Re: Installing tucked in motors
Hello,?
I attached the motors on my G11G 180¡ã to yours I tried attaching the motors like you did it seemed to be good idea to protect them better but on the RA I found that it put stress on the short RA cable so I swapped the motors around it just did not seem right.
?
HAPPY SKIES AND KEEP LOOKING UP Deric
?
?
?
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A
?
?
?
-------- Original message --------
From: Glenn <glancey3@...>
Date: 12/16/20 7:47 PM (GMT-06:00)
Subject: [Losmandy_users_io] Installing tucked in motors
?
I attached the motors to my new G811G mount and noticed how the dec motor is slanted inward. This was the only way the 2 attachment screws would align. See images attached.
This is unlike the ?RA motor which aligns squarely.
Did I attach the DEC motor correctly?
|
Re: Installing tucked in motors
Looks wrong to me, Glen.
The motor must not bump against the body cylinder.
The motor can be rotated 180 degrees, by then as you show it will be in the way of the RA polar scope viewport. That is still wrong.??
So get better assembly instructions from Brian at Losmandy.? Don't run it like you have it.
Michael
I attached the motors to my new G811G mount and noticed how the dec motor is slanted inward. This was the only way the 2 attachment screws would align. See images attached.
This is unlike the ?RA motor which aligns squarely.
Did I attach the DEC motor correctly?
|
Installing tucked in motors
I attached the motors to my new G811G mount and noticed how the dec motor is slanted inward. This was the only way the 2 attachment screws would align. See images attached.
This is unlike the ?RA motor which aligns squarely.
Did I attach the DEC motor correctly?
|
Re: G11 Spur Gear Removal to Access Gearbox
Hi Brett,
Clearly you have a modern Tucked Motor G11.? Earlier direct drive version G11 (I call them "Straight out motor" versions) don't have these big aluminum transfer gears.??
Like you said, it's not easy to get some of these gears off.? I don't think you want to pull on the gear or it may bend.? You might be able to get a gear puller's fingers down behind the hub, so you don't pull on the gear teeth area.? But if the setscrew is locked down...it might be impossible to get the gear off.??
I agree that when I tried once to get a gear off, its setscrew was stuck very strongly.? When I talked to Mr Losmandy a few years ago for advice he said it normally uses a 0.05 inch allen wrench. But I never got that to work on that stuck gear.??
(You might call or email Brian at the company to ask for more recent advice.? )
I think the problems are: ? ?a) corrosion can form between the two metal surfaces....the black steel oxide surface and the aluminum gear ID surface. Over time more oxygen gets in to that interface.? When aluminum (or steel) oxidizes at the surface, the added oxygen atoms form a very hard Al2O3 surface.? The Al2O3 is thicker than the Al metal, and this surface layer therefore pinches more strongly on the hard black steel setscrew surface. (See... .? ? ) ? ?b) the setscrews that are black are a hardened steel.? Maybe the Fe and Al atoms at the surface mix (friction welding).? See this article about galvanic corrosion of the aluminum and friction welding.? (It's why steel sparkplugs in aluminum engine block must use an anti-seize compound else the plugs won't come out)...:
When facing a similar problem with stuck tiny black steel setscrews:? ? I took the next larger hex wrench and slightly filed down the flat edges until it fit snugly in the stuck setscrew, where the standard 0.05 inch tool was too loose.
? Next get some "Liquid Wrench" and apply that to the threads area.? It will take time to seep in and hopefully reduce some corrosion.? Let the chemical sit for awhile to give it time to penetrate.
If I get the black setscrew out, I often replace it (especially in the Oldham Coupler where this same stuck setscrew problem can occur) with one made of stainless steel.? That's less likely to corrode, or cold weld. The stainless steel setscrew forms it's own chrome oxide surface that won't oxidize further and thicken the aluminum surface like a black steel setscrew might.?
If I don't have the exact one fitted in the gear, I also have drilled and tapped in the tiny setscrew with a slightly larger one so a bigger sizes Allen wrench will be more able to drive it in and out. The 0.050 Allen wrench will just twist like a wire.? ?I use either 4-40 or 6-32 thread ( easy to obtain in the US... metric easier to find everywhere else on earth).
Anyway, just take your time getting a solution to the stuck gear.? Definitely call or email.Brian to inform him of the removal issue and ask for guidance.??
Best of luck, Michael
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 3:01 AM Gottula, Brett < bgottula@...> wrote: I've been chasing down some periodic resistance in my 2017 G11 drivetrain. I think I may have isolated it to the gearbox, so I'd like to remove it and pop it open to see if I can tell if there are problems in there. In order to remove the gearbox I first need to pull the spur gear off of the shaft, but so far I have been unsuccessful.
Questions I haven't been able to find answers to from my searching so far:
- Are there any disassembly guides for recent G11s that cover the spur gears and gearbox?
- Anyone know the exact allen key size to use with the set screw? In my kit, 0.05" was the largest SAE size that would fit, but it did not feel as snug as I would expect. 1/16" is too large. (Similar story for metric; 1.3mm fit but poorly; 1.5mm is too large) When I applied enough torque with the 0.05" it skipped a step...I don't want to strip it out.
- Any other hints on how to remove this spur gear? Do I need a gear puller or anything else?
Thanks in advance! Some photos below to illustrate what I'm talking about.
Gear on the left is what I'm trying to remove. The shaft for that gear is shared with the gearbox that is on the other side of the machined plate.
The stubborn set screw with unknown hex key size.
|
Re: Mounting a Guide Scope to a G11 Mount
Hi Chip,
My experiences appear to be quite different from my highly light polluted suburban backyard. I have the 80x400mm CT-80 and also a William Optics 50x200mm guidescope. Also I have the ASI290MINI (2.9 micron) and a older Lodestar X2 (8.3 micron) guide cams. With either guidescope I see virtually no change in guiding when switching back and forth between cams. I thought the more modern ASI290 with a big change in arcsec/pixel would do something great but it did not.
However, when using either guide cam, there is an improvement in guiding when going from 50mm to 80mm aperture. I see about 0.2 to 0.3" improvement in guiding error. When cutting through local light pollution, the larger aperture lets me see smaller and crisper stars I can lock onto more easily. And my local seeing is not too great either, perhaps playing a factor.
I have not tested the above combinations in dark skies for comparison. So I can only say what has worked for me locally.
Regards,
John
|
G11 Spur Gear Removal to Access Gearbox
I've been chasing down some periodic resistance in my 2017 G11 drivetrain. I think I may have isolated it to the gearbox, so I'd like to remove it and pop it open to see if I can tell if there are problems in there. In order to remove the gearbox I first need to pull the spur gear off of the shaft, but so far I have been unsuccessful. Questions I haven't been able to find answers to from my searching so far:
- Are there any disassembly guides for recent G11s that cover the spur gears and gearbox?
- Anyone know the exact allen key size to use with the set screw? In my kit, 0.05" was the largest SAE size that would fit, but it did not feel as snug as I would expect. 1/16" is too large. (Similar story for metric; 1.3mm fit but poorly; 1.5mm is too large) When I applied enough torque with the 0.05" it skipped a step...I don't want to strip it out.
- Any other hints on how to remove this spur gear? Do I need a gear puller or anything else?
Thanks in advance! Some photos below to illustrate what I'm talking about. Gear on the left is what I'm trying to remove. The shaft for that gear is shared with the gearbox that is on the other side of the machined plate. The stubborn set screw with unknown hex key size.
|
Re: Mounting a Guide Scope to a G11 Mount
Lots of things to play with for sure Chip!
Other than the sct, I have a williams optics gt81 that is awesome. I've used both a guide scope and an OAG and at that focal length either works great.?
The hyperstar is similar, and some don't even guide them their so fast. I think that getting the best RMS is a hobby on its own Indipendant of imaging!
|
Re: What to ask/check when buying a used G11?
Hi Stephen,
I'm a Losmandy mount enthusiast, I've completely disassembled them and rebuilt them for friends and club members, even total strangers who I talked into buying used Losmandy mounts and IMO for a used G11 even with a Gemini 2 that price seems high given the lack of details you have given. Any photos? Is it a classic straight drivetrain with the servos hung out in the wind? HP or standard worms? Does it have two round headed cap bolts on the elevation? Dual D/V saddle or old "D" saddle? Is it a Gemini 2-mini or a big case Gemini 2? Which tripod? FHD? Old welded center? LWT? Something else? Without looking at it and seeing the mount and tripod to evaluate what it is if you can't spend an additional $500 to resolve any hidden issues this may not be the right mount for you. Do you NEED a 60 pound payload? If not and 30 pounds for imaging is enough maybe a new GM8G would be a better option. I have one of each and they are very different animals.??
?
--
Chip Louie Chief Daydreamer Imagination Hardware?
? ?Astropheric Weather Forecast - South Pasadena, CA?
|
Re: Mounting a Guide Scope to a G11 Mount
Jamie,
I am imaging with the bespoke Parallax/AT130mm f/6 apo primarily but also have a Stellarvue SV80ST25-SV I use for the wide stuff. For these scopes the piggybacked 50mm guidescope setup works great and I see no reason to use anything else. But I am curious to see if the OAG changes anything.?
?
For the last several years I have been working towards imaging with a scope I pulled out of the dumpster after I resurrected and slightly modified it - a deforked LX200 M10" f/6.3 SCT OTA. I hope to use it at three different focal lengths, 1,600mm @ f/6.3, 1,008mm @ f/4 and 640mm @ f/2.5 using Starizona reducer/flatteners. I have an ASI183MM-Pro and think it might make a really good system, it is a big enough light bucket and it can be made to work very fast. It is limited to small cameras but is a lot more flexible, a lot cheaper than a RASA and visual capable. The next step is to test the SCT II/III .63x reducer coma corrector and see if I need to make one last modification and lock the mirror down on the baffle tube and realign the optics. I have a 2.5" Moonlite focuser I think will work but it may put the reducer too far out of the baffle to work well, have to test it and see. I think the saving grace is that the small 1" format chip will avoid vignetting and any optical weirdness of having the SCT II/III reducer further back than usual. So much to do!?
--
Chip Louie Chief Daydreamer Imagination Hardware?
? ?Astropheric Weather Forecast - South Pasadena, CA?
|
Re: Mounting a Guide Scope to a G11 Mount
Hey Chip,?
From my own experience for the OAG results vs Guide scope. I have found that I may get great guiding in PHD using a guide scope, but something may shift between the guide scope and the main scope and this results in bad images but great guiding. I've also found that the OAG get's better PHD guiding results as well -- but my system does have that week link of the plastic between the guide scope and main scope.? -- Also these results were from maybe about a year ago, and PHD is a different beast now. As it stands I'm getting the best results that I've ever had, and I'm using a guide scope. When I do imaging without the Hyperstar I'll switch back to the OAG and compare.?
Jamie
|
Re: Mounting a Guide Scope to a G11 Mount
Hi John, I had been using a SV50mm guidescope with QHY5L-II mono autoguider very rigidity mounted using the Stellarvue non-adjustable clamshell fasted to the top dovetail of the imaging optic.? I recently switched to all ZWO to use the ASIAIR-PRO so I have no data from this equipment yet. But a few years ago I was out in the eastern Sierra testing a classic Losmandy straight drivetrain 2-piece worm block G11 with a Gemini 1 I ran a couple of quick guided PE tests with my usual 50mm guidescope piggybacked and at prime focus of a M10" f/6.3 SCT OTA. The guiding results were a surprise to me because they were virtually inidentical. Both runs were well under <0.5" PE RMS, more typically centered on 0.4" RMS. Based on these results I see no reason use a large scope for guiding and the only reason to use an OAG as far as I can see is mirror shift.? When I later returned for similar testing with the same mount now fully updated by Losmandy with tucked motors and spring loaded worms etc. the results were not surprising and again virtually identical. This tells me there is something else in the system that is limiting improvement of guided PE of this system. But with this level of autoguided PE I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.? I did buy a newer smaller pixel ASI290MM-mini to see if the claims from ZWO about the smaller pixels producing improved autoguiding have any basis in fact. And to double check the math I also bought an ASI120MM-mini to use as a baseline because the QHY5L-II mono used a similar spec chip. I think the old guidelines for guided scope to imaging scope have become obsolete due to the huge improvements in sensor QE and the jumps that PHD2 have made. This is evident even from my several years old data.?
John KmetzDec 14? ?
Hi Terry,
?
A C925 Edge HD is what I have and usually I mount an Orion CT-80 on top as the guide scope. Please see pics. The CT-80 (FL-400mm) is not great for photography but is more than adequate for guiding. With a 0.7X FR, the C925 goes from 2350 to 1645 mm FL, so a 400mm guide scope fits into that thumb rule of guide to main scope FL ratio of 20-25%. It would probably be OK without the focal reducer too.
?
But on top of the C925 I have a Losmandy DC 9.25 dovetail made specifically for that scope. And I also use the DVR 108/66 scope rings. This ring set has two to hold the guide scope, and another smaller one to hold onto the extensions for the guide camera, so you don't have to worry about flexure of the focuser rack causing guiding error when the mount changes position over the course of an evening. This was a nice idea the Losmandy came up with.
?
Hope this info gives you some ideas.
?
Regards,
?
John
-- Chip Louie Chief Daydreamer Imagination Hardware?
? ?Astropheric Weather Forecast - South Pasadena, CA?
|
Re: Mounting a Guide Scope to a G11 Mount
I have a GM811G along with an EdgeHD8 which is smaller, but similar to your setup. I always prefer an OAG as it performs much better, but I sometimes have to use a guide scope. I have a Hyperstar which puts the camera on the front of the scope and I don't want an OAG obscuring the view even more. So for this case I use the guide scope. I also use the guide scope when I simply can't find any guide stars with the OAG. I also chose the ZWO 178 camera since it has a fairly large chip which gives me a better chance of finding a guide star when using the OAG.? I found this pretty cheap OAG is actually better than the Orion one I used before:?
It's got a pretty big pickoff mirror which helps with the quality of the image, and the FOV to be able to find stars.?
I also use the guide scope when I simply can't find any stars to guide using the OAG. In this case I picked up this scope, again pretty cheap, but seems to be good quality and have the features I need for attaching a guide camera solidly:?
I attach the guide scope to the top of the main scope. I didn't find a good spot to add a vixen mount on the EdgeHD, so I 3D printed an adapter so I could attach it perfectly centered, and avoid weight hanging off the side. The 3D print is fairly hefty, and my results are good, so hopefully there is little to no movement between the guide and main scopes. -- This is probably the weakest link in my setup, but seems to be working fine.?
I also 3d printed a?bahtinov mask for the guide scope so I'm able to get very good focus. Here's? links to the 3D models I made. They're freely available if you've got a 3D printer -- which I highly recommend for this hobby!
Vixen mount: I don't think that this will work for your 9.25 since it will have a different diameter.?
Mask and cap for the guide scope:
My setup is working well for me, so that's what I recommend to you. Everyone takes their own path through this hobby though -- clear skys!!
|
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
|
Re: Mounting a Guide Scope to a G11 Mount
On 12/15/2020 11:38 AM, Mark Christensen wrote: Regarding your experience, Paul of Rochester Hills (Livonia was my old stomping grounds) , I received one of these 60mm guiders (direct from China on Ebay) when they first came out a few years ago.
When looking thru it with an eyepiece I noticed similar problems.
I suspected that the objective had been installed backwards. So all I had to do was unscrew the front and flip the (cemented) lens. Problem solved.
I notified the factory in case they had an assembler/fitter who needed a bit of training.
The images are generally fine now. Never worried about HFD, FWHM or any other parameter. But having to had a filter (beyond the cut filter in the camera) should not be necessary.
By the way, you don't want absolutely perfect focus on a guider - if the centroid algorithms are anything like the norm, the more pixels the better, assuming the image doesn't become too dim.
But you don't want coma.
Cheers,
Mark Christensen
St. Charles, IL Thanks for that! When I first got the scope I wanted to remove the dew shield to make the overall length shorter. That is when I discovered that the dew shield also holds the objective in place. when the objective fell out, I lost track of which was was front so I tried it both ways and backwards from what it currently is... is much worse. I am aware that single pixel stars are not good but without the minus violet filter they are VERY blobby. With the minus violet they are quite a bit better which says to me there is purple fringing sufficient to degrade a monochrome image. There is also coma in a good part of the FOV. All of which I have to assume will degrade the accurate determination of a stable centroid in anything less than perfect seeing? FWIW, with a 30mm eyepiece it looks great. But put in a 4.5mm Lanthanum eyepiece for a view similar to the FOV with the guide camera and the image is not at all sharp and very low contrast. Funny.... I grew up in Glenview (NW of Chicago) and lived many years in Evanston before I moved to SE Michigan ;) Paul -- Paul Goelz Rochester Hills, MI USA pgoelz@... www.pgoelz.com
|
Re: Mounting a Guide Scope to a G11 Mount
Regarding your experience, Paul of Rochester Hills (Livonia was my old stomping grounds) , I received one of these 60mm guiders (direct from China on Ebay) when they first came out a few years ago.
When looking thru it with an eyepiece I noticed similar problems.
I suspected that the objective had been installed backwards. So all I had to do was unscrew the front and flip the (cemented) lens. Problem solved.
I notified the factory in case they had an assembler/fitter who needed a bit of training.
The images are generally fine now. Never worried about HFD, FWHM or any other parameter. But having to had a filter (beyond the cut filter in the camera) should not be necessary.
By the way, you don't want absolutely perfect focus on a guider - if the centroid algorithms are anything like the norm, the more pixels the better, assuming the image doesn't become too dim.
But you don't want coma.
Cheers,
Mark Christensen
St. Charles, IL
|
Paul if you can't see the images, you can click on the link at the bottom and view the messages in the forums which should give you easy access to the pictures
>>>
Right now, the worm bearing seems to be the predominant signal in my GUIDED LOGS with PEC OFF so it needs to be addressed mechanically before I can use any form of PEC to get a meaningful reduction in total PE (including the bearing signal).
Let's consider this possibility:
with the middle portion turned off and analyzing only the start and end (no magic here, you can do this with log viewer as well) here is what your residual error looks like:
according to this data, your residuals at ~77sec and 239 (primary pe) are <0.2", with a larger drift peaking around 5000?@ 3"
total residual at every frequency that is < 0.2" - that sounds pretty remarkable
let's look at the same data using RAW RA option:
This represents an estimate based on this data of your actual mount performance by removing the RA corrections. in other words, this should reflect your true mount performance
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.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:06 AM Paul Goelz < pgoelz@...> wrote: On 12/14/2020 11:11 PM, Brian Valente wrote:
> FYI when i remove the front and back portions of the log that I assume
> was when PEC was enabled, i get this:
>
> image.png
> Hopefully this illustrates a comment i made earlier about things looking
> "noisy".
>
> Brian
For some reason, your embedded png's did not survive.? All I get are the
filename, but no image.
You unfortunately have it backwards.? The front and back portions had
PEC OFF.? In the middle section I started a PEC training session and
when it completed guiding continued with PEC ON.? When I look at those
sections myself I see that in the middle with PEC ON, the worm and
worm/2 signals disappear and the 76s signal (I think) becomes worse.
Which I totally understand.
My takeaway is that I cannot use the Gemini 2 PEC function if there is
significant non-phase-locked signal such as the 76s signal because it
will either leave it untouched or possibly make it worse.? Right now,
the worm bearing seems to be the predominant signal in my GUIDED LOGS
with PEC OFF so it needs to be addressed mechanically before I can use
any form of PEC to get a meaningful reduction in total PE (including the
bearing signal).
But you said earlier that the bearing signal at 76s will never be larger
than the worm fundamental.? Since I am seeing the 76s signal as the
highest amplitude in the frequency analysis of my almost ALL of my
GUIDED LOGS WITH PEC OFF, I have to conclude that either it in fact IS
the largest signal (and needs addressing) or PHD2 is not guiding it out
as well as it does the worm signal.? Not sure why that would be unless
its waveshape is such that it moves faster than PHD2 can correct at a 2s
frame rate.? Which is possible.
If I am off the beaten track and no one can help me analyze my GUIDED
LOGS, fine.? But all this struggle has at least caused me to think and
understand the system better.
Paul
--
Paul Goelz
Rochester Hills, MI? USA
pgoelz@...
-- Brian?
Brian Valente portfolio
|
Thanks all. ?David, that¡¯s it!
Michael, I¡¯ll investigate the button presses further.
I¡¯ll try it out tonight
|
On 12/14/2020 11:11 PM, Brian Valente wrote: FYI when i remove the front and back portions of the log that I assume was when PEC was enabled, i get this:
image.png
Hopefully this illustrates a comment i made earlier about things looking "noisy".
Brian For some reason, your embedded png's did not survive. All I get are the filename, but no image. You unfortunately have it backwards. The front and back portions had PEC OFF. In the middle section I started a PEC training session and when it completed guiding continued with PEC ON. When I look at those sections myself I see that in the middle with PEC ON, the worm and worm/2 signals disappear and the 76s signal (I think) becomes worse. Which I totally understand. My takeaway is that I cannot use the Gemini 2 PEC function if there is significant non-phase-locked signal such as the 76s signal because it will either leave it untouched or possibly make it worse. Right now, the worm bearing seems to be the predominant signal in my GUIDED LOGS with PEC OFF so it needs to be addressed mechanically before I can use any form of PEC to get a meaningful reduction in total PE (including the bearing signal). But you said earlier that the bearing signal at 76s will never be larger than the worm fundamental. Since I am seeing the 76s signal as the highest amplitude in the frequency analysis of my almost ALL of my GUIDED LOGS WITH PEC OFF, I have to conclude that either it in fact IS the largest signal (and needs addressing) or PHD2 is not guiding it out as well as it does the worm signal. Not sure why that would be unless its waveshape is such that it moves faster than PHD2 can correct at a 2s frame rate. Which is possible. If I am off the beaten track and no one can help me analyze my GUIDED LOGS, fine. But all this struggle has at least caused me to think and understand the system better. Paul -- Paul Goelz Rochester Hills, MI USA pgoelz@... www.pgoelz.com
|
Thanks David....I knew what to write but my brain didn't do it....haha, happening more often these days..... I corrected it above...
--
Brendan
|
Re: Mounting a Guide Scope to a G11 Mount
Hi Terry,
A C925 Edge HD is what I have and usually I mount an Orion CT-80 on top as the guide scope. Please see pics. The CT-80 (FL-400mm) is not great for photography but is more than adequate for guiding. With a 0.7X FR, the C925 goes from 2350 to 1645 mm FL, so a 400mm guide scope fits into that thumb rule of guide to main scope FL ratio of 20-25%. It would probably be OK without the focal reducer too.
But on top of the C925 I have a Losmandy DC 9.25 dovetail made specifically for that scope. And I also use the DVR 108/66 scope rings. This ring set has two to hold the guide scope, and another smaller one to hold onto the extensions for the guide camera, so you don't have to worry about flexure of the focuser rack?causing guiding error when the mount changes position over the course of an evening. This was a nice idea the Losmandy came up with.
Hope this info gives you some ideas.
Regards,
John
|
Michael Herman
Jamie Amendolagine
Chip Louie