Re: Small AP Mount Ideas


Jeff B
 

Another great, straight forward reply Roland and thanks.

Jeff

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 2:43 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Both mounts are about the same size mechanically. The extra weight comes from the following:

The Mach2 is heavier, in part, because it uses a pair of high power servo-stepper motors with belt drive that weigh more than the much smaller DC servo motors used on the Mach1. Using the belt drive servos reduced the slewing noise that some people objected to, and also saved cost that was then used to partly offset the added cost of the two encoders.

The Mach2 added an extra set of bearings in the clutch system to allow users to balance their scopes without having to back off the gear teeth. Backing off the gear teeth can be problematic if users ignore the safe way to do this (only in park3 position!!!), and our experience is that a number of people wrecked their worm gear teeth doing it wrong, and we ended up having to replace costly parts. I don't want to repeat that in a small mount.

The Mach2 extended the main shafts all the way to the back where the encoders are, and this stiffened the mount significantly and eliminated shaft runout. It allowed the mount to be rated for a higher payload without being larger in size.

The Mach2 added internal wiring which added some extra parts on top of the Dec axis, thus incrementally increasing weight.

The Mach2 has a much beefier low end that adds stability in windy conditions and allows larger and longer refractors to be used with less settling time compared to the Mach1. This also increased weight.

The Mach2 has the gearboxes enclosed in rigid covers that protect the critical parts during transport and rough handling. I felt that this was very important for a mount that would be thrown into a car trunk and transported to a weekend observing site. It makes the Mach2 more robust versus the more delicate Mach1. Are most people really careful with their equipment? Yes, but we have seen quite a few mounts that were not so carefully handled and had their gears mashed and parts bent.

The difference in weight is about 9 lb between the two. Can we do something about that - maybe, maybe not.

The Mach2 is for serious imagers who want to get the best possible result from their imaging equipment and not have the mount be a limitation. If your skies allow it, the mount will deliver the tracking accuracy that you need to realize the best resolution of your telescope and camera.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Tan <ktanhs@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Apr 29, 2021 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small AP Mount Ideas

No I mean Mach1. The Mach2 is a great mount but on the heavy side. 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 01:48, John Chakel <jachakel@...> wrote:
You mean a Mach 2?

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics

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