Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

angryowl

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    366

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by angryowl

  1. angryowl
    Yes, 12 posts up, the first image is of three 10 minute consecutive unguided exposures using his EdgeHD. Although I don't like the way the camera was mounted via the two flimsy thumb screws so not sure if that may be adding to the issue. Plus, the next post down explains the issue Ahmed had using the EdgeHD on his mount with very similar elongation issues and drift between exposures.
  2. angryowl
    What I really like to know is if the scope, without and OAG, can give me acceptable exposures longer than 2 or 3 minutes without any expensive or complicated modifications to it. I mean I could go the route of buying Parallax rings and some proper hefty dovetails, but that’s money I could be spending someplace else, and might still not guarantee me drift-less images. I’d have no issue guiding the RASA with an OAG or even an ONAG if it didn’t cause awful diffraction spikes and artefacts in the image. If anyone here has any other suggestions as to how I could effectively guide these drifts out I’d happily try them. Longer FL guidescope or the guidescope mounted on bottom dovetail or any other variation I suspect would produce more or less the same results. The scope was purchased from First Light Optics about two years ago and still have two months of warranty on it. I’d really like to know now if the scope is at fault here as if it is, I have no alternative but to return it as I cannot and will not accept such performance out of a £3000 piece of equipment.
  3. angryowl
    The RA tracking rate used for this session was set to the original one the Mesu came with. Lucas tweaks these at his factory to sidereal rate before sending them out so I suspect it's very accurate. As I've mentioned before I did try tweaking the RA rate of the mount by following the drift in RA in a star and calculating the correct tracking rate to counteract with no success. The camera/corrector and any spacers or adapters were tightly screwed in place and there's no way they could be flexing. As to the cable snagging, I have triple, even quadruple checked them before every exposure and they are routed by the bottom dovetail anyway. Really appreciate all the help and insight provided on this thus far vlaiv
  4. angryowl
    This is the PHD graph whilst guiding with the OAG near Procyon And this is the graph with the OAG simply monitoring the guide star drift in the image
  5. angryowl
    Sorry, that may not have come across as well as I had intended. Provided that the two mirror locking mechanisms are doing exactly what they should be doing (completely locking the mirror down) then there is no reason whatsoever as to why the mirror should be moving in relation to the OTA assembly. As you say it may be that the two locking mechanisms may be faulty and might not secure the mirror down well enough.
  6. angryowl
    This is what guiding with the OAG last night got me. Tried different parts of the sky especially the ones where the drift was the worst before. I wasn’t able to include a filter in the light path so couldn’t take 5 or 10 minute exposures to show the elongation, but I tried something different. I polar aligned as usual and started tracking. Then pointing near Procyon with the scope on the West side of the pier with the mirror unlocked. I took 5 second exposures every 10 minutes whilst the mount was purely tracking, not guiding. This is the result of the stacked exposures. I then calibrated the OAG and started guiding then did the exact same thing. This is the result. The same unguided, mirror unlocked, scope on east side of pier near Capella sequence was done. Only difference was I used two exposures as clouds were rolling in. Now with the OAG guiding. Same procedure with the scope on the east side of pier pointing SE with the mirror locked down and unguided And this is with the OAG guiding It's clear that mirror flop or mirror movement between exposures (as long as the mirror locks are doing their job of securing the mirror tightly) is not the culprit here. Does this look something like the main OTA flexing then???
  7. angryowl
    @StuartJPP - Thanks so much for this and the thread you linked was a great read. Also, absolutely fantastic final image you got there. The issue you had looks very similar to mine indeed and glad you managed to get yours fixed by further securing the OTA to the dovetail. As I said I wouldn't mind investing in a set of Parallax rings and some proper dovetail plates, but when you pay £3000 for a scope you shouldn't really have to in order to get acceptable stars in 300s or 600s exposures. That is, if the issue is indeed with the scope flexing. I agree, using an OAG would guide the flexure out and hoping it does the next time I'm out. If it does and it turns out something is flexing, I can't be using an OAG to image with the RASA so my only option would be to return it as I got it from FLO with two months of warranty left.
  8. angryowl
    Got the OAG spacing done inside using an artificial star and now just waiting for a clear night to test. Supposedly tomorrow night should be clear so fingers crossed.
  9. angryowl
    A while back @souls33k3r had an issue with elongated stars in his EdgeHD and we had a late-night troubleshooting session trying to determine the cause of this with no success. At first, we thought it may have been guiding related, but after trying several PHD settings nothing improved. I seem to remember the issue was fairly similar to mine wherein the stars would sometimes come out acceptably round but the image would always slowly drift out of the FOV. Don’t know if this is in any way related to the issue at hand, but thought I’d add that here in case it proves to be of any significance.
  10. angryowl
    Did not have much luck in trying all the things I wanted to last night and eventually when I couldn’t get the OAG spacing right I just gave up. Managed to get some subs with the EdgeHD but they’re not in great focus as the Bahtinov mask I have is much larger the scope’s aperture so had to be held by hand. These are three 10 minute consecutive unguided exposures and while the stars themselves look relatively round, the drift between the exposures in evident. However, not sure what to think of this as the EdgeHD’s focal length is 2032mm and I’m not particularly happy with the adapters I had to use to get proper focus. I had to use a cheap 1.25” adapter which had two screws to hold the camera nosepiece in place. I’m not sure if this could be a source of flexure, but I’m sure it’s not nearly as sturdy as having all thread adapters in the image train. Also mounted the guidescope on the Mesu, but using an MDF board rather than metal as the one I had would not fit properly. I screwed both the guidescope and Mesu saddle screws very tightly and there was the slightest flex in the MDF piece itself. For this reason, I’m not entirely convinced of the validity of this test, but I was frustrated and out of things to try so did it anyway.
  11. angryowl
    Michael, just so I understand. Do you mean PHD should be able to correct for such long excursion/drift and keep the guide star centered? Or it thinks all is fine during slow drifts like these and it just guides out the smaller excursions resulting in somewhat round stars, but still elongated and still allowing the larger drift to take place?
  12. angryowl
    Hehe, EdgeHD 8 it is then. ? On a side note, I can't believe how small and light the scope is compared to my RASA. Think I've got the spacing right by adding some adapters I had laying around, so ready to test tonight. Still looking at getting the OAG to come into proper focus but I think I'll manage.
  13. angryowl
    Thanks for the incredible generosity of @souls33k3r I now have an OAG and a C8 on borrow which I'm hoping to put to the test tomorow night if the forecast holds true. Planning on testing the C8 on the mount guided and unguided and then fit the OAG to the RASA to see if it makes any sort of improvement. Will report back once I have some results.
  14. angryowl
    Hi Steve Would love to get my hands on an OAG or another scope as that would at least eliminate the mount as the issue. In absence of an OAG or scope I’ll try to find a way to mount the 60mm guider with the QHY5L-II directly on the mount and see how that performs. The image scale of the Atik 414EX/RASA is 2.15” and the guider/QHY5L-II is 2.97” so results could be comparable.
  15. angryowl
    A couple of months ago I did reach out to Bernard from Modern Astronomy in the hope he would liaise with Lucas with regards to what I thought at the time was a mount issue. But then I played around with the Ra ticks and managed to get acceptable stars around my object at the time so just thought that was the problem and told Bernard to put this on hold for now. If I get nowhere with this, I'll definitely try and get Lucas to have a look at this as it may be something he’s seen before.
  16. angryowl
    Vlaiv - I had considered that, and it would perhaps be the best way to get to the bottom of this as it could correct for mount tracking errors (if there are any) and any mirror or scope flexure. Unfortunately I don't know anyone with an OAG so sadly not a possibility at them moment. Michael - I remember running the PHD Assistant a few times but at the time didn't look at the Ra curve in particular. Will definitely be doing this then next time I'm out imaging.
  17. angryowl
    Another test I've done when looking at differential flexure was the same as above with the only difference that none of the cameras were guiding, just monitoring the guide star in each image. 50 degrees elevation with the scope pointing South. First image is through the guide scope, second is through the main scope
  18. angryowl
    Dave - I have both guide and debug logs from the last imaging session whilst imaging NGC 281. I have gone through guide logs both in PHD and the PHD Log viewer to see if I may be missing something, but the graphs all look flat and usually my RMS never exceeds 0.5”. A quick peak at the guide graph in PHD Log Viewer Guided Unguided Here's the guide log for this night PHD2_GuideLog_2019-02-15_182355.txt Could I be right in assuming that this is due to the fact that PHD can guide small deviations just fine, but struggles with larger ones and simply can’t see the guide star drift out that much over the course of a longer exposure. So PHD thinks it’s doing a great job and correcting small movements while not being able to cope with the large drift. Hence the reason of flat guide graphs. I may well be wrong on this but this is my theory so far. A few months ago, I tried an experiment to see if I find differential flex between the RASA and guidescope by running two PHD sessions in parallel. One session for each guidescope and main scope and only the guide camera was issuing guiding commands to the mount, the main camera was just monitoring the star over the course of 10 minutes. Tried to orient both cameras as closely as possible but managed to get them close enough. As can be seen the guide camera happily guided away with a relatively flat graph, but the monitored star in the main camera was drifting considerably.
  19. angryowl
    To illustrate the issue better, these are four 300 second exposures guided. Guiding was helpful in this case, but up to a point after which it couldn't keep up with the drift. I would have to stop guiding and exposing and re-centre the image every five subs otherwise it would slowly drift quite a ways.
  20. angryowl
    When pressure's applied on the top bar, the movement seems to be in both Ra and Dec.
  21. angryowl
    I always get down to or less than 30" PA with SharpCap. Since having this issue, I always do another iteration of PA to confirm and it's always spot on. This is also true of the PHD PA routines.
  22. angryowl
    Thanks for the suggestions Michael. The Mesu shouldn't need to be East-heavy from what I understand as it's friction drive and has no backlash. But I did balance East-heavy on two occasions and it made no difference. The PE is meant to be 4" peak to peak, but not had a chance to either measure or do a PEC run.
  23. angryowl
    To add two more things I’ve considered so far. I doubt it is polar mis alignment as the drift direction and amount is consistent throughout the entire frame. From what I know, PA issues should show up in the image with varying amounts of drift throughout the stars in the field with the corners being most affected. Although the FOV with the Atik 414EX is rather small, I imagine bad PA would still look different. Another possibility is that one of the four elements in the secondary may have somehow gotten loose? I doubt this as the aberrations would have been visible in the stars in the image by now.
  24. angryowl
    Here’s two 10 minute consecutive exposures with the mirror unlocked and locked. Very odd to say the least, baffled as to why the direction in elongation, after locking the mirror down, changed direction like that. Again Ra is up-down and Dec left-right.
  25. angryowl
    Much appreciated mate ?. Might actually have to take you up on that it seems.
×
×
  • 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.