with appreciative feedback often.
?PHD Basics Part #1??https://youtu.be/PRY2jN3xTBQ
?PHD Basics Part #2??

After these, I was able to twiddle and tweak in settings that worked great for me, and my long exposure Astro Imaging.
I transitioned from my first mount (A real POS) to my GM811G seamlessly. My Losmandy mount works rock solid for me.

?

?
--
SonnyE


(I suggest viewed in full screen)