Guiding Error Tests Part 2
After my initial
tests, I realized that in order to get a clearer picture I needed to
do many more tests and have much better control to get any useful
information.
Tonight I did the following
tests:
-
Baseline tracking
without periodic error correction (PEC) or guiding. This test
establishes the mechanical error inherent in the mount.
-
Tracking plus autoguider
at 2 second rate of correction. This test measures a realistic
situation with a moderately faint guidestar.
-
Tracking plus autoguider
at 1 second rate of correction. This is perhaps the most common
situation one would see in the field.
-
Tracking plus autoguider
at 0.2 second rate of correction. As discovered in my previous
test, this provided the best tracking accuracy.
-
Baseline tracking with
periodic error correction (PEC). This test shows how much a
rudamentary PEC training session improves tracking performance.
-
PEC plus autoguider at 1
second rate of correction. This is the test to see if PEC helps
at all to improve tracking performance over just using the autoguider.
The following were the
conditions of the test:
Date: November
6th 2007 - 8:30PM to 12:30AM
Seeing: Slightly hazy, overall medium to poor sky quality.
I wouldn't bother taking the scope out on a night like this, but stars
were visible and I was itching to do these tests.
Scope: Astro-Physics 160 EDF (1200mm focal length) Test Camera: Philips SPC900NC Webcam using
K3CCD
Tools 3.0 to log the data.
Mount: Orion Atlas EQ-G using EQMOD
Guide Scope: Orion 80mm Guidescope (910 mm focal
length) Autoguide Camera: Meade
DSI II using PHD to autoguide.
Test conditions: As learned from the previous
test, the scope
was left unbalanced exactly the same as the final test that yielded the
best results on the previous test. The balance was not changed for
any of the tests tonight. Each test was for approximately 1000
seconds (16min 40 seconds) to mimic about the longest exposure I would
expect to use with my DSLR camera. Both guide camera (Meade DSI II)
and monitor camera (Philips SPC900NC) were carefully focused to optimize
results. Guiding was performed using the default settings in PHD
Guide and the default settings in EQMOD pulse guide of x0.10 on both RA
and DEC. The first 4 tests were using the same 6th magnitude star
high in the Eastern sky at about +5 degrees declination. For the 5th
and 6th tests I moved the scope to a different star about 10 degrees East
due to the
fact that by the time I got to the 5th and 6th test, the first star had moved
to very near the meridian. Moving past the meridian would have
seriously impacted performance with the mount unbalanced on the counterweight
side as the balanced
shifted. The second star was very close to the same
magnitude and less than a degree different in declination.
Polar alignment: The mount was polar aligned simply using the
polar alignment scope. During the unguided tests I saw about 7 arc
seconds of Declination drift in 1000 seconds of tracking. I consider
this good polar alignment. However, see the Potential issues below.
PEC training: I trained the mount for 1000 seconds using the
same star as the 5th and 6th tests using PERecorder. I saved the PEC
training session using all the default settings in EQMOD. I didn't
change the Phase Shift or Gain in EQMOD.
Potential issues: During unguided tests the mount showed
significant drift to the West. You can see these trends in the raw data
gifs below. Even though the average error was only 26 arc
seconds, most of the RA drift was to the West with the PE curve stepping
Westward. I can't explain why this would occur. It may
be due to K3CCD seeing some Dec drift as RA drift with the camera not
being perfectly square to the axis of the mount. However I was
pretty careful to align the axis of the camera to the movements of the
mount by slewing back and forth with the crosshairs turned on with K3CCD
Tools.
I ran out of time during
these tests (it being a work night and all) to test PEC plus autoguider at 2 second rate of
correction. Before doing longer exposure tests, I would like to spend more time improving the PEC
performance as I feel there could be a lot of improvement there which
could substantially improve the PEC results.
Lets get right to the
results. All values are in arc seconds.
Data
Summery |
|
Baseline
PE Test 1 |
|
2
Sec Guide
Test 2 |
1
Sec Guide
Test 3 |
0.2
Sec Guide
Test 4 |
|
Baseline
PEC
Test 5 |
1
Sec Guide PEC
Test 6 |
Max
+ |
24.65 |
|
2.01 |
1.17 |
1.09 |
|
13.12 |
1.44 |
Max
- |
26.17 |
|
2.91 |
1.61 |
1.18 |
|
18.08 |
2.1 |
Avg
+ |
12.87 |
|
0.97 |
0.47 |
0.44 |
|
5.86 |
0.46 |
Avg
- |
13.01 |
|
0.96 |
0.68 |
0.44 |
|
5.86 |
0.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Periodic
Error Correction vs. No Periodic Error Correction |
|
Baseline PE
Test1 |
|
Baseline PEC
Test 5 |
Improvement |
|
|
|
|
Max
+ |
24.65 |
|
13.12 |
11.53 |
|
|
|
|
Max
- |
26.17 |
|
18.08 |
8.09 |
|
|
|
|
Avg
+ |
12.87 |
|
5.86 |
7.01 |
|
|
|
|
Avg
- |
13.01 |
|
5.86 |
7.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
Second Autoguiding with and without Periodic Error Correction |
|
1 Sec Guide
Test 3 |
|
1 Sec Guide PEC
Test 6 |
Improvement |
|
|
|
|
Max
+ |
1.17 |
|
1.44 |
-0.27 |
|
|
|
|
Max
- |
1.61 |
|
2.1 |
-0.49 |
|
|
|
|
Avg
+ |
0.47 |
|
0.46 |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
Avg
- |
0.68 |
|
0.45 |
0.23 |
|
|
|
|
Test 1:
Test 2:
Test 3:
Test 4:
Test 5:
Test 6:
Conclusion:
The main reason I wanted to do these tests was to determine if the new
EQMOD PEC would work with guiding or if they would conflict. Clearly
the mount tracks fine with PEC and guiding. As one would expect, the
quicker the guiding, the less need there would be for PEC. With 0.2
second guiding there is probably no need for PEC. At 1 second
guiding, the PEC didn't make any difference in the maximum error, but it
did improve the average error significantly.
At this time, I feel I need
to work on improving the PEC as reports on the EQMOD Yahoo Group indicate
that some users are getting +/- 3 arc second PE compared to my +/- 18 arc
second PE. Once I get significantly improved PEC I will redo these
tests.
Testing with autoguider
corrections longer than 2 seconds is probably not necessary, assuming one
is guiding at all. With 2 second exposures pointed at almost any
random spot in the sky will show a suitable guidestar with a camera such
as the Meade DSI II on an 80mm guidescope.
Home
|