VintageBigBlue.org

 

Re: PEC Empirical Tests


Apr 24, 2002

 


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

#9906 Apr 24, 2002

I tried to do some empirircal tests on PEC. (I am not interested in the acrimony

over this subject, just a co-operative effort to improve tracking).



I used one of the test worms.



Before PEC this worm showed very large, but relatively smooth PE.



See here www.nelsonbay.com/~gc/Uncorrected.jpg







PEC was trained with 5 second integrations of the guiding chip. The results of

PEC were a large reduction in the size of PE, but a residual level of "noise"

which contains sudden jumps.



See here www.nelsonbay.com/~gc/Corrected.jpg







Comments invited. However, I was very tired when doing these tests, so don't

expect clear answers to questions.



Greg Crawford

Observing from Southern Skies



*



* *

*





*



www.nelsonbay.com/~gc/observatory.htm







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

Scanned and protected by Inflex

pldaniels.com/inflex



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

#9907 Apr 24, 2002

Greg,



Yeah things have been a bit bitter and harsh lately, but let's hope

that is all behind us for awhile.



What would be good to see now is the results of guiding the corrected

PE and the uncorrected PE. Maybe we should start a pool as to which

one will guide better?



If we ever get out from under all these clouds here in North Texas I

plan on starting to play with the PEC on my Gemini and see what it

can do. To date I've never used it simply because I did not have any

need to.



Regards,

--- In Losmandy_users@y..., "Greg Crawford" gc@n...> wrote:

> I tried to do some empirircal tests on PEC. (I am not interested in

the acrimony

> over this subject, just a co-operative effort to improve tracking).

>

> I used one of the test worms.

>

> Before PEC this worm showed very large, but relatively smooth PE.

>

> See here www.nelsonbay.com/~gc/Uncorrected.jpg

>

>

>

> PEC was trained with 5 second integrations of the guiding chip. The

results of

> PEC were a large reduction in the size of PE, but a residual level

of "noise"

> which contains sudden jumps.

>

> See here www.nelsonbay.com/~gc/Corrected.jpg

>

>

>

> Comments invited. However, I was very tired when doing these tests,

so don't

> expect clear answers to questions.

>

> Greg Crawford

> Observing from Southern Skies

>

> *

>

> * *

> *

>

>

> *

>

> www.nelsonbay.com/~gc/observatory.htm

>

>

>

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

> Scanned and protected by Inflex

> pldaniels.com/inflex



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

#9908 Apr 24, 2002

--- In Losmandy_users@y..., "Greg Crawford" gc@n...> wrote: > I tried to do some empirircal tests on PEC. (I am not interested in

> the acrimony over this subject, just a co-operative effort to

> improve tracking).

>



Agreed.

> I used one of the test worms.

>

> Before PEC this worm showed very large, but relatively smooth PE.

>



Actually, it doesn't look to bad to me, pretty good actually. That's

really a +/- 6 arc seconds, and since it is smooth, it is easily

guided out.

>

> PEC was trained with 5 second integrations of the guiding chip. The

> results of PEC were a large reduction in the size of PE, but a

> residual level of "noise" which contains sudden jumps.



The training sure helped. The levels are pretty much down to +/-

1.5 arc-seconds or so. I would be curious what the atmospherics were

doing. Any chances of plotting the DEC also?





Tim

>

> See here www.nelsonbay.com/~gc/Corrected.jpg

>

>

>

> Comments invited. However, I was very tired when doing these tests,

so don't > expect clear answers to questions.

>

> Greg Crawford



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

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