VintageBigBlue.org

 

Re: G11 with new Ovision worm PemPro Results.


Sep 3, 2008

 


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

#39453 Sep 3, 2008

Hi All



I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision worm was

installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while gathering data,

and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the mount.

They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good bit of data

there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is, I thought

the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to him with a

peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).



They can be seen here:



tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%20G11%20W

ith%20Ovision%20Worm/



I took a few pictures of the mount and worm



tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/461d



You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on the RA, all

credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.



I hope the links work



Thanks



Adrien Richardson









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

#39457 Sep 3, 2008

Thanks for posting! I don't have Pempro to look at it graphically, but

I am sure it looks very good.

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

biplane@...> wrote: >

> Hi All

>

> I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

worm was > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while gathering

data, > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the mount.

> They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good bit

of data > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is, I

thought > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to him

with a > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

>

> They can be seen here:

>

>

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%20G11%20W > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

>

> I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

>

> tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/461d

>

> You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on the

RA, all > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

>

> I hope the links work

>

> Thanks

>

> Adrien Richardson

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>



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

#39467 Sep 4, 2008

Hi Adrien,



I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files into

Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these into

PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the raw data

in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error of

about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:



pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg



The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some pretty

fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at longer

focal lengths:



pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg



Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

installed it?



Regards,



-Paul





--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

biplane@...> wrote: >

> Hi All

>

> I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

worm was > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

gathering data, > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

mount. > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good bit

of data > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is, I

thought > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to him

with a > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

>

> They can be seen here:

>

> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%

20G11%20W > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

>

> I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

>

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46

1d >

> You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on

the RA, all > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

>

> I hope the links work

>

> Thanks

>

> Adrien Richardson

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>



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

#39469 Sep 4, 2008

Hi all,

I tried doing what you requested in Pempro...Pics at:

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/dbf

6

(Bazza's Pics in the Photos section of this group)

I too, am very interested in the Ovision and MWB.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Barry Morton

Worcester - UK.

















--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Adrien,

>

> I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files into

> Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these into

> PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the raw

data

> in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error of

> about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:

>

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg

>

> The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some pretty

> fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at longer

> focal lengths:

>

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg

>

> Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

> installed it?

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

> biplane@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi All

> >

> > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

> worm was

> > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> gathering data,

> > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

> mount.

> > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good

bit

> of data

> > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is,

I

> thought

> > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to

him

> with a

> > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

> >

> > They can be seen here:

> >

> > tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%

27s%

> 20G11%20W

> > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> >

> > I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

> >

> >

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46

> 1d

> >

> > You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on

> the RA, all

> > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

> >

> > I hope the links work

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Adrien Richardson

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>







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

#39470 Sep 4, 2008

By the way, just to make it clear, these are Adrien's results, not

mine!

Barry.



> I tried doing what you requested in Pempro...Pics at:

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/dbf > 6

> (Bazza's Pics in the Photos section of this group)

> I too, am very interested in the Ovision and MWB.

> Hope this helps.

> Regards,

> Barry Morton

> Worcester - UK.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Adrien,

> >

> > I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files

into > > Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these into

> > PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the raw

> data

> > in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error of

> > about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:

> >

> > pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg

> >

> > The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some pretty

> > fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at longer

> > focal lengths:

> >

> > pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg

> >

> > Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

> > installed it?

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > -Paul

> >

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

> > biplane@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi All

> > >

> > > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new

Ovision > > worm was

> > > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> > gathering data,

> > > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

> > mount.

> > > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good

> bit

> > of data

> > > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm

is, > I

> > thought

> > > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to

> him

> > with a

> > > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of

course !). > > >

> > > They can be seen here:

> > >

> > > tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%

> 27s%

> > 20G11%20W

> > > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> > >

> > > I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

> > >

> > >

> >

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46 > > 1d

> > >

> > > You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias

on > > the RA, all

> > > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

> > >

> > > I hope the links work

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Adrien Richardson

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

>



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

#39471 Sep 4, 2008

Paul,



Increasing the scale in the second file makes the transitions look far

greater than they are. If you overlay the two files at the same image scale

the transitions don't look that bad. And I think tweaking the phase of the

PEC curve could tame most of those dynamics you see.



BTW, I recently released v2.5 of PEMPro and reset the 60-day for all

downloaders (so you can try it again for another 60 days - you can download

it from ccdware.com). In 2.5 there is a new frequency analysis tab which you

can use to explore the cyclic dynamics of a mount.



-Ray

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> [mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul K

> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:46 AM

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 with new Ovision worm

> PemPro Results.

>

> Hi Adrian,

>

> I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files into

> Excel and processed them there. Something looks really strange in

> both files, maybe someone can load these into PemPro and post the

> resulting analysis. From looking at the raw data in Excel, the data

> collected without PEC has a periodic error of about 10 peak-to-peak:

>

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg>

>

> And the second file appears to be taken on a GM-8 with PEC off, at

> different image scale? :

>

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg>

>

> Are you sure these are the correct files?

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com> , "Adrien Richardson"

> biplane@...> wrote:

> >

> > Hi All

> >

> > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

> worm was

> > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> gathering data,

> > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

> mount.

> > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good bit

> of data

> > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is, I

> thought

> > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to him

> with a

> > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

> >

> > They can be seen here:

> >

> >

> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien

> %27s%

> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%>

> 20G11%20W

> > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> >

>

>

>

>

>







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

#39472 Sep 4, 2008

Hi Ray,



I assure you, the larger scale for the second chart wasn't

intentional :) The overall amplitude of the error is certainly much

improved compared to the first file, without PEC.



The transition of 1-2 arcseconds can be due to seeing, but seems

unlikely, as the other axis didn't have the same size jumps.



I know PemPro can do well on G11's stock, or with the Ovision

retrofit worm. The real question is the characteristics of the new

worm, and how well it behaves with and without PEC.



Regards,



-Paul

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Gralak" rgr@...> wrote:

>

> Paul,

>

> Increasing the scale in the second file makes the transitions look

far

> greater than they are. If you overlay the two files at the same

image scale

> the transitions don't look that bad. And I think tweaking the

phase of the

> PEC curve could tame most of those dynamics you see.

>

> BTW, I recently released v2.5 of PEMPro and reset the 60-day for

all

> downloaders (so you can try it again for another 60 days - you can

download

> it from ccdware.com). In 2.5 there is a new frequency analysis tab

which you

> can use to explore the cyclic dynamics of a mount.

>

> -Ray

>

>



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

#39473 Sep 4, 2008

Hmmm, I notice the 1st and 2nd fundamentals still show some

significant amplitude on the "PEC on" graph. As Ray has suggested, an

appropriate phase shift of the PE curve should tweak some of this

away. The residual error may be even less!



Frank

celestialwonders.com



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "brrymorton" barry.morton@...>

wrote: >

> Hi all,

> I tried doing what you requested in Pempro...Pics at:

> tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/dbf

> 6

> (Bazza's Pics in the Photos section of this group)

> I too, am very interested in the Ovision and MWB.

> Hope this helps.

> Regards,

> Barry Morton

> Worcester - UK.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Adrien,

> >

> > I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files into

> > Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these into

> > PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the raw

> data

> > in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error of

> > about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:

> >

> > pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg

> >

> > The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some pretty

> > fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at longer

> > focal lengths:

> >

> > pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg

> >

> > Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

> > installed it?

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > -Paul

> >

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

> > biplane@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi All

> > >

> > > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

> > worm was

> > > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> > gathering data,

> > > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

> > mount.

> > > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good

> bit

> > of data

> > > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is,

> I

> > thought

> > > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to

> him

> > with a

> > > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

> > >

> > > They can be seen here:

> > >

> > > tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%

> 27s%

> > 20G11%20W

> > > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> > >

> > > I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

> > >

> > >

> >

> tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46

> > 1d

> > >

> > > You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on

> > the RA, all

> > > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

> > >

> > > I hope the links work

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Adrien Richardson

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

>



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

#39475 Sep 4, 2008

Thanks, Barry. I'll have to look at these after I get home from

work, as I can't access yahoo photos from here :-(



Regards,



-Paul



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "brrymorton"

barry.morton@...> wrote: >

> By the way, just to make it clear, these are Adrien's results, not

> mine!

> Barry.

>

>

> > I tried doing what you requested in Pempro...Pics at:

> >

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/db

f > > 6

> > (Bazza's Pics in the Photos section of this group)

> > I too, am very interested in the Ovision and MWB.

> > Hope this helps.

> > Regards,

> > Barry Morton

> > Worcester - UK.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@>

wrote: > > >

> > > Hi Adrien,

> > >

> > > I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files

> into

> > > Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these

into > > > PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the

raw > > data

> > > in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error

of > > > about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:

> > >

> > > pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg

> > >

> > > The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some

pretty > > > fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at

longer > > > focal lengths:

> > >

> > > pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg

> > >

> > > Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

> > > installed it?

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > -Paul

> > >

> > >

> > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

> > > biplane@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi All

> > > >

> > > > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new

> Ovision

> > > worm was

> > > > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> > > gathering data,

> > > > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to

the > > > mount.

> > > > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a

good > > bit

> > > of data

> > > > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm

> is,

> > I

> > > thought

> > > > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > > > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good

to > > him

> > > with a

> > > > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of

> course !).

> > > >

> > > > They can be seen here:

> > > >

> > > >

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien% > > 27s%

> > > 20G11%20W

> > > > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> > > >

> > > > I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46 > > > 1d

> > > >

> > > > You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant

bias > on

> > > the RA, all

> > > > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

> > > >

> > > > I hope the links work

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

> > > > Adrien Richardson

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > > >

> > >

> >

>







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

#39476 Sep 4, 2008

Hi Paul,

Hmm, if your graph is correct, then the Ovision has greater than 10"

of PE which seems wrong. Not saying that your graph is wrong, but

rather it seems that something is not right. :^)

I would wonder if the worm is adjusted correctly. If it is, then this

is outside the 10" guarantee!

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Adrien,

>

> I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files into

> Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these into

> PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the raw data

> in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error of

> about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:

>

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg

>

> The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some pretty

> fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at longer

> focal lengths:

>

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg

>

> Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

> installed it?

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

> biplane@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi All

> >

> > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

> worm was

> > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> gathering data,

> > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

> mount.

> > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good bit

> of data

> > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is, I

> thought

> > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to him

> with a

> > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

> >

> > They can be seen here:

> >

> > tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%

> 20G11%20W

> > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> >

> > I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

> >

> >

> tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46

> 1d

> >

> > You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on

> the RA, all

> > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

> >

> > I hope the links work

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Adrien Richardson

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>



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

#39477 Sep 4, 2008

Agreed, the PEMpro log shows the raw PE as 10.4" peak to peak. A bit

surprising, but the curve is very smooth. There is a lot of drift with PEC

on, Adrien you also need to look at the drift correction feature in PEMPro.



Mark

2008/9/4 Floyd Blue fblue@...

> Hi Paul,

> Hmm, if your graph is correct, then the Ovision has greater than 10"

> of PE which seems wrong. Not saying that your graph is wrong, but

> rather it seems that something is not right. :^)

> I would wonder if the worm is adjusted correctly. If it is, then this

> is outside the 10" guarantee!

> Floyd

> .

>

>

>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

#39478 Sep 4, 2008

Hi Paul / Floyd



Thanks for your comments. Yes Both curves were taken with the new Worm

installed.

I agree the PE of +6.4 to -4.1 (Total 10.5) is high, but then with PEC on,

it drops down to 2.2 and no more 76 second error.

I returned my first Ovision worm I as it was obviously too tight. When the

shaft was rotated by hand, it was not smooth at all, almost "jerky" as, I

could feel the shaft against the ball bearings.

Frank sent the replacement right away.

It would be interesting to compare my results with others with the same

configuration and with PemPro.

I could try adjusting the worm, if anything I could have it a little

tight...



Adrien Richardson







_____



From: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Floyd Blue

Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:14 PM

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 with new Ovision worm PemPro Results.







Hi Paul,

Hmm, if your graph is correct, then the Ovision has greater than 10"

of PE which seems wrong. Not saying that your graph is wrong, but

rather it seems that something is not right. :^)

I would wonder if the worm is adjusted correctly. If it is, then this

is outside the 10" guarantee!

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@...> wrote: >

> Hi Adrien,

>

> I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files into

> Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these into

> PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the raw data

> in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error of

> about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:

>

> pk.darkhoriz pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg>

ons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg >

> The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some pretty

> fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at longer

> focal lengths:

>

> pk.darkhoriz pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg>

ons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg >

> Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

> installed it?

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson" > biplane@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi All

> >

> > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

> worm was

> > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> gathering data,

> > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

> mount.

> > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good bit

> of data

> > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is, I

> thought

> > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to him

> with a

> > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

> >

> > They can be seen here:

> >

> > tech.

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%>

groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s% > 20G11%20W

> > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> >

> > I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

> >

> >

> tech.

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46>

ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46 > 1d

> >

> > You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on

> the RA, all

> > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

> >

> > I hope the links work

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Adrien Richardson

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







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

#39479 Sep 4, 2008

Hi Adrien,

Was the new replacement worm smoother and less tight?

How much play did you leave when setting up the worm? I notice they

advise 1-2mm of play at the end of the weight shaft.

I tried setting my original worm at 1.5mm and I thought it was too

loose, not sure the tracking was not worse. So I tightened it back to

maybe 1mm perhaps slightly less and it seemed to track better.

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

biplane@...> wrote: >

> Hi Paul / Floyd

>

> Thanks for your comments. Yes Both curves were taken with the new Worm

> installed.

> I agree the PE of +6.4 to -4.1 (Total 10.5) is high, but then with

PEC on, > it drops down to 2.2 and no more 76 second error.

> I returned my first Ovision worm I as it was obviously too tight.

When the > shaft was rotated by hand, it was not smooth at all, almost "jerky"

as, I > could feel the shaft against the ball bearings.

> Frank sent the replacement right away.

> It would be interesting to compare my results with others with the same

> configuration and with PemPro.

> I could try adjusting the worm, if anything I could have it a little

> tight...

>

> Adrien Richardson

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Floyd Blue

> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:14 PM

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 with new Ovision worm PemPro Results.

>

>

>

> Hi Paul,

> Hmm, if your graph is correct, then the Ovision has greater than 10"

> of PE which seems wrong. Not saying that your graph is wrong, but

> rather it seems that something is not right. :^)

> I would wonder if the worm is adjusted correctly. If it is, then this

> is outside the 10" guarantee!

> Floyd

> --- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Adrien,

> >

> > I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files into

> > Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these into

> > PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the raw data

> > in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error of

> > about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:

> >

> > pk.darkhoriz pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg>

> ons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg

> >

> > The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some pretty

> > fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at longer

> > focal lengths:

> >

> > pk.darkhoriz pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg>

> ons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg

> >

> > Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

> > installed it?

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > -Paul

> >

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

> > biplane@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi All

> > >

> > > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

> > worm was

> > > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> > gathering data,

> > > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

> > mount.

> > > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good bit

> > of data

> > > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is, I

> > thought

> > > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to him

> > with a

> > > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

> > >

> > > They can be seen here:

> > >

> > > tech.

> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%>

> groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%

> > 20G11%20W

> > > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> > >

> > > I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

> > >

> > >

> > tech.

> tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46>

> ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46

> > 1d

> > >

> > > You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on

> > the RA, all

> > > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

> > >

> > > I hope the links work

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Adrien Richardson

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>



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

#39489 Sep 5, 2008

That's actually the way Franck wants us to use them (tight and feeling

the shaft against the ball bearings.) I agree it is not what I would

want in principle, but I took him on faith and installed it as it was.



It is possible that your extra PE is related to running "loose."



regards

Greg N



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

biplane@...> wrote:

I > could feel the shaft against the ball bearings.

> Frank sent the replacement right away.

> It would be interesting to compare my results with others with the same

> configuration and with PemPro.

> I could try adjusting the worm, if anything I could have it a little

> tight...

>

> Adrien Richardson

>







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

#39571 Sep 8, 2008

Hi Floyd

Sorry for the delay in reply, but as you know, Northern Europe has awful

weather for the moment. I sent my results of the worm to Frank, and he made

a few valuable suggestions.

Firstly that I should check to see if the bottom of the worm block and the

base of the G11 are clean, and with no imperfections.

According to Frank, all it needs is as little as 0.005mm to cause a

harmonic. SO I immediately took the motor, gearbox and worm off and cleaned

it well.

Second point Frank made was to make sure the worm block position results in

a maximum of 1-2mm of counter weight movement, that is well documented, but

he mentioned to go a little tighter if I can.

One thing I found was that when I have the worm block in my hand, and I

rotated the shaft, it felt very smooth, perhaps a little too loose. When I

remounted the worm on it own, that is with no gear box or motor, and rocked

(very gently) the counter weight shaft side to side,I found the gear shaft

move slightly laterally in the worm block.

So I tightened a little bit the brass screw at the end of the worm block,

and it fixed the problem. I then took the worm block off again to see how it

felt when the worm shaft was rotated by hand with this new setting,and it

felt just right, a little stiff, but not binding. I marked the before and

after positions of the rotation of the brass screw with a marker, so I know

how far I rotated the screw.

I have been waiting a week to see it these efforts have resulted in any

benefit before sending you a reply, but the weather still looks bad to the

whole of this week.



Good luck with your worm!



Adrien











_____



From: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Floyd Blue

Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:55 PM

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 with new Ovision worm PemPro Results.







Hi Adrien,

Was the new replacement worm smoother and less tight?

How much play did you leave when setting up the worm? I notice they

advise 1-2mm of play at the end of the weight shaft.

I tried setting my original worm at 1.5mm and I thought it was too

loose, not sure the tracking was not worse. So I tightened it back to

maybe 1mm perhaps slightly less and it seemed to track better.

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

biplane@...> wrote: >

> Hi Paul / Floyd

>

> Thanks for your comments. Yes Both curves were taken with the new Worm

> installed.

> I agree the PE of +6.4 to -4.1 (Total 10.5) is high, but then with

PEC on, > it drops down to 2.2 and no more 76 second error.

> I returned my first Ovision worm I as it was obviously too tight.

When the > shaft was rotated by hand, it was not smooth at all, almost "jerky"

as, I > could feel the shaft against the ball bearings.

> Frank sent the replacement right away.

> It would be interesting to compare my results with others with the same

> configuration and with PemPro.

> I could try adjusting the worm, if anything I could have it a little

> tight...

>

> Adrien Richardson

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

yahoogroups.com

[mailto:Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Floyd Blue

> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:14 PM

> To: Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 with new Ovision worm PemPro Results.

>

>

>

> Hi Paul,

> Hmm, if your graph is correct, then the Ovision has greater than 10"

> of PE which seems wrong. Not saying that your graph is wrong, but

> rather it seems that something is not right. :^)

> I would wonder if the worm is adjusted correctly. If it is, then this

> is outside the 10" guarantee!

> Floyd

> --- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Adrien,

> >

> > I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files into

> > Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these into

> > PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the raw data

> > in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error of

> > about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:

> >

> > pk.darkhoriz pk.darkhoriz

pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg> ons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg> > ons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg

> >

> > The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some pretty

> > fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at longer

> > focal lengths:

> >

> > pk.darkhoriz pk.darkhoriz

pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg> ons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg> > ons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg

> >

> > Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

> > installed it?

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > -Paul

> >

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

> > biplane@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi All

> > >

> > > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

> > worm was

> > > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> > gathering data,

> > > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

> > mount.

> > > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good bit

> > of data

> > > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm is, I

> > thought

> > > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to him

> > with a

> > > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

> > >

> > > They can be seen here:

> > >

> > > tech.

> tech.

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%>

groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%> > groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%

> > 20G11%20W

> > > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> > >

> > > I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

> > >

> > >

> > tech.

> tech.

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46>

ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46> > ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46

> > 1d

> > >

> > > You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on

> > the RA, all

> > > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

> > >

> > > I hope the links work

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Adrien Richardson

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







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

#39573 Sep 8, 2008

Hi Adrian,

Sounds like you are on the right track for sure. The lateral play in

the worm was not good, causes a lot of issues as the shaft moves in

the block.

Hope to see mine in the next few days.

I have a Intes Alter MN66 coming in on Thursday and I want the worm

installed before next New Moon so I can give this scope a try for

photography.

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

biplane@...> wrote: >

> Hi Floyd

> Sorry for the delay in reply, but as you know, Northern Europe has awful

> weather for the moment. I sent my results of the worm to Frank, and

he made > a few valuable suggestions.

> Firstly that I should check to see if the bottom of the worm block

and the > base of the G11 are clean, and with no imperfections.

> According to Frank, all it needs is as little as 0.005mm to cause a

> harmonic. SO I immediately took the motor, gearbox and worm off and

cleaned > it well.

> Second point Frank made was to make sure the worm block position

results in > a maximum of 1-2mm of counter weight movement, that is well

documented, but > he mentioned to go a little tighter if I can.

> One thing I found was that when I have the worm block in my hand, and I

> rotated the shaft, it felt very smooth, perhaps a little too loose.

When I > remounted the worm on it own, that is with no gear box or motor, and

rocked > (very gently) the counter weight shaft side to side,I found the gear

shaft > move slightly laterally in the worm block.

> So I tightened a little bit the brass screw at the end of the worm

block, > and it fixed the problem. I then took the worm block off again to

see how it > felt when the worm shaft was rotated by hand with this new

setting,and it > felt just right, a little stiff, but not binding. I marked the

before and > after positions of the rotation of the brass screw with a marker, so

I know > how far I rotated the screw.

> I have been waiting a week to see it these efforts have resulted in any

> benefit before sending you a reply, but the weather still looks bad

to the > whole of this week.

>

> Good luck with your worm!

>

> Adrien

>

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Floyd Blue

> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:55 PM

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 with new Ovision worm PemPro Results.

>

>

>

> Hi Adrien,

> Was the new replacement worm smoother and less tight?

> How much play did you leave when setting up the worm? I notice they

> advise 1-2mm of play at the end of the weight shaft.

> I tried setting my original worm at 1.5mm and I thought it was too

> loose, not sure the tracking was not worse. So I tightened it back to

> maybe 1mm perhaps slightly less and it seemed to track better.

> Floyd

> --- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

> biplane@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Paul / Floyd

> >

> > Thanks for your comments. Yes Both curves were taken with the new Worm

> > installed.

> > I agree the PE of +6.4 to -4.1 (Total 10.5) is high, but then with

> PEC on,

> > it drops down to 2.2 and no more 76 second error.

> > I returned my first Ovision worm I as it was obviously too tight.

> When the

> > shaft was rotated by hand, it was not smooth at all, almost "jerky"

> as, I

> > could feel the shaft against the ball bearings.

> > Frank sent the replacement right away.

> > It would be interesting to compare my results with others with the

same > > configuration and with PemPro.

> > I could try adjusting the worm, if anything I could have it a little

> > tight...

> >

> > Adrien Richardson

> >

> >

> >

> > _____

> >

> > From: Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> yahoogroups.com

> [mailto:Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> yahoogroups.com]

> > On Behalf Of Floyd Blue

> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:14 PM

> > To: Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> yahoogroups.com

> > Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 with new Ovision worm PemPro

Results. > >

> >

> >

> > Hi Paul,

> > Hmm, if your graph is correct, then the Ovision has greater than 10"

> > of PE which seems wrong. Not saying that your graph is wrong, but

> > rather it seems that something is not right. :^)

> > I would wonder if the worm is adjusted correctly. If it is, then this

> > is outside the 10" guarantee!

> > Floyd

> > --- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> > yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Adrien,

> > >

> > > I don't have PemPro on my work computer, so I loaded the files into

> > > Excel and processed them there. Maybe someone can load these into

> > > PemPro and post the resulting analysis. From looking at the raw

data > > > in Excel, the data collected without PEC has a periodic error of

> > > about 10 arcsecs peak-to-peak:

> > >

> > > pk.darkhoriz pk.darkhoriz

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg>

ons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg> > > ons.org/tmp/adrian-raw.jpg

> > >

> > > The file after PEC training is a lot better, but has some pretty

> > > fast 1-2 arcseconds transitions that may cause problems at longer

> > > focal lengths:

> > >

> > > pk.darkhoriz pk.darkhoriz

> pk.darkhorizons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg>

ons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg> > > ons.org/tmp/adrian-pec.jpg

> > >

> > > Was the first file taken with the Ovision worm or before you

> > > installed it?

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > -Paul

> > >

> > >

> > > --- In Losmandy_users@ mailto:Losmandy_users%40yahoogroups.com>

> > yahoogroups.com, "Adrien Richardson"

> > > biplane@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi All

> > > >

> > > > I thought I would post the PemPro txt files, after my new Ovision

> > > worm was

> > > > installed. There are two files, one is with PEC off, while

> > > gathering data,

> > > > and the other file is taken with PEC on after uploading to the

> > > mount.

> > > > They are both equal at 10 worm cycles each, so there is a good

bit > > > of data

> > > > there. Rather than make claims of how good (or not) the Worm

is, I > > > thought

> > > > the best approach is to post the raw txt files.

> > > > Ray Gralak did give them a "once over" and they looked good to

him > > > with a

> > > > peak periodic error of about 2.2 arc-seconds (PEC on of course !).

> > > >

> > > > They can be seen here:

> > > >

> > > > tech.

> > tech.

> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%>

> groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%>

> > groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/files/Adrien%27s%

> > > 20G11%20W

> > > > ith%20Ovision%20Worm/

> > > >

> > > > I took a few pictures of the mount and worm

> > > >

> > > >

> > > tech.

> > tech.

> tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46>

> ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46>

> > ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/browse/46

> > > 1d

> > > >

> > > > You can also see the string / pulley to apply a constant bias on

> > > the RA, all

> > > > credits for this Idea go to Rainer Ehlert.

> > > >

> > > > I hope the links work

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

> > > > Adrien Richardson

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>







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

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