Jeff Ridder:
There’s an external EFW for 50mm round filters, isn’t there? You could fit a C3-61000 with one of those? What would the backspacing be with that combo? Asking for a friend. Or maybe me if I ever win the 110gtx lottery. Their wheels come in three flavors: 1. External EFW: These are external to the camera but are only compatible with Moravian cameras. 2. Internal EFW: These are internal to the camera itself. 3. Standalone EFW: These are external to the camera and can work with any camera (with the right adapters). So if you go with Moravian for the camera (which I strongly suggest to all customers) any of the three wheel options are available to you. The BFD for the C3 cameras (for just the camera itself) is 16.5mm, in this combo with a Standalone EFW and the short M68 camera adapter the BFD is 52mm. HTH, Bill
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Kenward Vaughan:
Before the photon cage, I tried quite unsuccessfully to use the Moravian tilt plate. Is ASG making a Moravian specific cage for the C1 cameras or is this just the normal cage and it works without any changes needed?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
They made shims so the C1 cameras fit their standard 90 mm cages. They did not want to create the custom holes needed for the 40 mm square pattern used by Moravian, though. Their answer to this was to use the threaded adapter ring on the camera (which replaces the tilt plate at that position when a FW is attached) as an adapter between the FW and bottom of their cage. The ring has the holes for the FW side, and you would use a M54 (68?) to M-whateverOnTheCageBase adapter to mate the ring to the base.
While this works, it also adds at least 4.5 mm to the system, and I also didn't want to increase the sensor-filter distance that much. I figured I'd do my own thing–drill and tap the needed pattern in the bottom of the cage. I created a 3D printed template which used the 6 hole pattern already present to fix the positions of the new holes. Worked like a charm.
If anyone decides they want to do the same, they need to tell ASG to please Not close off the other holes with loctite sealed set screws. I fortunately was able to free up enough of these to use the template. ;-)
The drilling/tapping was done with a carefully set up killer Harbor Freight drill press…
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
A bit off the current topic but I wanted to ask about focuser orientation. I will utilizing a Hercules rotator on my ordered 180 and would like to implement in focuser down orientation. Is there a good counterweight solution, positioned behind the mirror that you are using to make this work?
Photos would be great.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
My rig is shown below. Impromptu setup, no cables, etc. Sorry about the image sizes... I haven't tried to figure out how to control that.  I like wood! ;-) The poplar plank is bolted between an 1/8" and 3/8" plate of Al. The 3/8" plate extends beyond in the back, and is where the Pb weights (black plasticized coatings) are attached using bolts. Those work in combination with the PegUPB /computer group as the primary "sideways" (Y axis? Z axis?) counterbalance for the weight of the imaging "group" up front. If I place the rig on a bench on its side, it is pretty well balanced against rolling, meaning the added torque from the camera side is canceled out. In the pic below you can see four 1/8" Al plates under the back Pb which serve to set the proper distance away from the tube's cylindrical axis to accomplish this. The wood riser does the same for the computer. The mass of the Pb weights total about 2.1 kg. The PB/computer boxes total about a kg. The balance point front to back required an additional 400 grams of Pb weights which I added top and bottom on the back mounting ring (image of one shown below--no black coating yet). This places the Hercules at about the position it's at in the image above.  While people may think it's crazy to add all this weight, the rig is compact (reduced moment of inertia, I believe it's called) and roughly 45 lbs. total, which the mount handles with ease. Concerning pier collisions, with my setup on the Mach 2, the worst position is shown below (hard to understand, I know) where the scope is pointed in the neighborhood of Az 180, Alt 25 degrees. I am unsure of the altitude, but if I need lower I will file down those corners of the rails to easily go another 5-10 degrees lower.  This is my rig, though (e.g. using a Mach 2 instead of a 10m1000 mount). YMWV for this aspect depending on your own setup. HTH! Let me know if you have other questions. Cheers, Kenward
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Thanks Kenward, very nice setup. I'm going to temporarily mount side by side on my AP1200 mount till I'm able to get a Mach2.
Did you ever consider a longer dovetail and mount the extra weights there?
Thanks
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
That would work too (I assume you meant a long dovetail on top?). It would require a longer offset (vertically off the dovetail) for the Pb bricks, but that could be done using a block of Al with the right thickness. One thing that would also have to be addressed (and certainly can be) is being able to attach the other stuff using a method that allows adjusting their position to fine tune the CG of the system. Something as simple as a wood block on the dovetail...
The reason I chose what you see? I used what I had (Al stock and hardwood) to create the most rigid system I could without the expense of a dovetail, and it allowed me to easily adjust the height + lateral position of the UPB/computer with the wood parts. The vertical distance of the main weights (the 2 kg of Pb) was perfect with the original thickness of the top "structure."
This worked until I later added the photon cage. That added more weight both up front, and out to the side. Instead of changing everything, I added enough Al plates under the Pb to counter the increased side issue, and slid its attachment point backwards. As that didn't completely manage the front-to-back imbalance, I added the extra Pb to the mounting ring so I could keep the front-to-back positioning of the OTA where I wanted it. (It cannot get pushed back to balance the photon cage out since the Hercules would crash into the saddle way before balance was achieved.)
Adding the 400 g Pb to the back ring on both top and bottom kept that new weight from upsetting the top-bottom balancing trick...
Cheers,
Kenward
ps. Something to helped me when setting this up was knowing that the front-to-back balancing is independent of the top-to-bottom balancing. I did a lot of calculations ahead of time and during the build phase to know approximately where everything needed to go. Worked well for me.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
What about using a long D Plate for the bottom? It would then balance the opposing rotator/cam/efw?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hey all, I posted this on the CN site as well.
So I purchased the QHY 50mmx7 CFW and OAG-L . The QHY OAG helical focuser is going to interfere with my Hercules rotator, I believe I would need >18mm spacer between the two for the focuser barrel to not touch the Hercules rotator so I have to find a difference solution.
Looks like the Pegasus OAG/CFL has the lowest BF but it still looks like the Guide camera/OAG will still interfere with the Hercules camera side plate. Based on my measurements I will need >18mm clearance and I only have 16.5mm.
For Leo/Hercules users, how are you configuring?
Component Back Focus
QHY600SBFL 7.5mm (removing 5mm camera backplate)
Octopi tilt adjuster 4mm 4 mm back focus
Indigo CFW 19 mm bolts directly to Photon cage
Antlia 3mm thick filters 1mm
Indigo OAG w/o helical 10 mm bolt directly to CFL
M54 Adaptor to Hercules 5mm
54mm Spacer 11.5mm From Precise parts
57 mm total back focus (will use octopi to tweak remaining .1 mm spacing) |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hey all, I posted this on the CN site as well.
So I purchased the QHY 50mmx7 CFW and OAG-L . The QHY OAG helical focuser is going to interfere with my Hercules rotator, I believe I would need >18mm spacer between the two for the focuser barrel to not touch the Hercules rotator so I have to find a difference solution.
Looks like the Pegasus OAG/CFL has the lowest BF but it still looks like the Guide camera/OAG will still interfere with the Hercules camera side plate. Based on my measurements I will need >18mm clearance and I only have 16.5mm.
For Leo/Hercules users, how are you configuring?
Component Back Focus
QHY600SBFL 7.5mm (removing 5mm camera backplate)
Octopi tilt adjuster 4mm 4 mm back focus
Indigo CFW 19 mm bolts directly to Photon cage
Antlia 3mm thick filters 1mm
Indigo OAG w/o helical 10 mm bolt directly to CFL
M54 Adaptor to Hercules 5mm
54mm Spacer 11.5mm From Precise parts
57 mm total back focus (will use octopi to tweak remaining .1 mm spacing) Not sure about your math (the target backspacing is 56.2mm), but here's my configuration with Hercules and the guide camera clears fine.  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jeff Ridder:
Hey all, I posted this on the CN site as well.
So I purchased the QHY 50mmx7 CFW and OAG-L . The QHY OAG helical focuser is going to interfere with my Hercules rotator, I believe I would need >18mm spacer between the two for the focuser barrel to not touch the Hercules rotator so I have to find a difference solution.
Looks like the Pegasus OAG/CFL has the lowest BF but it still looks like the Guide camera/OAG will still interfere with the Hercules camera side plate. Based on my measurements I will need >18mm clearance and I only have 16.5mm.
For Leo/Hercules users, how are you configuring?
Component Back Focus
QHY600SBFL 7.5mm (removing 5mm camera backplate)
Octopi tilt adjuster 4mm 4 mm back focus
Indigo CFW 19 mm bolts directly to Photon cage
Antlia 3mm thick filters 1mm
Indigo OAG w/o helical 10 mm bolt directly to CFL
M54 Adaptor to Hercules 5mm
54mm Spacer 11.5mm From Precise parts
57 mm total back focus (will use octopi to tweak remaining .1 mm spacing)
Not sure about your math (the target backspacing is 56.2mm), but here's my configuration with Hercules and the guide camera clears fine.
Hey Jeff, Why are you subtracting 1mm with the Chroma filters?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Same thing, I just added the 1mm for the filter and revised the target to 57.1mm.
So 15mm is enough clearance?
Your Indigo is without the helical focuser?
What guide camera are you using?
Thank you for you information, Mike
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Ashraf AbuSara:
Jeff Ridder:
Hey all, I posted this on the CN site as well.
So I purchased the QHY 50mmx7 CFW and OAG-L . The QHY OAG helical focuser is going to interfere with my Hercules rotator, I believe I would need >18mm spacer between the two for the focuser barrel to not touch the Hercules rotator so I have to find a difference solution.
Looks like the Pegasus OAG/CFL has the lowest BF but it still looks like the Guide camera/OAG will still interfere with the Hercules camera side plate. Based on my measurements I will need >18mm clearance and I only have 16.5mm.
For Leo/Hercules users, how are you configuring?
Component Back Focus
QHY600SBFL 7.5mm (removing 5mm camera backplate)
Octopi tilt adjuster 4mm 4 mm back focus
Indigo CFW 19 mm bolts directly to Photon cage
Antlia 3mm thick filters 1mm
Indigo OAG w/o helical 10 mm bolt directly to CFL
M54 Adaptor to Hercules 5mm
54mm Spacer 11.5mm From Precise parts
57 mm total back focus (will use octopi to tweak remaining .1 mm spacing)
Not sure about your math (the target backspacing is 56.2mm), but here's my configuration with Hercules and the guide camera clears fine.
Hey Jeff,
Why are you subtracting 1mm with the Chroma filters? Chroma filters are 3mm thick. 1/3 of that is 1mm.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Same thing, I just added the 1mm for the filter and revised the target to 57.1mm.
So 15mm is enough clearance?
Your Indigo is without the helical focuser?
What guide camera are you using?
Thank you for you information, Mike Not to argue, but unless Pegasus changed it, the M54 indigo spacer is 4mm, not 5mm, which leaves you 1.2mm to play with. I use the ASI290 mini for my guide cam.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jeff Ridder:
Ashraf AbuSara:
Jeff Ridder:
Hey all, I posted this on the CN site as well.
So I purchased the QHY 50mmx7 CFW and OAG-L . The QHY OAG helical focuser is going to interfere with my Hercules rotator, I believe I would need >18mm spacer between the two for the focuser barrel to not touch the Hercules rotator so I have to find a difference solution.
Looks like the Pegasus OAG/CFL has the lowest BF but it still looks like the Guide camera/OAG will still interfere with the Hercules camera side plate. Based on my measurements I will need >18mm clearance and I only have 16.5mm.
For Leo/Hercules users, how are you configuring?
Component Back Focus
QHY600SBFL 7.5mm (removing 5mm camera backplate)
Octopi tilt adjuster 4mm 4 mm back focus
Indigo CFW 19 mm bolts directly to Photon cage
Antlia 3mm thick filters 1mm
Indigo OAG w/o helical 10 mm bolt directly to CFL
M54 Adaptor to Hercules 5mm
54mm Spacer 11.5mm From Precise parts
57 mm total back focus (will use octopi to tweak remaining .1 mm spacing)
Not sure about your math (the target backspacing is 56.2mm), but here's my configuration with Hercules and the guide camera clears fine.
Hey Jeff,
Why are you subtracting 1mm with the Chroma filters?
Chroma filters are 3mm thick. 1/3 of that is 1mm. Ah sorry. I was thinking the filters add a 1mm to backfocus requirement, but what you are showing is the math for your backfocus consumption. Makes sense now 👍
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Again, my primary question is how to eliminate interference of the body of the OAG/Guide Camera and the camera side of the Hercules rotator. Thanks
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Again, my primary question is how to eliminate interference of the body of the OAG/Guide Camera and the camera side of the Hercules rotator. Thanks Understood. And I'm telling you that I have no interference with my configuration, which is why I gave you my numbers. Sorry...I seem to be offending you. I'll stop now.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
No offense at all, I’ll figure it out or go with a guide scope.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Some updates on SkyWave (SKW).There have been questions about SKW’s capability to measure tilt using a star field. This feature, along with others, was added some time ago. Image tilt is measured using only the defocus aberration, meaning it is independent of coma, astigmatism, or even spherical aberration. This contrasts with FWHM or HFD values, which are affected by all aberrations combined. This also means that the telescope can be collimated even if there is a mechanical tilt of the sensor. This is important because a miscollimated telescope features a tilted focal plane, leading to a tilted image even if the sensor is perfectly squared with the optical axis after collimation. Using FWHM or HFD values can not separate both sources. This is why it is crucial to collimate the telescope first before adjusting any sensor tilt. SKW retrieves tilt by mapping the defocus aberration across the field using a field curvature and tilt model. This allows the separation of tilt from any residual field curvature. The latest versions, SKW 6 and higher, provide tilt and balanced astigmatism information using the same user-friendly collimation tool (a target with a cursor). Here is a link to the SKW collimation tool (from the SKW/SKG documentation and help): https://www.innovationsforesight.com/software/help/SKG/SkySurveyorHTML/SKWDisplayCollimator.htmlSince version 6, SKW models (as well as SKG licenses) are managed through a server, the IF portal. Here is a link for further information (everything is managed by the portal, no need to use any email anymore, yet SKW works offline after downloading models): https://www.innovationsforesight.com/Wavefront/SKG_SKW_LicenseModelManagement.pdfThere are now new unlimited SKW models (PPU has been discontinued, but credit reloads can still be purchased at any time). These models work for a range of apertures. However, since each model is custom-built for a specific telescope, only one model can be used at a given time. Through the IF portal, models can be linked or unlinked to SKW instruments (telescopes) or even transferred from one machine to another. SKW also supports OSC color channel extraction as well as monochromatic TIFF (uncompressed), BMP, and PNG files. Finally, to address a recurring question about offset central obstructions: this is a common occurrence in many telescopes. The secondary mount (not just the secondary mirror itself) is rarely mechanically centered with the telescope's optical axis. A few millimeters, or more, of offset is typical. Unless the offset is large enough to cause vignetting, it does not matter when in focus. Telescope manufacturers are only concerned with the in-focus image and have no reason to invest time and money in minimizing the secondary mount offset beyond what is necessary. However, when out of focus, this results in an asymmetric defocused star image, where the diffraction rings are not concentric and the central secondary shadow is offset, while the telescope is optically aligned (collimated). Attempting to make the defocused star appear (nice) perfectly symmetric with a centered CO shadow introduces coma. SKW and its models are designed to account for this. The wavefront analysis used to compute collimation information for the end user is unaffected by the secondary mount’s mechanical offset and other mechanical artifacts.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
@Gaston Baudat - can you comment on best practice for use with an Epsilon? Which settings (coma, astigmatism, etc) and which mirror (primary or secondary) for collimation adjustments? Most of us use the Takahashi tools first. How best to use Skywave after?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I just got a Rouz Astro Camera Balance Kit to offset my ZWO Filter Wheel bulge so I can get even BETTER unguided tracking with my E-160 on my 10Micron GM1000 mount. So, to the question: Anyone used this with their setup? And if so, do you have any pics of how you balanced it? I got two 200g weights, just in case, but it looks like I'll only need one.
Thanks.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Anyone know if Optec do trade-ins? I already have a Leo on my E130 and would love to upgrade to the Hercules - but its an incredibly expensive upgrade….
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dunk:
Anyone know if Optec do trade-ins? I already have a Leo on my E130 and would love to upgrade to the Hercules - but its an incredibly expensive upgrade.... Check with Jeff, but I don't think so. Still, you never know. I found I got a great price selling my Leo, though (I would think more than a trade-in).
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Another question: can anyone confirm which OAGs fit between an EFW (they are all pretty much the same - flat - on the OTA side so model likely doesn't matter) and the Leo body?
The gap is very narrow for the camera barrel part of the OAG. I have a player1 "max" OAG which I am going to give a try but it looks like it may not fit. The Pegasus Indigo seems like it may fit as its very thin….
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
