VintageBigBlue.org

 

Re: Ovision Worm/Block Test: assistance sought.


Aug 12, 2008

 


----------------------------

#38782 Aug 12, 2008

Hi,

please see the first light image obtained with my new astrograph on the

G11 with the Ovision block.



icehome.in.cnr.it/icefalls/Astro/Star%20Clusters/m13%20ASA%

20first%20light.jpg



906 mm focal, 4 and 8 min subs. Autoguided.





As I have already reported it was very easy to install the new block

and it improved tracking enormously.



icehome.in.cnr.it/icefalls/Losmandy.htm



Diagrams might be boring but they are useful.

gimmi



----------------------------

#38783 Aug 12, 2008

try to stick you links between brackets like this long link here>

that way they stay together and we don't have to cut 'n' paste.

thanks Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "ecrins666" gimmi@...> wrote:

>

> Hi,

> please see the first light image obtained with my new astrograph on the

> G11 with the Ovision block.

>

>

icehome.in.cnr.it/icefalls/Astro/Star%20Clusters/m13%20ASA%20first%20light.jpg>

>

> 906 mm focal, 4 and 8 min subs. Autoguided.

>

>

> As I have already reported it was very easy to install the new block

> and it improved tracking enormously.

>

> icehome.in.cnr.it/icefalls/Losmandy.htm

>

> Diagrams might be boring but they are useful.

> gimmi

>



----------------------------

#38785 Aug 12, 2008

That looks pretty good to me. I spent some time picking out very dim

stars that are basically touching each other, and looked for pairs at

different position angles. Looks to me like the guiding is dead on.



If one goes out to the corners I see some *tiny* signs of elongation

that are probably the usual optical issues of field curvature and what

not (looks like it is mostly controlled, though, you have to really

look). But looking in the center quadrant I don't see any signs of

tracking deviations at all.



I'd say you got your money's worth!



And it speaks well since your scope is pretty big (if memory serves)

and therefore a challenge for the mount. People with four and five

inch refractors, SCTs, etc. should have an easier time.



Your picture does a great job with the glob and also picks out NGC6207

and IC4617 really well.



regards

Greg N



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "ecrins666" gimmi@...> wrote:

>

> Hi,

> please see the first light image obtained with my new astrograph on the

> G11 with the Ovision block.

>

> icehome.in.cnr.it/icefalls/Astro/Star%20Clusters/m13%20ASA%

> 20first%20light.jpg

>

> 906 mm focal, 4 and 8 min subs. Autoguided.

>

>

> As I have already reported it was very easy to install the new block

> and it improved tracking enormously.

>

> icehome.in.cnr.it/icefalls/Losmandy.htm

>

> Diagrams might be boring but they are useful.

> gimmi

>



----------------------------

#38798 Aug 12, 2008

That looks pretty good, do you have an image taken with the same rig

before the worm was installed?

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "ecrins666" gimmi@...> wrote:

>

> Hi,

> please see the first light image obtained with my new astrograph on the

> G11 with the Ovision block.

>

> icehome.in.cnr.it/icefalls/Astro/Star%20Clusters/m13%20ASA%

> 20first%20light.jpg

>

> 906 mm focal, 4 and 8 min subs. Autoguided.

>

>

> As I have already reported it was very easy to install the new block

> and it improved tracking enormously.

>

> icehome.in.cnr.it/icefalls/Losmandy.htm

>

> Diagrams might be boring but they are useful.

> gimmi

>



----------------------------

#39570 Sep 8, 2008

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the heads up! Mind shipped on the 1st as well, but I am in

California USA so it will likely take a few more days. Maybe middle of

the week.

Nice to hear that the worm was smooth! That is very good!

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "jack6132000" jacklsmith@...>

wrote: >

> Hi,

>

> This may be of interest to anyone who has or are intending to order

> an Ovision Worm Block Assembly.

>

> My Ovision was sent on 1st Sept and arrived today, so yours should

> arrive shortly, I get the impression they test them in batches.

>

> I have found all at Optique et Vision to be very helpful when contacted.

>

> I have seen a couple of posts saying the worm seemed tight and/or

> notchy, I am pleased to say that mine turns easily and feels as smooth

> as silk.

>

> I plan to install it this week-end, but testing is in the lap of the

> gods as the weather here in the UK has been reliably British.

>

> Regards

> Jack.

>



----------------------------

#39585 Sep 9, 2008

Hello,



I also had mine shipped on the first and i am waiting anxiously for

mine.



Did it arrive via USPS or ?? They sent me a tracking number, but I

cannot figure out where to get the tracking from. France postal

doesn't recognize it...



Anyhow.. I am waiting....



Thanks for the encouraging update.



Wayne

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Jack,

> Thanks for the heads up! Mind shipped on the 1st as well, but I am

in

> California USA so it will likely take a few more days. Maybe middle

of

> the week.

> Nice to hear that the worm was smooth! That is very good!

> Floyd

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "jack6132000" jacklsmith@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > This may be of interest to anyone who has or are intending to

order

> > an Ovision Worm Block Assembly.

> >

> > My Ovision was sent on 1st Sept and arrived today, so yours

should

> > arrive shortly, I get the impression they test them in batches.

> >

> > I have found all at Optique et Vision to be very helpful when

contacted.

> >

> > I have seen a couple of posts saying the worm seemed tight and/or

> > notchy, I am pleased to say that mine turns easily and feels as

smooth

> > as silk.

> >

> > I plan to install it this week-end, but testing is in the lap of

the

> > gods as the weather here in the UK has been reliably British.

> >

> > Regards

> > Jack.

> >

>







----------------------------

#39586 Sep 9, 2008

Hi Wayne,

I assume it was DHL, that was what the label had on it. It arrived

right at the same time the mail did, but they did not ring the bell or

anything, so not sure who brought it.

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" wayne.gay@...> wrote:

>

> Hello,

>

> I also had mine shipped on the first and i am waiting anxiously for

> mine.

>

> Did it arrive via USPS or ?? They sent me a tracking number, but I

> cannot figure out where to get the tracking from. France postal

> doesn't recognize it...

>

> Anyhow.. I am waiting....

>

> Thanks for the encouraging update.

>

> Wayne

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Jack,

> > Thanks for the heads up! Mind shipped on the 1st as well, but I am

> in

> > California USA so it will likely take a few more days. Maybe middle

> of

> > the week.

> > Nice to hear that the worm was smooth! That is very good!

> > Floyd

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "jack6132000" jacklsmith@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi,

> > >

> > > This may be of interest to anyone who has or are intending to

> order

> > > an Ovision Worm Block Assembly.

> > >

> > > My Ovision was sent on 1st Sept and arrived today, so yours

> should

> > > arrive shortly, I get the impression they test them in batches.

> > >

> > > I have found all at Optique et Vision to be very helpful when

> contacted.

> > >

> > > I have seen a couple of posts saying the worm seemed tight and/or

> > > notchy, I am pleased to say that mine turns easily and feels as

> smooth

> > > as silk.

> > >

> > > I plan to install it this week-end, but testing is in the lap of

> the

> > > gods as the weather here in the UK has been reliably British.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Jack.

> > >

> >

>



----------------------------

#42953 May 24, 2009

Hi, all-

I made my first attempt at creating a PE curve in order to test the Ovision on my new G11 mount.

The PE seemed large to me, and perhaps rough, so I sent it to Franck at Ovision. Franck said he thought my data looked strange. I assume I did something wrong. Could someone review it for me?

I created the logfile with K3CCDTools. The data were created with an 80mm f7 scope, with and without a 2x barlow. The camera was a StellaCam3.

Perhaps I set up the camera in K3CCDTools incorrectly?



Here are the chip specs for the camera as per OPT:

CCD Pixel Size = 8.4um (H) x 9.8um (V)

Number of pixels = 811 (H) x 508 (V)

Here is how I input the data to K3CCDTools camera setup dialogue box: Pixel Width: 8.4 microns-

Pixel Height: 9.8 microns

CCD Width: 768 pixels

CCD Height: 494 pixels



One thing I wonder is: the camera specs are listed as H and V, which I assume is Horizontal and Vertical.

The Dialogue box asks for Width and Height. Did I put the numbers in correctly, or should I transpose them?

Note: the Sony specs page stated that the Effective number of pixels is 768 (H) 494 (V). I probably should have used the Actual number of pixels rather than the Effective number, right?

Also, once again, did I translate H and V to Width and Height correctly, or should I transpose?

I put the two Excel files in the Files section under "Ovision Test-Bob Hertel"

Could run the numbers and tell me if the data looks strange, as it did to Franck?

Thanks for any assistance.

Bob Hertel



----------------------------

#42954 May 25, 2009

Hi, Bob -



The data are indeed too erratic. Setting aside the image scale calculation issues for the time being, the RA values jump too abruptly. You didn't indicate what your exposure time was and that is one possible explanation. If the exposure is too long, the average value may have moved significantly. I would suggest keeping at or under 2 seconds. (When I want to record my PE, I use one second and make sure I find a sufficiently bright star for that length - but certainly not one that is saturated.



As far as your settings, yes, you appear to have the pixel dimensions correct, but that would not lead to a significant difference. Also, the array dimensions for the camera are different from what you show for the CCD Width and Height - but those don't enter into the image scale calculation (arc-seconds/pixel) anyway. And again, the raw data, whether in terms of pixels or arc-seconds, are curious because the simply numbers jump around too much.



I suggest performing another run, first checking that the RA assembly, and in fact the entire train, is "tight" (very little play/backlash). If you have one of the earlier versions of the Ovion assemblies, with two spanner holes in the brass part opposite the motor side, make sure you don't have axial play. I.e., does the worm move back and forth within the worm block.



And, surely overweight slightly to the east. Before you can measure your PE, you will need a smoother curve than what you have shown. If you still get similar data, switch back to your previous worm and see if you get the same results. But, I doubt very much it is the Ovision worm.



Please let us know how you fair.



Regards,



Bill









--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "rjhertel2001" robert.hertel@...> wrote:

>

> Hi, all-

> I made my first attempt at creating a PE curve in order to test the Ovision on my new G11 mount.

> The PE seemed large to me, and perhaps rough, so I sent it to Franck at Ovision. Franck said he thought my data looked strange. I assume I did something wrong. Could someone review it for me?

> I created the logfile with K3CCDTools. The data were created with an 80mm f7 scope, with and without a 2x barlow. The camera was a StellaCam3.

> Perhaps I set up the camera in K3CCDTools incorrectly?

>

> Here are the chip specs for the camera as per OPT:

> CCD Pixel Size = 8.4um (H) x 9.8um (V)

> Number of pixels = 811 (H) x 508 (V)

> Here is how I input the data to K3CCDTools camera setup dialogue box: Pixel Width: 8.4 microns-

> Pixel Height: 9.8 microns

> CCD Width: 768 pixels

> CCD Height: 494 pixels

>

> One thing I wonder is: the camera specs are listed as H and V, which I assume is Horizontal and Vertical.

> The Dialogue box asks for Width and Height. Did I put the numbers in correctly, or should I transpose them?

> Note: the Sony specs page stated that the Effective number of pixels is 768 (H) 494 (V). I probably should have used the Actual number of pixels rather than the Effective number, right?

> Also, once again, did I translate H and V to Width and Height correctly, or should I transpose?

> I put the two Excel files in the Files section under "Ovision Test-Bob Hertel"

> Could run the numbers and tell me if the data looks strange, as it did to Franck?

> Thanks for any assistance.

> Bob Hertel

>







Contact Us
This Site's Privacy Policy
Google's privacy policies

S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g