Re: Counter weight up slew vs. continuing past the meridian, any real differences?


Michael 'Mikey' Mangieri
 

SGP sometimes needs three slews to get on target. I have found in the past that my scope did in fact due three meridian flips when trying to plate solve.

On Mar 14, 2021, at 10:07 AM, Ray Gralak <iogroups@siriusimaging.com> wrote:

´╗┐Hi Luca,

It's not a big deal either way; we are only talking about two or three slews per target. But then again, neither is a
Meridian flip, which also take a couple of slews per target for plate solving. That was my original point.
Can you clarify? Are you saying that SGPro needs to slew two or three times in the course of platesolving a new target, and in the process of doing this APCC is doing a pier flip and multiple safe slews for the *same* target?

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Luca Marinelli
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 6:56 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Counter weight up slew vs. continuing past the meridian, any real differences?

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 05:29 PM, Ray Gralak wrote:


Luca,



How would I set up APCC so that slews within the East limits with CW up from SGP do not invoke
safety slews?

If the SGPro move is 0.5 degrees or less in Declination then there will be no safety slew.

-Ray




Thanks, Ray. So if I read your statement correctly, there is no special setting in APCC that will avoid safety slews
within the meridian limits but if the slew issued is close enough in Dec, then APCC will simply nudge the mount to
the right place, without going back to CW down first.

It's not a big deal either way; we are only talking about two or three slews per target. But then again, neither is a
Meridian flip, which also take a couple of slews per target for plate solving. That was my original point.

Luca




Join main@ap-gto.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.