The long story is here but you need to be registered at SB to read:
http://www.bisque.com/sc/forums/p/19...165.aspx#86165
Briefly, I ran a new super model where I restricted points to be eqidistant from the meridian E and West to minimize any potential bias due to my inability to see very far East. The super model differed from the the all sky super model substantially in altitude indicating that I should raise the mount 1.2 tics. This is 1 arc min different from the all sky super model of some 200 points. There was essentially no diffeence in the MA recommendation comparing the reports.
Before doing anything to the mount I ran Pempro. Pempro showed perfect alignment over 15 min of tracking in MA. ME, however, was off by .7 arc min also ndicating that I should raise the mount. I did in several moves and now have substantially better unguided correction than I've ever had since owning my MX.
Unfortnately I have very strange excursons in RA that may or may not be PE. Analysis of one guiding log says my PE = .7 arcsec (corrected). Then after I adjusted ME, the next log said my PE error was 1.8 arcsec. Maybe it's seeing or that I collected data at 1.56 arcsec, or that PEC isn't working as well as I thought. I attach the two guiding graphs for comparison. Obviously drift in both axis has improved quite a lot (Protrack was off!), but the huge excursions in RA don't make sense to me with PEC on (and previously verified numerous times to be working). Any ideas?
I ran out of time and enery at 2 am so this must wait. But, I'm happy to finally understand where T-Point has led me astray.
Peter