Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry to ignore everyone. I’ve had lots of ideas and will be trying them out on 22Oct – weather permitting. I’ll report back.
Sheridan Williams
Latitude set approximately but scale on side only allows 2-3 degrees precision. N/S done with compass and checked roughly with Pole star.
Powers up successfully and goes home, bings & bongs, lights on mount OK. Location set using GPS coordinates, time checked too in software every time scope used.
Set sidereal tracking, slew to an object (doesn’t appear in finder scope) use hand controller to correct. It then stays centred in view in view for viewing session by visitors (15 minutes).
Surely approximate alignment would not need TPoint. The scope is being used for Cub, Guides, Brownies etc who are only viewing for 20 minute sessions.
We have a problem with TPoint in that we need to use objects around the sky which are obscured by buildings and lights (the OU is probably the most light polluting place in MK!) They have also placed building and trees in places that obscure the sky.Sheridan Williams
The gear problem was sorted. The system is exactly as we inherited and was working fine. It had Sky 6, so no need to pay to upgrade software. USB adapter checked and working fine.
Sheridan Williams
First problem is I cannot set up the mount accurately N/S and altitude. Having done that approximately and aligning an object and synching, it will not slew back to it later.
Another way I tried was to slew to an object, then physically adjust the mount in RA and Dec. This slews back to the original object but fails to slew to a new object.Sheridan Williams
Thanks Paul and Nick. It must be usable on a range of equipment that we demonstrate at the Open University, from a 14″ Celestron f10 to a 66mm William Optics refractor, and Lunt solar scope.
I’ve also been recommended the Altair 585C and Altair 678C, both of which I think use the same sensor.
The Starlight cameras are all a bit expensive I’m afraid.
Probably go with Nick’s suggestion.Sheridan Williams
No-one spotted the obvious problem from all the error messages!
The clutch controls were not engaged properly.
Saved us a fortune phew.
By the way it works fine on Sky6.
Anyway, thanks for everyone’s input it certainly helped narrow down the problemSheridan Williams
Balance checked OK.
I’ve been getting the attached error messages, so I checked the PC’s port settings and it might be an old serial-USB adapter so I’ll try another one.
Also we are using Sky6 so maybe we need SkyX.
Any ideas?Attachments:
Sheridan Williams
These were previously done when before I tried to use the scope:
Install TheSkyX
Install the driver
Connect USB cable to mount
Set mount into balance position and reengage the gear. (Not sure what reengage the gear means)I then:
Power up mount
Sync the laptop time in Windows
Run TheSkyX
Made sure your location is set (Google earth can give long/lat)
Told TheSkyX to Connect to mount (yes it’s an older mount and selected the COM port first)
Told TheSkyX to Home (listen for 2 tones as it slews in RA/Dec)
From then on the mount keeps constantly beeping and will not respond to slew requests with out giving an error.I live a few miles from the obsevatory and can’t interact with an advisor as I try different things, it needs to be set up urgently and we are happy to pay someone to help if anyone is available.
Sheridan Williams
We have been given the mount and I’ve tried following the manual however…
I switched the scope on and loaded The Sky software, the software recognised the scope and when I clicked on Home it slewed to a position different to where I found it.I managed to slew to an object so got quite excited. I tried the joystick hand controller and this only worked in E-W not in N-S.
I checked the time which was correct and then checked the location which was set for somewhere in the US. So I changed this to the exact lat/long for the observatory.
From then on nothing worked, the scope started bleeping and the was no way to stop it doing so.
Slewing gives an error code: 2003
When I clicked on Home I got error code 212.
We would gladly pay you out of club funds to help us set it up.
Could you respond to: sw@clock-tower.com or phone 07767 788146?Sheridan Williams
Many years ago after I scanned and digitised all the BAA Journals from 1890 I scanned all the Circulars, The Moon, the Handbooks, Memoirs and several of Waterfield, Lenham, Peek and Elger material.
It is strange that apart from the Journals this material is not accessible to members in the same way as the Journals.
Sheridan Williams
I took over from Gordon as Director of the Computing Section. His main role was the BAA Handbook and he passed me all his software written in the oldest version of BASIC I’d seen, but it worked. I visited his place many times and he was incredibly friendly and helpful. He was still running into his early 90s and was full of beans. I’ll certainly miss him.
Sheridan Williams
I may be wrong but the latest Sky Notes by Brian Mills (Vol.125 No.3 P.184) reproduces data from the Handbook without any credit or mention whatsoever.
Surely the Handbook should be mentioned out of courtesy.
Sheridan Williams
With such vast financial resources this is something that the BAA could take on and save affiliated societies money. Rather telling that it is down to the RAS to provide this service to amateur societies!
Sheridan Williams
Please let’s end this discussion. There have been some very good postings, but I still think that the absolute beginner should experiment with simple images, and only then graduate to using calibration frames. Graham’s book is aimed at absolute beginners and should have been reviewed as such.
Sheridan Williams
Alex, I’m afraid that Graham has gone for good as a result of David’s unfair review. What of the future for the computing section? I wonder why David has not defended his review in public?
Sheridan Williams
The trouble is that as a result of David’s (over-critical in many people’s opinion) review we have lost an extremely valuable member of the Association and section webmaster. The Computing section’s future is in jeopardy as the workload has increased to a level that I’m not happy to bear without such a skilled and knowledgeable webmaster.
Sheridan Williams
If you subtract a dark frame you are ADDING more random (thermal) noise, just as much as if you add a real data frame to the stack. If you add enough frames the random noise eventually smoothes out, and this happens whether they are dark frames or data frames. But with dark frames you are adding only noise, not signal. Therefore it is better to stack as many real data frames as you can. There is no problem using 100 data frames! Mechanical shutters in DSLRs are rated at well over 100,000 operations (MTBF) and in compact cameras the “shutter” is electronic and so should have no practical limit (something else will fail first).
So the key is to use MANY exposures and appropriate stacking software. (Fixed-pattern noise and bad pixels are smoothed out by the fact that images taken on fixed tripods or unguided EQ mounts are all shifted in relation to each other, which the stacking process addresses.)
As to the idea that you cannot use bottom-of-the-range cameras, that is also wrong.
Sheridan Williams
I think we ought to go back to the subtitle, which explains what the book is about. David says “But I disliked the didactic style and felt the author had not thought-through at what audience it was aimed” both Graham and I were definite about the target audience as the subtitle says. Personally I prefer a didactic style, and obviously Graham does too, saying you dislike the didactic style is like saying you didn’t like the font or size of the book. Many people I have spoken to say they thought the review a bit nit-picking. The review will inevitably result in a loss of sales so Graham feels he will be out of pocket on his first self-publishing venture and we have lost his goodwill and membership.
Sheridan Williams
