Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

symmetal

Members
  • Posts

    2,401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

symmetal last won the day on May 9 2023

symmetal had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,126 Excellent

3 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    North Cornwall

Recent Profile Visitors

4,467 profile views
  1. Not sure if it's suitable but Accu.co.uk do a range of threaded inserts and the M10 one in the link, and shown below, has an outside diameter of 14mm with a pitch of 1.5mm which is M14 fine pitch. M14 coarse pitch is 2.0mm. It's self tapping so should clean up your damaged threads and it's stainless steel. The M10 inside thread should clear the shaft on the worm by the looks of it. They aren't cheap though at £8.40 for a single item. Alan
  2. Another great set of images, though I tend to prefer the mono images 🙂. Alan
  3. Excellent image with plenty of detail. 😊 Not oversharpened either as there's a very nice clean edge to the Moon. Alan
  4. Noise is random so one sample has no correlation to the previous or next sample, unlike the signal which will add samples together linearly. If we had a noise free signal arriving that registered say 10 units arriving per second on the sensor we would register 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 units on the sensor over 5 seconds. As there is noise present the actual values arriving wouldn't be 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 but something like 9.9, 10.2, 9.8, 10.0 10.1 On those five samples the noise is -0.1, 0.2, -0.2, 0.0, 0.1 units. In reality the noise will be a random +ve or -ve value away from the expected 10 units, with the magnitude of the variation dependent on the poisson distribution curve so there will be many more small noise variations compared to large noise variations. You can consider these noise samples as vectors pointing either in either a +ve or -ve direction, with the length of the vector being how far away it is from the noise free value of 10. Over many samples it's likely that the next noise sample will tend to have a value averageing about 0 so it's vector direction likely ends up near 90 degrees to the previous sample which was possibly slightly +ve or slightly -ve. Over many samples these noise vectors can be considered to be at 90 degrees to each other so the final noise value is the vector addition of these vectors, which is the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by the two noise vectors. Pythagoras says the length of the hypotenuse (of a right-angled triangle) is the square root of the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Hence my initial formula adding the four noise vectors together using Pythagoras. 🙂 I'm sure that was as clear as mud. 😁 That's my best understanding as to why noise vectors are considered to be at 90 degrees to each other, but I'm sure @vlaiv will be able to give you a better answer if I'm wrong.😉 Alan
  5. I would wait until you see what results you get with your Canon lens with your current camera as far as corner star shapes are concerned before buying a full frame sensor. It wasn't until I bought the RASA 11 that I could take full frame images with the 6200MM with good overall star shapes. My Canon 'L' 100-400 zoom gave poor star shapes over the whole frame unless I stopped it down to f8 when it was tolerable. A prime lens should be significantly better than a zoom of course, so hope yours performs well. I tend to software bin my 6200 images after stacking, as the full size images can be a bit slow to process, especially if doing a mosaic. 2x2 software binning gives 2x the noise and 4x the signal, so a 2:1 improvement in S/N. Noise adds by using the square root, so with a read noise of say 2e, the 2x2 binned read noise is sqrt( 4 * (2^2)) = 4e. 🙂 Alan
  6. It looks like yours was the first Canon lens to have the the focus motor incorporated inside the lens pipnina, and also use the USM principle of operation. From Canon's website: "In the early days of autofocus photography (Canon's first SLR with AF was the T80 in 1985), the AF drive motor was frequently located in the camera body or attached to the lens and drove the lens mechanically. In 1987, with the introduction of the EF lens mount and its fully electronic connectors, Canon was able to miniaturise the autofocus motor to fit inside the lens itself. This raised the possibility that each AF motor could be optimised for the lens it was fitted into, thereby providing faster autofocus. However, there was still a need to create a high-powered AF motor for fast aperture lenses with larger focusing groups, which could work efficiently and deliver fast, smooth and quiet autofocusing. The result was the EF 300mm f/2.8L USM lens, with a ring-type Ultra Sonic Motor (USM) that was both fast and near silent. In 1990, new manufacturing techniques made it possible to reduce the cost of manufacture, and ring-type USM motors found their way into Canon lenses at a consumer price level." Alan
  7. Hope the one you're buying from Russia works out for you @pipnina. In your first post you said the lens was non IS and non USM, though it does say Ultrasonic on the label implying it's USM focusing. Did you get it cheap because the USM isn't working? How will yours focus if that's the case? As they are quite inexpensive I've bought a set of these EF extenders to make it easy to get to the lens connections and have a go at interfacing with an arduino. I programmed my current arduino based autofocusers to use the Moonlite autofocus driver, to avoid having to write a separate Ascom driver, so it should be fairly easy to adapt it to create EF protocols I would think. 🙂 An official Canon extender is £170 for one, but these are £38 for all three so no great loss if I ruin one of them. It'll mean drilling a hole in the side of one of them to solder wires to the rear of one set of contacts. Alan
  8. Sorry to hear this pipnina. Hacking the lenses is possible though it likely needs a microcontroller like an arduino to emulate the commands from the camera. Getting the wires to connect to the lens contacts is the tricky bit. This blog entry shows how one person did it along with a quick video showing it working. It;s referring to EF-S lenses but I'm sure EF lenses would use the same protocol. 🙂 https://howiem.org/wordpress/2016/07/07/motion-control-canon-ef-lens-hacking/ Canon EF-S lens protocol I may have a go with an old lens, just for curiosity's sake. Alan
  9. This site is useful for listing what targets are visible and when https://telescopius.com/ Alan
  10. Under the search heading of 'Telescopes' there aren't many choices but the closest is probably I believe n.e.s. means 'not elsewhere specified'. Alan
  11. "Sy, you're making a crisis out of a drama."
  12. I'm more concerned with why your battery is called Steve. 🤔 Alan
  13. It's odd that Switchcraft do 2.0 and 2.1mm versions as they are so similar, and 2.1mm is a much more common size for DC connectors. However, if you click on the 'Datasheet' link on the 2.1mm connector you linked above it says the centre pin is 2.0mm just like the datasheet for the 2.0mm connector you posted earlier. The centre pin is split and spread slightly to provide a good contact when the plug is inserted so I think a 2.1mm or 2.0mm plug would connect fine in either situation. The L722A part in the connector name of the three versions you linked to has a 2.0mm centre pin, so one saying it's 2.1mm implies a 2.1mm plug works fine in a 2.0mm socket, due to the 2.0mm pin being spread apart. In that case you may as well get the first one you linked to as that is intended for wire connections, while the other two are intended for PC board mounting. Clicking on the datasheet for the connector you choose shows which pins you want to connect your red and black wires to, red to centre pin and black to sleeve, leaving the sleeve shunt unconnected. I think that the xL722x series of connectors are Switchcrafts version of the common 2.1mm connector, with a threaded sleeve, and their xL712x series are their version of the common 2.5mm connector, with a threaded sleeve. 🙂 Alan
  14. They are both in fact panel mount, the difference is that the PCL722A is to fit directly on a PCB (through hole) while the L722A is intended to connect to wires so the L722A would be the better choice in your case. Don't worry about them having three pins on the connectors. It looks like your original photo just has the third pin cut off anyway. It's common to use these connectors in battery powered equipment with the option of external power. The battery -ve goes to the third pin and with no external power plug inserted it's connected to the black -ve power wire. When you plug the power plug in it breaks this connection so and the battery is disconnected, and the power supplied externally. As there is no internal battery in your situation you can ignore the third pin. Alan
  15. That's a file from Microsoft's Visual C runtime library. You can download them from here. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/windows/latest-supported-vc-redist?view=msvc-170 You'll need the X64 versions if you have Windows 64 bit or X86 for Windows 32 bit. The first link for 2015 to 2022 should be what you need, with older versions further down. Alan
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.