Date   

Re: AP 140EDF4 - Current Field Flattener and TCC Offerings

Roland Christen
 

Yes, it will work also.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Tyrel Smith <tysmith747@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Mar 10, 2021 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] AP 140EDF4 - Current Field Flattener and TCC Offerings

That's great news Roland, thank you! Thanks for the simulation as well.

Would that mean the 13035FF flattener would also work?


Re: AP 140EDF4 - Current Field Flattener and TCC Offerings

Tyrel Smith
 

That's great news Roland, thank you! Thanks for the simulation as well.

Would that mean the 13035FF flattener would also work?


Re: AP 140EDF4 - Current Field Flattener and TCC Offerings

Roland Christen
 

Our standard QTCC (same one that we use for the 130GTX) will work very well for the 140F7.5.

To cover a 42mm diameter field for a 35mm format, the ideal spacing from the back of the flange will be 88.6mm with no extra spacer ring.
To cover a 52mm diameter field for larger chips, the ideal spacing is reduced by 1mm to 87.6mm.

Here is what the image will look like in RGB of a white star from the center to the edge of a 42mm circle at the spacing of 88.6mm:

Roland Christen




-----Original Message-----
From: Tyrel Smith <tysmith747@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Mar 10, 2021 8:22 pm
Subject: [ap-ug] AP 140EDF4 - Current Field Flattener and TCC Offerings

Hello everyone!

I'm all atwitter with anticipation as I've just purchased this scope and await it's arrival on Friday. I own A-P mounts and accessories but this is my first A-P scope, and I'm very much looking forward to the experience for both visual and imaging. I realized prior to purchase that the original 4" flattener and TCC that were recommended for this scope (and the f7 155) are no longer in production. Here is the original release document excerpt mentioning both:

"Choose from a full line of photographic accessories for CCD imaging, 35mm, digital and medium format film photography. These include the 4" Prime Focus Field Flattener (S155EDFFF) and the new, dedicated 0.76x CCD Telecompressor Corrector (155TCC). With the 4" field flattener, it will cover a 100mm circle at f7.8, and with the 155TCC, it will cover approximately a 57mm circle at f5.7."

I'm wondering what current production offerings will perform best with a full frame chip in mind for imaging. I'm very much hoping that, using the 4" to 3.5" end cap adapter ADA435, the QTCC and field flattener for the 130 GTX will work. Since they have the same connection method and can easily be swapped, this is a very appealing option. I realize two scopes have pretty different specs. Would the 4" flattener for the 160 be a compatible option instead? I was told this has the same connection method as the QTCC for the 130 GTX.

I have an email in with the shop, but thought I'd follow that up here for posterity. Most of the information I could find on this site about the 140 is from 2007 or so. I did see a more recent post where Roland hinted the QTCC would work with the 155 EDF (unless I misread that), and I believe the same components for the 155 were supposed to be compatible with the 140. I eventually researched myself into a state of mild uncertainty, so thought I'd drop in here and see what the pro's have to say.

I've not yet decided if I will install my WR35 Nitecrawler on the scope for imaging (the stock focuser is so purdy!), but if I do I already have the Moonlite 3.5" dovetail endcap for the QTCC and 3.5" Field Flattener. I used both of these with great success on a TEC140ED, but only with a 16200 chip. 

Tyrel


AP 140EDF4 - Current Field Flattener and TCC Offerings

Tyrel Smith
 

Hello everyone!

I'm all atwitter with anticipation as I've just purchased this scope and await it's arrival on Friday. I own A-P mounts and accessories but this is my first A-P scope, and I'm very much looking forward to the experience for both visual and imaging. I realized prior to purchase that the original 4" flattener and TCC that were recommended for this scope (and the f7 155) are no longer in production. Here is the original release document excerpt mentioning both:

"Choose from a full line of photographic accessories for CCD imaging, 35mm, digital and medium format film photography. These include the 4" Prime Focus Field Flattener (S155EDFFF) and the new, dedicated 0.76x CCD Telecompressor Corrector (155TCC). With the 4" field flattener, it will cover a 100mm circle at f7.8, and with the 155TCC, it will cover approximately a 57mm circle at f5.7."

I'm wondering what current production offerings will perform best with a full frame chip in mind for imaging. I'm very much hoping that, using the 4" to 3.5" end cap adapter ADA435, the QTCC and field flattener for the 130 GTX will work. Since they have the same connection method and can easily be swapped, this is a very appealing option. I realize two scopes have pretty different specs. Would the 4" flattener for the 160 be a compatible option instead? I was told this has the same connection method as the QTCC for the 130 GTX.

I have an email in with the shop, but thought I'd follow that up here for posterity. Most of the information I could find on this site about the 140 is from 2007 or so. I did see a more recent post where Roland hinted the QTCC would work with the 155 EDF (unless I misread that), and I believe the same components for the 155 were supposed to be compatible with the 140. I eventually researched myself into a state of mild uncertainty, so thought I'd drop in here and see what the pro's have to say.

I've not yet decided if I will install my WR35 Nitecrawler on the scope for imaging (the stock focuser is so purdy!), but if I do I already have the Moonlite 3.5" dovetail endcap for the QTCC and 3.5" Field Flattener. I used both of these with great success on a TEC140ED, but only with a 16200 chip. 

Tyrel


Re: Photo m51Stackprocessed.jpeg uploaded #photo-notice

Stuart
 

Wonderful detail! A tad greenish on my screen but subtly so. 


On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 21:55, main@ap-ug.groups.io Notification <noreply@groups.io> wrote:

The following photos have been uploaded to the JMD Pre ED AP Starfire album of the main@ap-ug.groups.io group.

By: deitzelj <deitzelj@...>


Re: Mach 1 guiding

lynn foxlandrider.com
 

Thank you for your observations and critique. ...all well taken.

Can anyone suggest reasonable dither setting? The forums are all over the place. I'm sure there isn't "a one size fits all" but a place to start? I understand the principal and the basic settings in both SGP and PHD2, but what settings are a little elusive. I just switched from a ASI 294 to a 2600. With the 294, the larger dithers seemed to really help the noise, but now I'm back to square one with the 2600.

Next clear night, I'll add a screen shot of the graph...unless there is another way yo do it.

One more question. Is there a source for a decent explanation of the guiding numbers? I would really like to have a better understanding of what I am looking at night after night.

Thanks again for your time.....:-)


Lynn 


Re: Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

Arsic, Miroslav
 

Very clear for me !!!
Thanks and very nice drawing !

Miro


Re: Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

Arsic, Miroslav
 

Hello Jeff,

I am also using the Baader adapter (Baader 2458221 - Adapter from M68f to 2.7 "f (AP)) and it works very good for me.

Miro


Re: Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

Arsic, Miroslav
 
Edited

Thanks Hambrick for the information regarding the backfocus tolerance.
Also thanks for Doveloc adapter screws, I will pay attention.

Regarding the adapter, I am using the Baader adpapter and it looks good.

Miro


Re: Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

Arsic, Miroslav
 

Thanks Dominique, I will pay attention to those screws.

Miro


Re: Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

Arsic, Miroslav
 

Many thanks Botero,

Very clear for me, I will use this process.

Miro


Photo m51Stackprocessed.jpeg uploaded #photo-notice

main@ap-ug.groups.io Notification <noreply@...>
 

The following photos have been uploaded to the JMD Pre ED AP Starfire album of the main@ap-ug.groups.io group.

By: deitzelj <deitzelj@...>


Re: Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

Dominique
 

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 11:31 AM, Jeffc wrote:
This is a timely thread as I would also like to use the 92TCC or 92FF with a ccd camera (in this case, at the moment, with ST8300m+FW8 and possibly the OAG).
 
However I’m not able to find a suitable adapter for the camera side of the 92TCC.
 
What adapter are you using between the 92TCC/92FF and the camera/filter wheel?
Something from AP?, or precise-parts?
 
Btw , where is 92TCC/92FF backfocus of 64.1mm measured from?
 
Thx
-jeff 
 
Ps
I do have the canon EOS adapters for the 92TCC/92FF and ST8300m side also … but these adapters precludes using the OAG.  
 
Also it looks like ST8300+FW8+OAG+TheadedAdapter backfocus is 57.5mm according to http://diffractionlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/backfocus.993x0.gif 
Hi Jeff,
I found this to switch to M48 behind the 92TCC.
Baader 2458221 - Adapter from M68f to 2.7 "f (AP)
and
TS-Optics M68 System - Adapter from M68 to M48x0.75
It was easier for me than the specific order with Precise Parts.

Dominique


VIDEO - Modifying an Astro-Physics DOVEKREP to fit a 1600GTO Mount

Harley Davidson
 

I ended up "modifying" an Astro-Physics DOVEKREP so it would work with the 1600GTO Mount.

Modifying an Astro-Physics DOVEKREP to fit a 1600GTO Mount
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULDkyZh4GqM


tony


Re: The Pup w/130EDT

Jay Freeman
 

I recall in one of the original "ATM" books (edited by Ingalls, in great part reprints of stuff from the Scientific American), there was a description of similar imaging -- of either the Pup or Rigel B -- using a mask to blur out the diffraction spikes from the diagonal support of a reflector.

-- Jay Reynolds Freeman
---------------------
Jay_Reynolds_Freeman@...
http://JayReynoldsFreeman.com
(personal web site)

On Mar 9, 2021, at 12:57 PM, Chris Cook <chris@...> wrote:


Normally, putting anything in front of an A-P objective is considered sacrilegious but in this case well done.  I'll need to make one of those masks!
 
Chris
 


 
----- Original Message -----
From: Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Reply-To: <main@ap-ug.groups.io>
To: <main@ap-ug.groups.io>
Sent: 3/9/2021 2:50:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] The Pup w/130EDT

The hexagon mask is a great idea.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: djmcc@...
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] The Pup w/130EDT

Chris,
I imaged Saturn in 2006 with a 155EDFS on March 3, and then on the same night imaged Rigel with and without a hexagonal mask I had read about and was testing. Avi files were generated with a ToUcam (we've come a long way since then) and then frames were stacked with Registax. I included Saturn to show that seeing was pretty good that night for suburban Houston. Rigel image 868 was made without a mask.  The simple hexagonal mask in Hexagon-1.jpg didn't make much difference.  I then tried taping the mask in Hexagon-2 over the front, resulting in Rigel A and B in image 867.


Re: The Pup w/130EDT

Chris Cook
 

Normally, putting anything in front of an A-P objective is considered sacrilegious but in this case well done.  I'll need to make one of those masks!
 
Chris
 


 

----- Original Message -----
From: Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Reply-To: <main@ap-ug.groups.io>
To: <main@ap-ug.groups.io>
Sent: 3/9/2021 2:50:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] The Pup w/130EDT

The hexagon mask is a great idea.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: djmcc@...
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] The Pup w/130EDT

Chris,
I imaged Saturn in 2006 with a 155EDFS on March 3, and then on the same night imaged Rigel with and without a hexagonal mask I had read about and was testing. Avi files were generated with a ToUcam (we've come a long way since then) and then frames were stacked with Registax. I included Saturn to show that seeing was pretty good that night for suburban Houston. Rigel image 868 was made without a mask.  The simple hexagonal mask in Hexagon-1.jpg didn't make much difference.  I then tried taping the mask in Hexagon-2 over the front, resulting in Rigel A and B in image 867.


Re: Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

DFisch
 

A picture is worth 1000 words but a fine annotated drawing and picture is probably worth 10,000 words

Thanks Mike, that is a keeper

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 14:48 Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Mike,

Your drawings are SUPER!

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: M Hambrick <mhambrick563@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 12:26 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

Hi Jeff

The backfocus is measured from the back face of the 92FF or 92TCC (dimension X in the sketch below). The 64.1 mm (2.524") backfocus is the sum of dimensions A + B + C

You will likely need to order an adapter from Precise Parts. The one shown in red is what I ordered to fit my SBIG camera. If you need shims (see my comments in the thread above), they will need to fit inside the adapter.

Mike

--
TJF MOBILE


Re: The Pup w/130EDT

Roland Christen
 

The hexagon mask is a great idea.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: djmcc@...
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] The Pup w/130EDT

Chris,
I imaged Saturn in 2006 with a 155EDFS on March 3, and then on the same night imaged Rigel with and without a hexagonal mask I had read about and was testing. Avi files were generated with a ToUcam (we've come a long way since then) and then frames were stacked with Registax. I included Saturn to show that seeing was pretty good that night for suburban Houston. Rigel image 868 was made without a mask.  The simple hexagonal mask in Hexagon-1.jpg didn't make much difference.  I then tried taping the mask in Hexagon-2 over the front, resulting in Rigel A and B in image 867.


Re: Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

Roland Christen
 

Mike,

Your drawings are SUPER!

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: M Hambrick <mhambrick563@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 12:26 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Setting backfocus and tilt with Stowaway 92 and 92TCC or 92FF

Hi Jeff

The backfocus is measured from the back face of the 92FF or 92TCC (dimension X in the sketch below). The 64.1 mm (2.524") backfocus is the sum of dimensions A + B + C

You will likely need to order an adapter from Precise Parts. The one shown in red is what I ordered to fit my SBIG camera. If you need shims (see my comments in the thread above), they will need to fit inside the adapter.

Mike


Re: Mach 1 guiding

Roland Christen
 

Thanks Brian. A lot of that makes sense. I would like to see a 10 minute guide graph showing corrections. It will give further information that is not present below.

Roland



-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Valente <bvalente@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 11:22 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Mach 1 guiding

Hi Lynn

i'm not sure if you are referring to "within each guiding session" or "over the whole night" but i'll try to address both 

Looking at your guidelog, here are a couple observations:

In segment 3 your first half total RMS was 0.67" and your second half total RMS was 0.74"
image.png

image.png

your guidestar SNR dropped a few times during the second half, maybe some passing high clouds? but that to me would explain the difference there
image.png


in your last run segment 6 the first half total RMS was 1.07, the second half total RMS was 1.09"

I would say that's pretty much identical guiding 
image.png
image.png

Regarding the differences between the two sessions, on the guiding performance there is a lot more high frequency noise in the uncorrectable guiding in second sesssion

image.png
image.png

might be due to your differences in altitude, but also i can see a gradual drop-off in your guidestar SNR, suggesting seeing conditions worsened or just going lower in the sky on your second run

 
image.png



as an aside you might consider random vs. spiral dither? you have some pretty huge dithers there that seem unnecessary


On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:55 AM lynn foxlandrider.com <Lynn@...> wrote:
Here is the guide log and pics of the PHD2 settings. Next time out, Ill take a screen shot of the PHD2 graphs.....it won't be for a while due to clouds......

In my case, looking at this info is like a monkey looking at a watch......:-)

Thanks all 


--
Brian 



Brian Valente

921 - 940 of 85587