CHriss OK, thank you for your help and hope the osicllation won't appear
Getting the best performance from my AM5
As far as I'm concerned the 2.9s-period oscillations are still there (measured amplitude 0.9") with the beta version of the ASIAIR app (that includes an update to the ASIAIR itself). I have an ongoing conversation with ZWO Support so I'll keep you posted on where this is going.
This is complete and utter madness.
That unit must be faulty....
Jan75 I replied you by email. Maybe some parameters changes would help.
CHriss Would you please contact our support by email. He'll give you the beta version of ASIAIR which is useful mostly to solve the RA oscillation issuse.
Thank you.
Thanks but note I'm not using ASIAIR.
There must be some general issue with the AM5, using Google numerous reports of this osciallation issue can be found.
I currently have the feeling that it might have to do with the orientation of the scope (so far it seems it happens mostly when pointing at some target 10-15° around the zenith) or maybe/also the load of the mount plays a role. I'm currently using an Askar FRA400 which is quite leightweight.
ASIMount@ZWO Thank you, will test however the parameters I was using were already close to those suggested, with the exception of the guide rate which so far I couldn't change on Asiair to anything else than 0.5x sidereal. I will check if the new beta version allows me to do it.
PS: To avoid sounding cryptic to other users, here are the parameters that I got as a recommendation:
Change guide exposure from 1 to .5 sec [had that already]
Change guide rate from 0.5x to 0.3x [new to me as I had assumed 0.5x was hard coded in Asiair]
Change Max RA/DEC duration from 120ms to 200ms [I tried multiple values, my latest test was at 250 ms already]
- Edited
Hi Astro Friends. Thank you for your impressive work and help you provide. I wanted to kindly ask if anyone could help me with the calculation of the values based on my AM5 test protocol. I have read through dozens of messages on this thread but still don't understand and am getting nowhere.
Current setup with WO Redcat 51/250, AM5, Asiair+, WO 32/120mm Uniguide w. ASI220MM Mini.
Clear skies and thank you very much! Stefan
Kevin_A Thanks. It's strange that @ASIMount@ZWO is asking me to change a parameter that cannot be changed. I tried both the Asiair beta app (provided by ZWO) and the ASI Mount app, I confirm the guide rate cannot be changed in any of those. Crossing fingers that they provide the option in their next release - all while wondering why they haven't done it already. If that changes anything, that is...
- Edited
Very interesting thread. Although this may be trivial, isn’t there a relationship between one’s maximum periodic error and guiding accuracy, in the “no better than” sense?
If one had a pure sine wave as the periodic error, with a perfect sidereal wavelength, one would expect the maximum slope to be dy/dx = amplitude * 2pi * (wavelength)^-1 at the zero crossing.
To put real numbers to it, my max. P.E. is reported as 9.6 arc-sec peak to trough, and my 300:1 sidereal wavelength is roughly 287 sec. Therefore if my periodic error was a pure sine wave with no harmonic content I should expect no better than 0.105 arc-sec/sec as a reality check when measuring the slope on my graph. I am getting a worst slope of 0.19 arc-sec/sec.
Apologies in advance if I am missing something, I’m new to guiding…
- Edited
matt_d Therefore if my periodic error was a pure sine wave with no harmonic content I should expect no better than 0.105 arc-sec/sec as a reality check when measuring the slope on my graph.
Yep, that is correct, if there are no harmonics, you would expect that a guide star would move by 0.105 arcsec for every second that of your guide camera exposure time. With a 1 second exposure time, the guide star would have moved by 0.105 arc seconds by the time you finished the exposure (a small star trailing that causes a lag in the feedback loop).
Remember too that you are measuring the slopes where it is avaialble of that sheet of paper. What ZWO shows is the part of the curve where p-p error is worst, not where the slope is worst.
However, notice that the harmonics from your perfect sine wave are quite destructive, since the second harmonic's slope (look at the chain rule when taking the derivative) will cause 2x the ∆y/∆t for a given p-p amplitude, the 3rd harmonic will contribute 3x, etc... These are exactly what causes the curves not to look sinusoidal. The more wiggles or flat topping, the higher the harmonic content (for example, a perfectly flat top square wave would produce a slope that is equal to the slope from the fundamental, the slope of the fifth harmonic of a square wave is also equal to the slope of the fundamental, etc).
So, what you can hope for is that the harmonics die down rapidly, and there is no flat regions anywhere in the curve -- which is not true for many of the curves that we already see.
If you are using an ASIAIR, you will also find another limiting factor, not from the gears, but from how the ASIAIR computes the centroid for the multiple star case. For 10 to 12 stars, and exposures around 0.5 seconds, the limiting factor is in the region of 0.3" to 0.45" RMS (i.e., even if your mount can do better, the total (RA + declnation) long term autoguiding will be limited to the 0.5" RMS. If you add 20 dB of gain beyond 12 stars (to saturate the brighter stars so that they get excluded from the centroid averaging), you can do a bit better and get it down to the 0.25" region depending on the region of the sky that you are getting guide stars from (just for the RA or declination individually), and only if your mount's mechanical precision allows it.
All this is for guiding at the celestial equator. As you move closer to the pole, the RA error goes down (right at the pole, there is no RA error at all -- the RA error is just the centroid extimate error that I described above). Don't get fooled by "good numbers" that shills put out on YouTube when the image is taken within 45º of the pole.
Chen
Thank you for your reply. The PHD log file does show a prominent 3rd RA harmonic, however the total RMS remains below my pixel scale and the first few images I have obtained are suitably evocative. Is there a maximum RMS error/pixel scale that you find to be acceptable to get the most out of your glass?
- Edited
matt_d Is there a maximum RMS error/pixel scale that you find to be acceptable to get the most out of your glass?
I find that how well you need to guide depends most on two things. One is the spot diagram of the glass, and the other is the "seeing."
If all the random processes are independent, you can basically sum all the variances. I.e., the resultant RMS (which is basically the standard deviation) is simply sqrt( rms12 + rms22 + rms32 + ...) where rmsx is the RMS (standard deviation) of each thing that contributes to the error, and since standard deviation squared is the variance, the different variances simply add if they are independent events.
That is why "total rms" is just sqrt( rmsRA2 + rmsDeclination2).
Centroid estimation has its own RMS error, etc etc. And so is atmosperic turbulence.
Now, we look at the spot diagram of OTAs (I do not buy an OTA that has no published spot diagram). You will find something from SharpStar/Askar OTAs to have chromatic spot diagrams of the order of 30 arc seconds even at the optical axis. This is the spot diagram of an Askar FRA600 at the optical axis (notice the blue bloat):
Obviously, if the seeing contributes 3 arcsec and the autoguiding contibutes 1 arc sec, their total contribution is tiny (since we square the RMS values) compared to the already bloated 30 arc seconds. I.e., you will only bloat the total RMS to sqrt( 900 + 9 + 1 ) = 30.2 arc sec. But this is because the spot diagram is so large to start with.
But if you take Japanese optics with 10 arc second type spot diagrams, then the total RMS becoms sqrt( 100+9+1) = 10.5 arc sec. I.e., you have bloated the star by a larger 5%. This is the FSQ-106 (similar aperture as the Askar above) (note that the side of the square is 100µm instead of 200µm for the Askar spot diagram):
(Notice lack of blue bloat.)
This is the spot diagrams for the FOA-60Q (has the best Strehl number for Takahashi OTAs):
Notice that the on-axis spot diagram is even better than the FSQ-106. It has a tiny aperture (60mm) though, and a large f-number(f/15), so I only use one for solar work (which ironically, don't need autoguiding)
So, how well you need/want to guide depends on the rest of your equipment (not even accounting for how well they are collimated by technicians before shipping it to you).
Similarly, if the seeing is 3 arc seconds, then trying to autoguide to 0.3 arc second is wasted.
Chen
matt_d The PHD log file does show a prominent 3rd RA harmonic
Oh yeah, if the amplitude of the third harmonic is of the order of 1/3 of the amplitude of the fundamental, that third harmonic will double your worse case slope (using only the fundamental), at a location where their phases coincide.
Chen
Sadly, my telescope was discontinued in 2007, and I cannot find a published spot diagram (TV 102iis w/ field flattener). Maybe I can read about how to measure one for myself. This has been primarily a visual scope, but with the AM5 it has great grab/go potential, and now I’m doing some basic imaging with it. With your advice and others on this thread, I am averaging 0.4-0.6” RMS with a little better than average seeing tonight, so pretty happy with that.
- Edited
Hi! Thanks for the help of all the participants of this forum. My guiding is quite satisfactory but with random Ra and Dec peaks around 2 rms (once or twice per 300 sec). I calculated my slope at 0.18’´/s. Is it good at 100ms Ra and dec Max pulse for a 0.5s guide, Aggr arround 25%. I use a mini 290 mm asi on guide scope 200 FL. I'm thinking of using a red filter to reduce the turbulence. Here is my harmonic ratio: