Re: Modelling - can of worms




At 05:57 PM 9/3/2008, you wrote:

I think what had to be said was said. It was great for clarification of
several issues but I do not that anything has to be added.


-----Original Message-----
From: <>ap-gto@...
[mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf Of
William R. Mattil
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:51 PM
To: <>ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Modelling - can of worms

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.