-----Original Message-----
From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf Of
Jerry Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:43 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: AP1100 as good as expected
I think these terms, like a lot of technology are locally or regionally
defined or depends on the background you come from. I learned the set as a
worm and spur gear set. The worm gear was what Roland calls the worm and the
spur was the wheel.
As a physicist who worked in an electrical engineering environment we
couldn't even agree on the proper symbol for the square root of -1. You just
have to keep your wits about you and ask even basic questions
Jerry
On Apr 17, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Christopher Erickson
<christopher.k.erickson@...> wrote:
My old machining reference books refer to them as the worm wheel and the
worm gear.
-Christopher Erickson
sent wirelessly from my Android phone and a teeny-tiny keyboard by a guy
with big hands!
On Apr 17, 2013 4:57 PM, "photonphisher" <parijat_singh@...> wrote:
I think you are confusing worm gear with worm. Worm gear is the large
gear
attached to the RA shaft while worm is just the small cylindrical
brass/bronze one.
Roland mentioned encoders on worm gear, not on worm.
Parijat
--- In ap-gto@..., "Pedro Santos" <pbsastro@...> wrote:
Roland, thanks for your clarifications. But i still am confused
regarding point 2 and AP absolute encoders.
In AP non absolute encoders versions, the motors already have encoders
tied directly to the worm, right? And the worm can not move without the
motor encoder know, right? So afer calibrated, the box could always know
the worm position. Couldn't the standard encoders be used to know the
worm
position?
Unfortunately I also don't understand the need to know worm position.
If
we have the encoders tied directly to the shaft, we are measuring the
final
result that will be applied to the scope, that is what matters, right? I
mean no matter where the error comes from, what matters is correcting
the
total/final error. Naturally I am missing a lot here, just trying to
understand what.
Sorry for all the confusion amd questions. Is there any doc explaining
AP encoders?
Pedro
-----Original Message-----
From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf
Of chris1011@...
Sent: segunda-feira, 8 de Abril de 2013 16:58
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] AP1100 as good as expected
1. Encoders do not add even 1 lb.
2. The encoders are tied to the worm gear, not to the clutched shaft,
so
if you loosen the clutches and move it by hand, you will have to reset
the
encoder positions. However, this has the advantage of always having the
encoder tied directly to the worm gear teeth, so when you build up a
pointing model, it will always be valid because you are not changing the
relationship between the worm teeth and the encoder.
3. The Mach1 does not have large enough shafts for the encoder rings.
This mount was designed to be a lightweight, affordable, portable mount,
and I would suggest that adding precision encoders will negate the
affordability of this mount.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Santos <pbsastro@...>
To: ap-gto <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Sun, Apr 7, 2013 6:54 pm
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] AP1100 as good as expected
Yes, the load/weight ratio is the best of the market. Combined with
premium
quality, it is a winner.
I was looking for a Mach1 size mount, but was waiting for an absolute
encoders version, like the 10 micron GM1000 HPS, which is hevaier for
the
same load, although encoders are already included, I am not sure of
the
weight impact of it.
I have three questions:
1. Do encoders add significant weight?
2. In the absolute encoders version, is it possible to move by hand,
and
is
there a mechanism to control the friction and to lock it back to
motors
only?
3. Will there be a Mach1 absolute encoders version?
Thanks,
Pedro
-----Original Message-----
From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf
Of
OlivDeso
Sent: sábado, 6 de Abril de 2013 23:29
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] AP1100 as good as expected
I just have a look at the AP1100 vs 900. State of the art as usual...
Photo load capacity 50 Kg vs 33Kg
Weight quite the same as the 900, even a little bit lighter. Excellent
for
my back !
-> The best photo load/weight ratio of the market.
AD worm gear/wheel same as the AP 900 (i.e. same low and smooth
guaranted
EP)
DEC worw gear/wheel ,ow it uses the same as the AD (was a little bit
smaller
on the 900)
The AD and DEC axis are much larger on the 1100 : 80mm for both AD and
DEC ,
against 56 and 44 the the 900 AD and DEC
The 1100 has the optionnal encoders and similar good cable integration
has
the mach 1
The ultimate portable mount, much lighter than its main concurrent.
Olivier
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6235 - Release Date: 04/09/13
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
