Jump to content

DDM RA axis going bad?


maxmirot

Recommended Posts

Max,

I didn't look at your file, however there is a remote possibility that the axis is not tracking well due to mechanical reasons, like a defective bearing, a strong hit during operations or transport, and the likes...

This is something you should discuss with ASA support...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max,

I didn't look at your file, however there is a remote possibility that the axis is not tracking well due to mechanical reasons, like a defective bearing, a strong hit during operations or transport, and the likes...

This is something you should discuss with ASA support...

 

RA is bad, this what it looks like to me.  Btw. there has been no transport since I got the mount.

RA errors was always a little worst than DEC but this got worse.

 

I am able to get balance perfect in DEC in all positions using CWs in including radial adjustment. RA is never perfect in all positive.

Please load the the file and tell me what you think.

 

Max

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polar alignment is less than 3 min. (The models that are coming out now vary so much it hard to show that).

 

I have a radial balance. I null balance using a CW along the tube and a radial CW. When I am done DEC is in balance in all positions.

I can't get RA to balance in all positions. The residual pointing errors show up in RA.

 

The OTA is an Astrophysics Riccardi Honders 305mm with Optec Gemini focuser-rotator which supports up to 25 lbs.

 

I checked the scope for loose components. The back of OTA opens for cooling so I was able checked the mirror and rear corrector. It is all rock solid.

The AP OTA is not user adjustable.  I am sure they set all optics as firmly possible without pinching them.

 

Max

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or how about this one. Note the polar aliment and collimation were not adjusted. One this one is over 40 stars the last one over 110 star.

 

Result should be constant unless the OTA or mount has loose components. Everything is rock solid from the ground up.

 

Would a loose optical component favor one axis???

 

I make remove the AP RH OTA and put my TEC a refractor  as a experiment.

 

However, the errors might be only present with a heavier weight OTA.

 

Max

Model.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Max,

Since I have the same problem and support suggested to me that hysteresis might be the "villain" in my scenario you might check too what they suggested:

Make a new model with random points so that dec isn't always is constant across meridian. Then compare with old model.

Or to the same effect (as I see it): make a model on only one side so you dont ever pass meridian when building the model.

Then experiment with slews and tracking on that side.

Perhaps ricardo-honders have a fixed main mirror but hysteresis could easily come from focuser also.

If tube is a bit loose dont tighten too hard or something will break when motor tries to move tube. I did that and now I cant do anything untill ASA sends it back. DAMN!

When I get the focuser back I will do this but also keep model area smaller than one whole side. Not only meridian shifts can make focuser change position...

 

pelle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I started using Sequence with MLPT imaging the last few nights. ( I still prefer SGP.)

 

However, I am getting round stars on most 20mins images using MLPT.  A recent 180 star model still shows the same pattern. Much bigger errors spread out along the RA

 

Everything is rock solid from the foot of the pier, focuser, scope.  The source of hysteresis is not obvious.

 

The increased RA error should be a clue.

 

Max

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

It is the DDM85.

It probably is hysteresis as the MLPT does make improvement it unguided error.

 

If you look at the JPEG I posted , the spread in the residual error  after superfit shows a non random pattern along the RA. 

I wound think this should tell us something .  I have not been able to determine a mechanical source yet.

 

Btw, I tried the mount with Bisque's Tpoint . I automapped about 44 points. It shows no pattern in residual error.

The pointing is no better also. 

They have a lot extra terms that autoslew does not use. None of these improve the pointing model.

 

There is always the possible that the pattern is an artifacts on how the autoslew does superfit.

 

There is so little explained with the autoslew modelling here.

We should be able to manually adjust the model by removing outliers etc and see if the fit statistics improve.

There is a lot in the advance modeling that is undocumented. I wish we knew more.

 

Perhaps some day Dr. Keller or ASA will spend some time on this.

 

Max

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...