On Apr 23, 2020, at 6:03 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:

Titanium is hard to machine. Carbon fiber is more practical. right now we do have a lot of holes and machine away lots of internal bulk on the Mach2. The motors I chose are much heavier and larger than those used on our Chinese competitor mounts, plus they have higher force magnetic structures. The old servo motors used on the Mach1 and 1100 are flea size in comparison. The base on the Mach2 was made wider because of complaints in the past about the Mach1 base parts being too narrow. The rotating assembly on the Mach2 base was also beefed up for the same reason. People tend to overload the mounts regardless of what we spec the limits to be.

Anyway, the old 400 mount was a nice compact design which can be brought back with some more modern touches. Internal wiring for accessories would not be an option, so if you want that, you will have to go the Chinese route. However, we can make the 400 a very precision tracking mount - we have the technology. And with my new keypad modeling you can do unguided imaging for sure - no guide camera needed. I did 20 minute unguided exposures in Hawaii with 1300mm focal length scope with only a 3 point model along the object track. All night long.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Erickson <christopher.k.erickson@...>
To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2020 4:37 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway

YES!

I would LOVE a lightweight Half-Mach to perfectly-match my Stowaway when travelling for eclipses.

Use high-tech materials like titanium and/or carbon fiber to get the weight down as much as possible without losing rigidity. 

Bulk wouldn't be as important as weight.

Round or triangular holes to reduce weight in places where the missing material wouldn't effect rigidity.

Splitting in half for transport and assembly would be nice too.

Scale it to be able to handle a Stowaway, a double-stack Coronado 90 and a full-frame dSLR.

Or maybe have a standard aluminum version and a much-more-expensive-and-much-lighter titanium version.

Hopefully that would cover all of the bases.

I would be very happy to spend serious coin on a titanium Half-Mach.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:55 AM uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

The MACH1 GTO is 31 lbs

Interesting. I just weighed the two components of the Mach1. Ra weighs 17.20 lb. Dec weighs 11.95 lb. for a total of 29.15lb. That's without the dovetail plate which can weigh +- depending if it's the short one or the long Losmandy one. That's about a pound and half more than the 1100 RA axis alone. Hardly a back breaker.

I also weighed an older 400 GTO mount which came in at 19.5 lb. We had people throwing heavy long 6" refractors on it, so that's why we replaced it with the larger Mach1. Maybe we need to go back to making a newer version of the 400 for use with more modern short focus imaging refractors and the smaller (8 inch) SCTs.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken M <kmurfitt@...>
To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2020 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway

If I may say so - when I weigh my MACH1 GTO and 1100 RA (no encoders) both 2018 models-

The MACH1 GTO is 31 lbs

The 1100 GTO RA is 27lbs

This is why I like the 1100 so much - it's actually a bit easier to set up (less bulky and lighter) though it takes a bit longer to do so due to the DEC axis (which is even lighter than RA)