|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:39:47 GMT -7
Posted by: Ron Walker Mar 15 2008, 12:00 PM Welcome to a new member "charle" who has been compiling information about plotting stars on a dodecahedron projector design. He has files that start at 9MB and I have no idea how to get them posted. I can't even get a private message back to him!
Perhaps he will post here and someone out there with a bit (a lot of bits) more knowledge about posting large files will come to the rescue.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:40:12 GMT -7
Posted by: charles jones Mar 15 2008, 08:41 PM What kind of files are they?
Are they text files that could be broken down into smaller segments?
Is it a database?
Ron, how did you get them? Did he email them to you ... or did you go to a website to download them?
I'd love to see what he has compiled.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:40:46 GMT -7
Posted by: mrgare5050 Mar 16 2008, 03:33 AM heres his email address, i gave him the dimensions of the spitz dodec, hes done the rest but is apparently still working on it! gare
From: Charle Rupp (charlerupp@gmail.com) Sent: Fri 3/14/08 3:54 AM To: gary likert (mrgare5050@hotmail.com)
Security scan upon download cylMap.pdf (169.8 KB) Wel, its taken a while, but I finally have my program to generate the graphics tor different types of cyulinder and dodecahedron projectors. I have attached an example model for a small cylinder. At present, the full file for all faces of a dodecahedron requires a file of about 30 mega-bytes which is too large for some email delivery systems ... can literally plug up the works in some cases. If you are still interested, I can send you and example file or add the capability to output a file for each face.
There is a number of issues to be addressed before we have a file that can be posted for others to use. Let me know if you're still interested.
Charle'
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:41:08 GMT -7
Posted by: Ron Walker Mar 17 2008, 09:51 AM QUOTE(charles jones @ Mar 15 2008, 08:41 PM) * What kind of files are they?
Are they text files that could be broken down into smaller segments?
Is it a database?
Ron, how did you get them? Did he email them to you ... or did you go to a website to download them?
I'd love to see what he has compiled.
I have no idea. He sent me a private mail and for some reason I can't answer him.
Gare, since your in communication with him, see if he will come to this thread and tell us all what he has and what he needs to post and let our smart computer people get the download working.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:41:29 GMT -7
Posted by: charle Mar 30 2008, 07:13 PM I have put the templates on the web site www.SiloObservatory.comSend me an email at charle@SiloObservatory.com to get username and password access to the emails that contain the templates. I would appreciate someone reviewing at least one of the dodecahedron templates. Charle'
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:42:09 GMT -7
Posted by: Ron Walker Mar 31 2008, 03:36 PM I managed to download the master sheet for the entire dodecahedron. I'm trying to do the single sheets but my computer is dial up and they are very large files. Usually I just need to walk away from the computer and come back in a few hours but for some reason these files just seem to hang up. I will try again at night when there is less demand on the system.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:42:41 GMT -7
Posted by: charle Apr 1 2008, 08:17 AM Great. Now I can finally ask my questions re: compared to the original Spitz star maps.
1. Are these even close? 2. I assumed from the pictures of the Spitz A1 the the NCP and SCP are centered on the face of the top and bottom faces. Is this correct? 3. Where is RA=0 located? In the maps I am generating at present, I put RA= 0 at the edge of two faces. It turns out that with this selection, there are no magnitude 3 or brighter stars near the vertical edges on the faces in the Northern hemisphere. But there are several important stars near the edges of the top face. 4. I am currently using a star base of about 3100 stars. Should I have versions with 10,000 stars?
Thanks for the help.
Charle'
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:43:04 GMT -7
Posted by: charle Apr 1 2008, 08:26 AM Is anyone interested in trying to run the "star generator" program that makes these pictures? This would give you access to the highest resolutiion images and print them directly on your printer. The program at present requires 2 small files of less that 500K bytes!
The down side would be the frustration of trying to get an unknown program to work.
Technically: The program is a command line Java program (very rare!) and will run on any computer (PCs and Macs) that supports Java version 1.4 or later. (Any computer purchased in the last 5 years). For PC's I will also supply a BAT command file that makes it easier to run the program. If you have a MAC (I don't anymore) you will need to know how to run Java programs.
Any takers?
Charle'
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:43:46 GMT -7
Posted by: Ron Walker Apr 1 2008, 01:00 PM QUOTE(charle @ Apr 1 2008, 08:17 AM) * Great. Now I can finally ask my questions re: compared to the original Spitz star maps.
1. Are these even close? 2. I assumed from the pictures of the Spitz A1 the the NCP and SCP are centered on the face of the top and bottom faces. Is this correct? 3. Where is RA=0 located? In the maps I am generating at present, I put RA= 0 at the edge of two faces. It turns out that with this selection, there are no magnitude 3 or brighter stars near the vertical edges on the faces in the Northern hemisphere. But there are several important stars near the edges of the top face. 4. I am currently using a star base of about 3100 stars. Should I have versions with 10,000 stars?
Thanks for the help.
Charle'
I don't have a A-1 or A-2 so I can't really help with your questions. Anybody with one can contribute at any time.
As far as number of stars, that is dependent on the use of lenses or not. Perhaps it would be useful to have at least two different sets. Or better yet, one master set that reproduced stars only to 4th magnitude or so and then overlay sets for 5th magnitude only, then 5.1, 5.2, 5.3......as far as one would like to go. It would be fairly easy to enlarge these maps in a computer and thus generate location images for any size dodecahedron. I would almost guarantee that if you plotted out all 3100 stars, that to have a good looking sky (this is my opinion only) you would need lenses for at least the first and second magnitude ones.
In this way, if one is just starting off, they could use only the first set of star maps and punch their projector without the need for any lenses. If they wanted more they could move on to the next set, etc..
If the original Spitz is designed to reproduce only the present epoch, would it be worth while to add into the design processional motion?
I cannot help but wonder if the benefits of the dodecahedron design outweigh the negatives compared to a globe. I'm wondering about the edges as you mention above and, if drilling, allowing for the angle holes required to align the star holes with the light source. Now you could do this with photo (Kodalith) as many projectors do, but I'm not at all impressed with the results. The 10K star kit projector from Japan is very disappointing to me(read review elsewhere), but that's me.
By the way, the only way I could get this image posted was to print it out from your site and then scan it into Photoshop and treat it like any other jpeg. I still cannot download the others and I'm not enough of a computer head to understand why.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:44:11 GMT -7
Posted by: Ron Walker Apr 1 2008, 01:09 PM QUOTE(charle @ Apr 1 2008, 08:26 AM) * Is anyone interested in trying to run the "star generator" program that makes these pictures? This would give you access to the highest resolutiion images and print them directly on your printer. The program at present requires 2 small files of less that 500K bytes!
The down side would be the frustration of trying to get an unknown program to work.
Technically: The program is a command line Java program (very rare!) and will run on any computer (PCs and Macs) that supports Java version 1.4 or later. (Any computer purchased in the last 5 years). For PC's I will also supply a BAT command file that makes it easier to run the program. If you have a MAC (I don't anymore) you will need to know how to run Java programs.
Any takers?
Charle'
I certainly would live to have this as it is extremely valuable information for people just starting out wanting to make a projector. As I've said, I'm computer ignorant (I know just enough to get into trouble) but it's a great program and would probably be a lot easier to produce from scratch then try and download a large file. Like, what is a BAT command file anyway???
What I'd love to find for adding extra stars to my ball is a set of drawings that just show stars to 5th magnitude only. The charts I have go out to 7th and when the printing gets that small 5th, 6th, and 7th all look the same.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:44:46 GMT -7
Posted by: Ken Miller Apr 1 2008, 02:47 PM QUOTE(charle @ Apr 1 2008, 08:17 AM) * Great. Now I can finally ask my questions re: compared to the original Spitz star maps.
QUOTE 1. Are these even close?I've sent you an email asking for the access information for the files. Once I take a look, I may be able to give you an answer. One of my ongoing projects is to map the stars on my Spitz model A. I would love to see if your files can give me any help in that project.
QUOTE 2. I assumed from the pictures of the Spitz A1 the the NCP and SCP are centered on the face of the top and bottom faces. Is this correct?As far as I can tell, that is correct.
QUOTE 3. Where is RA=0 located? In the maps I am generating at present, I put RA= 0 at the edge of two faces. It turns out that with this selection, there are no magnitude 3 or brighter stars near the vertical edges on the faces in the Northern hemisphere. But there are several important stars near the edges of the top face.This will take me a while to figure out.
QUOTE 4. I am currently using a star base of about 3100 stars. Should I have versions with 10,000 stars?10,000 sounds way too ambitious. I would start with 750 to 1000 myself.
QUOTE Thanks for the help.
Charle'
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:45:29 GMT -7
Posted by: charle Apr 1 2008, 03:38 PM This has helped a lot. I originally assumed that most people would want a high resolution template for projects and this led me to use PDF files which ended up too large (and I have spent a LOT of time trying to make them smaller). Perhaps a novice would want a predefined template but I now see that anyone doing a serious project needs the full capability of the program. So I will start heading in that direction. I will make the current program available on a limited basis but I would not expect most people to use it in its current state .... it literally does NOT have a GUI (that's a "Graphics User Interface" .... that's what makes a computer program usable by someone that is NOT a computer programmer). In other words, I currently the program as a programmer. As it turns out, the GUI takes a lot more time to develop than the stuff that the program is intended to do! So this will be an evolving project!
Ron, for you specifically, I would like you to try the "stargen" kit once I have it posted. If you can use it at all, I could then provide some of the information you need before the full GUI is complete.
re: dodec vs. globe My interest AT THIS POINT is primarily historical in nature. Spitz obviously spent a lot of time pursuing the dodec route. For one to reproduce even a small version of this as a first projector, I think that it should be faithful to his design ... and thus the reason for my questions.
I am in the middle of building a 5" edge version dodecahedron (essentially a wood/cardboard prototype) so I am rapidly learning some of the down side issues. I even developed a drill jig to drill the holes at an angle to reproduce gnomic line of site (path of light from the center to any point on the face). The deviation of vertical is nearly 38-degrees at the corners.
One unfaithfulness from the original Spitz ... I am using Epoch 2000 databases. I assume Spitz used Epoch 1950 or others. Is it sufficient to approximate precession change by rotation of the entire Epoch 2000 database, or will I need to compute actual motion of each star as well?
I have been following the idea of starting with a globe and WILL develop a globe template. I'm planning a orange peel type template but am open to suggestions.
I will add the ability generate templates with predefined min/max magnitude for the first "stargen kit" distribution.
Charle'
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:45:54 GMT -7
Posted by: charles jones Apr 1 2008, 05:44 PM QUOTE(charle @ Apr 1 2008, 03:38 PM) * I even developed a drill jig to drill the holes at an angle to reproduce gnomic line of site (path of light from the center to any point on the face). The deviation of vertical is nearly 38-degrees at the corners.
I can't really see that this is necessary if the material is thin. But it is essential to mount the small lenses at the correct angle.
Would your jig allow for this?
Also, I can see the problem. The angle will vary, depending on where the point is for the lens. I am not sure how you calculate this, unless you set the jig by eye.
My opinion that an "orange peel" would be the way to go for the sphere--much like the sections of an earth globe with 24 parallels.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:46:26 GMT -7
Posted by: charle Apr 1 2008, 07:06 PM So I actually have 2 jigs ... one for a small drill press (purchased at Harborfreight.com for $29) and one for needles.
The needle rig is very fast but I don't see it as useful for lens setting. I'll describe my drill press jig which may be useful for lenses.
The drill press jig is constructed primarily using a universal joint from my 3/8-inch socket set. Add extension and then a small platform to hold the material to be drilled. The center of the u-joint must be in the exact center of the drill path. The most important thing .... the distance of the exact center of the u-joint to the surface of the material must be exactly the same as the radius of the inscribed sphere of the polyhedron. For a dodecahedron this value is R = 1.114 * E where E is the length of the edge.
I haven't used lenses yet, but here's how I might use this jig. I would attached a "mounting block" of about the right size at the location of the lens. Then use a Forstner bit to create a "land" for the lens that is perpendicular to the gnomic line.
The jig becomes important if the thickness of the material is more that half the diameter of the smallest drill bit. The 38-degree angle in this case would make the dots oval in shape if not corrected. But I am new to all this so I might be all wet.
My other jig could also be adapted for a drill press. The plate swings in just one angle (gnomic angle from the center of the face) and I use a small lazy suzan bearing to rotate the face.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Walker on Sept 6, 2022 11:47:05 GMT -7
Posted by: Ron Walker Apr 1 2008, 07:56 PM QUOTE(charles jones @ Apr 1 2008, 05:44 PM) * I can't really see that this is necessary if the material is thin. But it is essential to mount the small lenses at the correct angle.
Would your jig allow for this?
Also, I can see the problem. The angle will vary, depending on where the point is for the lens. I am not sure how you calculate this, unless you set the jig by eye.
My opinion that an "orange peel" would be the way to go for the sphere--much like the sections of an earth globe with 24 parallels.
Kind of like how the Spitz "B" was probably made.
|
|