Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN


What can AP do that others cannot?
1. reliability/customer service
2. sophisticated pointing and tracking model
3. sophisticated polar alignment
4. user focused (understands needs of users).

So in terms of picking 3 out of the 5.

1) Tracking performance should be good enough to make having an advanced sky model worthwhile.  If the tracking performance is bad enough that a mount set at sidereal will give you the same result, it’s not taking advantage of the performance.

It is not clear to me how much guiding solves this.  My understanding is that a good model avoids the need for guiding.  

It is not clear to me how much clutches affect this target of performance.

it is not clear to me if corrections in DEC are needed after an AP model is created or if it’s just RA modifications.

I don’t know what pixel size to assume but I think 3-4 microns is a reasonable assumption.

2) You have hit it spot on that there are older hobbyists who would do better with lightweight mounts and there are plenty of young hobbyists who like to travel.

3) Make it as affordable as possible.  The Stowaway lets a lot more people enjoy your optics.  

Let’s call this the “AP Traveler GTO”.

4) if it is spec’d to meet the criteria of “good enough to benefit from a sky model” versus just tracking with the 92/6.65 versus the 130GTX, how does that change the price and size?

Maybe for the 92/6.65 “good enough to benefit from a sky model” it would still be “very good” with the overloaded 130GTX or C11 but not show the same benefits.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.