Jump to content


Photo

AP900 Question

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 jmiele

jmiele

    Patron Saint?

  • *****
  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010

Posted 27 March 2011 - 01:31 PM

I'm having less than expected success with pointing accuracy when I flip. With good Polar Alin on spot on until I flop :)
Sound like an Ortho issue to anyone? Or something else. I'm sure I'm pulling some newb move and missing something. Any input welcomed. Thanks in advance... Joe

#2 skybsd

skybsd

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008

Posted 27 March 2011 - 02:32 PM

Hello,
Which polar alignment method did you use?

Regards,

skybsd

#3 M13 Observer

M13 Observer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2006

Posted 27 March 2011 - 02:40 PM

I'm having less than expected success with pointing accuracy when I flip. With good Polar Alin on spot on until I flop :)
Sound like an Ortho issue to anyone? Or something else. I'm sure I'm pulling some newb move and missing something. Any input welcomed. Thanks in advance... Joe


If you are truly polar aligned with visual or CCD drift method then yes, your mount and telescope are not orthogonal. If you are not well polar aligned then it could be all polar alignment error, both polar alignment error and non-orthogonal (most likely the case), or all orthogonal misalignment. The AP mount manual has nice write-ups on how to do both.

#4 jmiele

jmiele

    Patron Saint?

  • *****
  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010

Posted 27 March 2011 - 03:33 PM

Ortho misalignment seem more unlikely than polar to me. But I guess still possible. I've used several of the methods in the manual. Last night was best and I used the polar scope, however, the polar scope I guess could also be suspect. I will do a complete camera aided drift alignment tonight but to be honest, I shouldn't need a drift aligned scope for desent pointing accuracy. Any meade or celestron with a 2 start alignment can do a fair job with pointing over most of the sky at low power. I'll post tonights findings.

#5 DeanS

DeanS

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3242
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Central Kentucky

Posted 27 March 2011 - 03:36 PM

Sometimes I get lucky with polar scope alignment and it hits targets after a flip, most of the time not. At home here I do PemPro and get it very close, at star parties I just recal on a star after a flip and it is fine until I flip again.

#6 jmiele

jmiele

    Patron Saint?

  • *****
  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010

Posted 27 March 2011 - 09:46 PM

Ok so polar aligned and PEMPro'd (drift) to within 20 arc seconds both alt and az. Pointing is great till I flip and then it's out by several eyepieces at x85. Am I being to picky? Also, I remounted the saddle, rings and dovetail before starting out tonight. Joe

#7 BlueGrass

BlueGrass

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1977
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Wasatch Front, UT

Posted 27 March 2011 - 10:43 PM

Joe,
Based on what I've read in the GTO manual, it seems you've covered the primary items except you haven't mentioned if you've double checked the site lat / lon, time etc.

"The accuracy of your clock and location settings and especially the orthogonality of your entire system can play a role."

#8 jmiele

jmiele

    Patron Saint?

  • *****
  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010

Posted 27 March 2011 - 11:15 PM

I will check again but I thought is was on the money. One other note I didn't mention because I thought it was related to the PC side of things - when I connect to the SkyX ( I didn't tonight or the last time I reported issues) is reports I'm on the east side of the mount when I'm on the west side. I thought is was a software setting and just ignored using the Sky until I get this worked out. I'll check the clock again... Joe

#9 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6596
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 27 March 2011 - 11:22 PM

AP hand paddles have a routine for very accurate pointing, requires you to go to a star near the object you're chasing and then fine tune. That IS their preferred technique for dealing with pointing accuracy issues when crossing over the meridian. You get the extra step but accuracy can be less than an arc minute's error.

Orthagonality is an issue on the AP mounts because the company has not introduced software to deal with it. Software Bisque has software that will model the mount and compensate for orthagonality and many other variables. So if you use your AP900 with a laptop you'll get better pointing accuracy if you build a pointing model.

Argo Navis has a modeling capability as well. On my non-go-to AP900 I get all-sky pointing accuracy of about three to five arc minutes with no meridian flip issue.

One of the factors in meridian flip is that the backlash on go-to systems is usually dealt with via computerized compensation. That allows the worm gear to be set with a looser tolerance which in turn increases reliability by decreasing binding. I'm sure the AP go-to backlash must be very small. But I don't think you can get rid of it entirely. If the backlash compesnation is not perfect (and it never is) the meridian flip will introduce some pointing accuracy issues.

Once you have built a pointing model you will, with T-point or Argo Navis, get statistical feedback on which variables are affecting pointing. On my older AP900 mount the NP (orthagonality) variable plays virtually no role in pointing accuracy (as reported via the computer's analysis of the variables). Whatever variation is there must be below the resolution of my encoders which means very very small.

On the clock: last night a friend of mine was getting frustrated because Argo Navis was reporting Saturn below the horizon. We checked wires and built several models, even tried reversing the az and alt polarities (thinking we were somehow in southern mode instead of northern). Finally I thought to look at the date. Well, the unit was at its default setting of January 1, 2000 so it's no wonder that the Saturn was reported in an impossible position.

We used to shim for orthagonality on the Losmandy group but the practice disappeared with Gemini when computerized compensation came in, and became even less significant for die hard dsc users when Argo Navis became available. It is a problem that is easily solved computationally and only with difficulty mechanically. You have to remember too that the orthagonality issue is not just the mount but how the scope sits on the dovetail and the rings etc. It is a compensation that must be made for each scope (if it is large, which it likely will not be).

If you dig out the Argo Navis pdf instructions, around p. 115, there is a table explaining the main pointing variables that the computer compensates, and these are the main pointing variables most corrective programs consider, although there are others.

regards
Greg N

#10 jmiele

jmiele

    Patron Saint?

  • *****
  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010

Posted 27 March 2011 - 11:36 PM

Thanks Greg. I have the SkyX and Tpoint but not using yet. If these issues are normal for these mounts thats fine they are minor and I can work through them. I'm just wanting the make sure I'm using it properly. I think Dean also mentioned syncing on a nearby star following the flip before going to the next DSO.

I will say the backlash is low. Also, the RA tracking is under 5 arc sec Peak to Peak with PEC off - amazing. These two items are more important to me than pointing because as you said I can do some models and improve it. Any thoughts on why the SkyX is reporting things backwards?
Thanks again for the reply... Joe

#11 RodShea

RodShea

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2009

Posted 28 March 2011 - 04:03 AM

I have had very similar problems w/ two different scopes and their plates, etc, on a 900. I TPointed the system, which worked very well, but is time consuming to do each time you set up, and needs a computer and maybe other stuff...

TPoint confirmed that, yes, the problem was, at least in my case, orthogonality. I then gritted my teeth and followed the routine in the instructions where you GoTo the same star from either side of the meridian, and shim until orthogonality is controlled. It was less intimidating than it sounded in the book. I shimmed between the dovetail plate and the clamshell or rings, depending. From Tpoint and some trig, I has a sense of the shims needed, but, in the end, it was trial and error. I did not really need Tpoint to do the shimming.

In an evening, I was able to get good pointing with a medium eyepiece on either side of the meridian, w/o having to Tpoint. With more work, I probably could have done better.

Pointing on either side of the meridian, using TPoint, was quite good after a 20 to 30 star modeling run. In both cases, essentially, the target would be at the center of a high power eyepiece. Using Tpoint after the shimming did improve the reported error by about 50%. It also helped subsequent Polar alignment when using routines that use the scope itself.

Hope this helps,

Rod

#12 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15404
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 28 March 2011 - 04:58 AM

Joe,
Based on what I've read in the GTO manual, it seems you've covered the primary items except you haven't mentioned if you've double checked the site lat / lon, time etc.

"The accuracy of your clock and location settings and especially the orthogonality of your entire system can play a role."


If a mount is aligned, it's aligned. How is time/location going to affect alignment on one side of the Meridian vice the other side?

#13 Sharkman

Sharkman

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Nelson, New Zealand

Posted 28 March 2011 - 07:38 AM

Make sure the mount is correctly synced -- with the counterweights pointing down, and on the opposite side of the mount from the scope. Once configured that way, there's a command on the keypad to re-sync. You can also bypass the issue by resuming from park-1.

Make sure the "N/S" switch on the mount is set correctly for your hemisphere.

Make sure no cables are dragging while the mount flips.

Make sure the clutches are tight, so neither axis slips during the flip.

Make sure the mount is accurately balanced on both axes.

The clock and lat/lon is more important in allowing the mount to correctly determine local sidereal time, the location of the meridian and the right place to flip -- I can't see how it would impact alignment.

There's a quick-align process described in the AP900 manual, where you start at park-1, level the RA axis, then go to park-2, level the dec axis, then go back to park-1 and see if the dec axis is still level. If it's not, then either the mount wasn't aligned in elevation or it was and something else is wrong (such as dragging cables, loose clutches, etc).

#14 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 28 March 2011 - 12:56 PM

Boy, this is a very timely thread for me as I'm getting used to the AP system on my Parallax HD250 observatory mount. It carries a D&G 11" F12 achromat and I'd bet a weeks pay that I'll have some orthognoality issues, especially with the rotating rings (which may turn out to have built in shims via the teflon support plugs.)

Just waiting on the weather...and waiting....and waiting...and then there's the wind.

BTW,AP tells me they will soon be beta-testing their modeling software for introduction maybe mid-year. however, you'll still need an outboard computer.

Jeff

#15 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 12889
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Cloud-chester,NY

Posted 28 March 2011 - 01:21 PM

BTW,AP tells me they will soon be beta-testing their modeling software for introduction maybe mid-year. however, you'll still need an outboard computer.

Jeff

My understanding is the pointing model software will be part of the HB software and will be updatable through the flash memory. Only the new APCC (PulseGuide replacement) will be computer dependent. I doubt either will be available any time soon. APCC wont be released until all the ASCOM bugs are worked out. The process is taking much longer then anticipated. AP was previewing the new APCC during NEAF 2009. Two years later, we wait.

#16 jmiele

jmiele

    Patron Saint?

  • *****
  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010

Posted 28 March 2011 - 02:40 PM

I think I found the issue. I was going over things for another session tonight and found that if I leveled the saddle and versa dovetail plates - the scope tube was off a bit from them. Thats gotta be it. I removed the plate and rings and the tak bridge plate. The tak ring are only 5 inches apart with that bridge. I remounted the rings over 8 inches apart (reversed the front and back rings as well) and now the saddle, dovetail and tube are all reading the same.

Makes sense to me that being off axis by a degree or two would hurt most when I flip the mount. I will see tonight.. Am I off base here? Hopes to high?

Joe

#17 DeanS

DeanS

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3242
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Central Kentucky

Posted 28 March 2011 - 02:44 PM

Sounds like that should fix most, if not all the problem.

#18 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27219
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 28 March 2011 - 03:18 PM

This is the reason I really like the Mount section. :grin: Gotta' love mechanical things even when they frustrate the bejeebers out of you. I was thinking while reading this, a fork mount on a wedge or a purpose built mount like Mathis Instruments' fork mount solves the flip problem. HOWEVER, once committed to a fork, you have very limited options when it comes to scopes. You have the scope in the fork and perhaps a piggybacked refractor.

I've always liked the old Meade RX400s and thought that a 12" version would be a pretty terrific imaging scope if the electronics stayed healthy. But then, you're committing to a wedge. No flip, but that's your scope. Perplexing problems we have.

David

#19 drksky

drksky

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1760
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Bloomington, IL

Posted 28 March 2011 - 03:53 PM

This is the reason I really like the Mount section. :grin: Gotta' love mechanical things even when they frustrate the bejeebers out of you. I was thinking while reading this, a fork mount on a wedge or a purpose built mount like Mathis Instruments' fork mount solves the flip problem. HOWEVER, once committed to a fork, you have very limited options when it comes to scopes. You have the scope in the fork and perhaps a piggybacked refractor.

I've always liked the old Meade RX400s and thought that a 12" version would be a pretty terrific imaging scope if the electronics stayed healthy. But then, you're committing to a wedge. No flip, but that's your scope. Perplexing problems we have.

David


Not to derail the topic even more, but why not build a fork mount that has a dovetail platform in the center instead of have it mount to a scope directly? Then you can have your fork and eat it too...or something.

You wouldn't necessarily be limited by what scope you could mount, although you would certainly be limited by the instrument length.

#20 RodShea

RodShea

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2009

Posted 28 March 2011 - 05:44 PM

Joe,

That should help a lot. It may not get you quite all the way there, but you'll know that soon<g>. Somewhere in the manual they say something about a 1 degree difference between the mount's mechanical axis and the scope's optical axis leading to a a few minutes error at the equator but hours of error near the pole.

In other words, collimation of the scope, diagonal, camera, or other issues may still make a difference even if your rings are meticulously aligned with the mount's axes. (Ask me how I know this...<g>

Good luck,

Rod

#21 jmiele

jmiele

    Patron Saint?

  • *****
  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010

Posted 28 March 2011 - 06:28 PM

Actually after doing some more reading on the subject I think I've got it wrong. The error I found in Dec is not a problem. I problem in this case would be "cone error". That is to say the optical tube not being aligned with the dovetail yes. but not as I did it with the scope in the west level to the ground. This would be the difference or distance of the scope from the dovetail as it sits on the rings (each ring) front and back must be the same. That distance not being equal creates a cone shape (in or out) when the scope moves in RA and the optics are pointed to the pole. This is where the shims come into play. To your point about the error being greater at the pole, thats a good place to check for it. So looks like my tak tube holder is to blame because when looking for this a can visually identify they are not equal. The space between my optical tube and the dovetail are NOT the same in the front and the back of the dovetail plate.

I will test this tonight and prepare to shim it next time out. BTW, anyone out there mounting a TOA-150B with other than the tak tube rings?

Joe

#22 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27219
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 28 March 2011 - 08:51 PM

This is the reason I really like the Mount section. :grin: Gotta' love mechanical things even when they frustrate the bejeebers out of you. I was thinking while reading this, a fork mount on a wedge or a purpose built mount like Mathis Instruments' fork mount solves the flip problem. HOWEVER, once committed to a fork, you have very limited options when it comes to scopes. You have the scope in the fork and perhaps a piggybacked refractor.

I've always liked the old Meade RX400s and thought that a 12" version would be a pretty terrific imaging scope if the electronics stayed healthy. But then, you're committing to a wedge. No flip, but that's your scope. Perplexing problems we have.

David


Not to derail the topic even more, but why not build a fork mount that has a dovetail platform in the center instead of have it mount to a scope directly? Then you can have your fork and eat it too...or something.

You wouldn't necessarily be limited by what scope you could mount, although you would certainly be limited by the instrument length.


I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the encoders in the fork assume that the scope is in a specific spot. Considering that, depending on the size of the fork, were a Losmandy dovetail be rigged to be in the middle, if you put, say a 12" SC in there and decided you wanted to do some widefield stuff with an FSQ106, the centerline of the 106 would be drastically different from the SC. Something would be out of whack I would think.

David

#23 RodShea

RodShea

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2009

Posted 28 March 2011 - 10:39 PM

,

So looks like my tak tube holder is to blame because when looking for this a can visually identify they are not equal. The space between my optical tube and the dovetail are NOT the same in the front and the back of the dovetail plate.


Joe,

That seems very strange. You are saying the OTA is visibly not parallel to the dovetail plate? I've never actually seen a TOA 150, but the scopes I was working with are both Taks, and that just does not sound right. I'd guess there is a trick, you are missing a part, have a wrong part, or something like that. I'd probably post this to the Uncensored TakGroup (can I say that here?) and/or call Art Ciampi or Fred Garcia at Texas Nautical Repair/TakahashiAmerica.

Rod

#24 jmiele

jmiele

    Patron Saint?

  • *****
  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010

Posted 28 March 2011 - 10:52 PM

Problem solved! A couple od thin shims and I was pointing all sky in the field of a 13 Ethos in the TOA-150 all night.

Rod, I have a pretty good eye for that. It was only out a couple of mills. Don't ask me how I can see that but I did/can. I also saw the dove and scope where were out of level by a 1/32 from each other.

All I know is it pointed great tonight and PEMPro showed my PE curve as 3.93 arc sec peak to peak with no PEC running. They make a great product!

Thanks to all who posted suggestions. :)

Joe <----Happy

Oh and last..... took a couple of pics of Saturn and all I can say is those guys in the Solar System AP forum should be Knighted! How do they do it?

#25 RodShea

RodShea

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2009

Posted 29 March 2011 - 01:06 AM

Great to hear it worked1

Rod






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics