Re: Modelling - can of worms

William R. Mattil <wrmattil@...>

Christopher Vedeler L.Ac. wrote:
All professional observatories use modeling and their mounts are
phenomenally accurate.
It is entirely possible to add mount modeling to an AP mount in *exactly* the same way that these professional Observatories do. Add a Computer System to handle those details. Adding this feature to the existing AP mounts is a complete waste of time. Almost as big a waste of time as adding GPS. AP allows those users wishing to do so, to do it and it still provides excellent performance by doing what it was designed to do.

If someone can't input Latitude and Longitude then I would doubt that they would be able to use the mount anyway.

The reality is that no mechanical system can
match perfectly the real sky. The reality in the field is that polar
alignment will never be perfect, the atmosphere will always refract the
positions of the stars, and the scope will always flex relative to the
mount. All these things can be handled very well with software. Having
superior hardware just makes the modeling job easier as the errors
become smaller and more predictable.
Polar Alignment doesn't need to be perfect. Many can achieve great results with just a Polar Alignment Scope. And if perhaps you are meaning that Software could be used to bypass even that trivial detail then I'll not waste my time further.

Modeling helps with pointing more than anything else.
Exactly. And I suspect there are literally hundreds of users of AP Mounts that have no trouble finding the object they desire and having it in the FOV of their OTA with little or no difficulty. So adding modeling is again unnecessary. But hey .... if that's really your bag then by all means connect up your computer and add the software of your choice. It's easy to do. All of the World Class amateur mounts are the same in this regard. They don't include modeling. It's better done by the proper tool. Sheesh ... if all you have is a hammer then the whole world must look like a nail ?

Frankly I am more than delighted that the AP mounts have little or nothing in common with the lesser quality mounts. Do I need to point out that adding chrome wheels to a Yugo still leaves you with a Yugo ?

For accurate
tracking without field rotation you need to be physically pointed to the
pole. However in real life use, in the field with a portable mount you
will never be perfectly polar aligned. Why not work from that
assumption and make the quite logical step to correct for these issues
in software as other mounts have done?
If it ain't broke why should it be fixed ? As I said hundreds if not thousands of amateurs manage to get Polar Aligned and take very nice images. So I don't see the problem.

If you have never worked with a mount that offers sophisticated modeling
you don't know how nice it is. It isn't hard, it isn't expensive and it
makes an already fantastic product even better. I don't understand why
Actually some of us have. And believe it or not there wasn't a single instance in which it was superior to what AP provides. I got *better* modeling by providing a computer with better software. AP provides much better tracking. Far superior Pointing and the ability to handle bigger payloads. Much better user interface. Nope - it doesn't have a GPS interface.... wow. What a bummer <lol>.

What I think some us are wondering, or at least I am, is why do certain members used to to truly substandard mounts keep trying to drag AP down to that same level ????

A previous poster mentioned that doing what you are suggesting is like putting patches on a tire that is not in need of any.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.