At 02:54 PM 4/10/2007, you wrote:

Before I retired, I used to have a personal business policy of NEVER using
UPS because of their problematic performance, but I thought they had now
improved over the years. Well, it's now back to FEDEX, which I had always used
previously, and rarely (if ever) had any problems.

Well, I just had a nightmare experience with FEDEX delivering my AP 600E mount, so don't trust them either.

Jerry

Hi,

I just wanted to warn folks about putting too much faith in the way some
couriers deliver expensive goods to you - like your brand new, very expensive
telescope mount. My AP900 just arrived - in two (unexpected) deliveries - what
a UPS fiasco!

I received a phone call from UPS at customs, that my 5 box AP shipment was
being cleared, and because it was over the UPS policy of goods exceeding $500
in declared value, UPS calls to see if you wanted to (optionally) "prepay your
C.O.D." by phone.

DO NOT DO THIS !

First, if you do anyway, phone them back locally, yourself, since you
can't be sure WHO is really calling you for your personal credit card number.

Second, if you prepay them the C.O.D., to save the small flat $4.68 (?)
fee, to save the card hassle later, the driver then has no reason to ring your
doorbell.
Unaware of this, I made that mistake.

On the Easter weekend, after being told that delivery would definitely NOT
be until AFTER the weekend, on Monday, and also previously confirmed by UPS
that they do NOT make deliveries on weekends, the "first" UPS driver showed up
Easter Saturday morning, and left just one of the five, AP900 boxes, on the
front porch, and quickly disappeared - no yellow tag saying it was a partial
delivery, no UPS paperwork on the carton of course (except for the label), the
UPS driver did NOT even have the courtesy of ringing the doorbell, while I was
home and having breakfast, to WARN me that my expensive package was sitting in
plain view on the front porch! What if I were out of town, visiting family at
Easter, or gone shopping, fully confident that, there would be no way the
shipment was to arrive before the agreed upon date?
Seems UPS "driver time" is much more valuable than my over $10,000 item, left
sitting on the porch!

Now wise to their careless or inept habits, I kept a lookout through the
window, for more of the 5 boxes in that one AP shipment, to arrive on Monday.
Sure enough, UPS driver #2 dropped the 4 remaining AP900 cartons, on the front
porch - and yes, once again, took off without ringing the doorbell.
Why should he - the C.O.D was already prepaid, so no reason to greet the
customer, and WARN him about the extremely expensive boxes piled on the front
porch!

I wonder how these two UPS drivers would feel if their car dealer, or car
repair mechanic, drop off their brand new car on the street in front of the
house, with the keys in the ignition, doors unlocked? A new Saturn vehicle
would come close to the cost of an AP900, in comparison.

If you use UPS "STANDARD" delivery - least expensive, 3 day delivery - the
package should only come on a weekday (unless UPS screws up, once again). All
the other, special, more expensive EXPRESS, etc. two day shipments, CAN be
delivered on a Saturday - mine was the STANDARD, but the UPS drivers are
easily confused, it seems. So, be careful about using these premium services -
which could come on a weekend.

Before I retired, I used to have a personal business policy of NEVER using
UPS because of their problematic performance, but I thought they had now
improved over the years. Well, it's now back to FEDEX, which I had always used
previously, and rarely (if ever) had any problems.

Bottom line: DO NOT prepay the C.O.D. - this FORCES the driver to ring
your doorbell to collect the credit card payment for the UPS service fee. If
he takes off before you can get to your front door - damn they're quick, in a
hurry - then they would NOT just leave your $10,000 packages sitting, in plain
public view, on the front porch! Besides, they would make two more agreed upon
delivery retries. Otherwise, you may have to reclaim your AP mount from the
local "fence".

P.S.
The AP paperwork clearly states "Contact the consignee upon arrival of
shipment". Well, UPS did, from somewhere along the border, but only to ask for
their C.O.D. fee prepayment, if I wanted to do that.
BAD MISTAKE !

Joe

... You're welcome ... ;-)

Thanks, Wont worry about it. I was just wondering if it had an
effect. Thank god for all the enginers of the world:-)

Keith,

--- In ap-gto@..., "dmwmpd" <westergren@...> wrote:

Hi All,

Roland's elegant answer is simple, and true. However I see from

some

of the other posts that there is a great misunderstanding of the
basic physics and engineering of the use of counter weights. So
here's the story:

The counter weights must produce a moment (weight x arm) to balance
the scope and equipment. It doesn't matter whether you use 6 lb at

18

inch or 18 lbs at 6 inch, the moment is the same. The bending

stress

on the threads of the weight shaft are also the same either way.

There is also a shear stress on the weight shaft thread area due to
the gravity pull on the weights and shaft. That shear stress = the
total weights, so choked up larger weights = more shear stress.

BUT -

the design is so robust that you can't put enough weights on it to
break or bend it unless you grossly overload the mount with a

really

large scope (the stress levels are low). So don't worry about it!

Don

--- In ap-gto@..., chris1011@ wrote:

In a message dated 4/9/2007 7:20:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
esteskkkk@ writes:

I was wondering if it make a difference where you balance your

setup in

RA? I mean is it better to use a lot of weight and choke up? Or

less

farther out?

It makes little difference either way.

Rolando


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you Gilles and Roland for the very fast reply. If I will find something interested I will post here.
Clear skies from polluted Shanghai
Marco


----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "gilovision2@..." <gilovision2@...>
A: ap-gto@...
Inviato: Martedì 10 aprile 2007, 20:36:56
Oggetto: Re: [ap-gto] Width of 900GTO


Dans un e-mail daté du 10/04/2007 12:48:44 Paris, Madrid (heure d'été),
marcolorenzi70@ yahoo.it a écrit :

Dear all, I believe to have found here in China a nice box that could be
adapted to store and carry around my 900GTO. Unfortunately I don't have the head
dimensions here with me and I won't be back to Europe before the middle of
next June. From AP site I got the diagram of the mount and can extrapolate two
relative dimensions of both RA and DEC parts (height and length) but
unfortunately I have no their width. Could anyone tell me what is the maximum with
of both RA base and Dec part considering (for the former) the motor and
gearbox?
Clear Skies
Marco

Hi Marco,

for a 900 GTO with latitude set to 43 degrees.

Max Height : 53 cm.

RA height only 32cm.
Width: 25cm including motor box.

Dec axis only: length 35cm 22cm width including motor box.

Hope this helps,

Gilles

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





___________________________________
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All,

Roland's elegant answer is simple, and true. However I see from some
of the other posts that there is a great misunderstanding of the
basic physics and engineering of the use of counter weights. So
here's the story:

The counter weights must produce a moment (weight x arm) to balance
the scope and equipment. It doesn't matter whether you use 6 lb at 18
inch or 18 lbs at 6 inch, the moment is the same. The bending stress
on the threads of the weight shaft are also the same either way.

There is also a shear stress on the weight shaft thread area due to
the gravity pull on the weights and shaft. That shear stress = the
total weights, so choked up larger weights = more shear stress. BUT -
the design is so robust that you can't put enough weights on it to
break or bend it unless you grossly overload the mount with a really
large scope (the stress levels are low). So don't worry about it!

Don

--- In ap-gto@..., chris1011@... wrote:

In a message dated 4/9/2007 7:20:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
esteskkkk@... writes:

I was wondering if it make a difference where you balance your

setup in

RA? I mean is it better to use a lot of weight and choke up? Or

less

farther out?

It makes little difference either way.

Rolando


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's easier to move the weights chooked up, less leverage for the motors to overcome...joe :)

Dear all, I believe to have found here in China a nice box that could be adapted to store and carry around my 900GTO. Unfortunately I don't have the head dimensions here with me and I won't be back to Europe before the middle of next June. From AP site I got the diagram of the mount and can extrapolate two relative dimensions of both RA and DEC parts (height and length) but unfortunately I have no their width. Could anyone tell me what is the maximum with of both RA base and Dec part considering (for the former) the motor and gearbox?
Clear Skies
Marco


___________________________________
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

In a message dated 4/10/2007 8:23:07 AM Central Daylight Time, jmize@...
writes:

It's easier to move the weights chooked up, less leverage for the motors to
overcome...joe :)

Actually, the leverage would be the same. 1lb at 10 inches = 1/2 lb at 20".
Both have a rating of 10 inch-lb. The motors do not see the torque of a
counterweight because it is balanced by the weight of the scope, so there is a net
zero torque on the gears and motor. The motor only sees the friction of the
combined weight of scope and counterweights acting on the bearings. The bearings
are so efficient that a few lb. difference in total weight does not really show
up in the motor load.

Rolando


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.

Dans un e-mail daté du 10/04/2007 12:48:44 Paris, Madrid (heure d'été),
marcolorenzi70@... a écrit :

Dear all, I believe to have found here in China a nice box that could be
adapted to store and carry around my 900GTO. Unfortunately I don't have the head
dimensions here with me and I won't be back to Europe before the middle of
next June. From AP site I got the diagram of the mount and can extrapolate two
relative dimensions of both RA and DEC parts (height and length) but
unfortunately I have no their width. Could anyone tell me what is the maximum with
of both RA base and Dec part considering (for the former) the motor and
gearbox?
Clear Skies
Marco


Hi Marco,

for a 900 GTO with latitude set to 43 degrees.

Max Height : 53 cm.

RA height only 32cm.
Width: 25cm including motor box.

Dec axis only: length 35cm 22cm width including motor box.

Hope this helps,

Gilles






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 4/10/2007 5:48:44 AM Central Daylight Time,
marcolorenzi70@... writes:

Could anyone tell me what is the maximum with of both RA base and Dec part
considering (for the former) the motor and gearbox?

The max width dimension is approximately 9 inches on the 900 mount.

Rolando


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.

In a message dated 4/9/2007 7:20:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
esteskkkk@... writes:

I was wondering if it make a difference where you balance your setup in
RA? I mean is it better to use a lot of weight and choke up? Or less
farther out?

It makes little difference either way.

Rolando


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.

That's a good point, Mark. I hadn't considered the pivot point being
overloaded. But if the pivot point is balanced on either side (OTA versus
weights), then the amount of stress would be very nearly the same in either
situation. Actually, with the new shorter counterweight bar - I think it is
thicker, the bar adds more weight as a counter weight itself, while the actual
weights can now sit higher, because of this extra.

Of course, I have the AP900, which has a much shorter shaft then that on
the AP1200. I'm always impressed to see such a long shaft with so many small
diameter separate weights on it. Since the shaft does not move - like on a
G11, etc., I wonder if multiple (maybe 3) weights could be fashioned around a
disk/plate higher up, with a shorter AP1200 shaft - instead of such a long one
with small diameter weights.

Joe

Some years ago at the WSP I was asking this same question

A few of the people who were also Engineers had dome some mathematical
calculations on this, and found that if you put the bulk of the weight close
to the pivot point and then a lighter weight at the end there was less
stress at the pivot point and in fact less stress on the mechanism. This
held true even if this configuration made it necessary to put more weight in
order to counter balance since the majority of the balance weight was being
pushed closed to the pivot point.



So for years I have always had the weights all the way up to the pivot point
and one 10 lb weight close to the bottom for the fine balance. On my 1200
mount I even needed (6) 18lbs and then (1) 10lbs in order to balance with
the configuration this way.



Mark

Hi Keith,

Good question, I too was thinking about that last week.

The trade off is you can use a smaller weight farther out - let's say near
the end of the bar. In some mounts, with thinner counterweight bars, that
introduces flex. Not sure whether that does any harm on an AP, which has a
very thick bar, and doesn't even turn as most mounts do, according to Roland's
recent comment here.

However, let me introduce another novel idea. I saw a photo of Terry
Dickinson (editor Sky News magazine), on the current RASC Toronto Centre
webpage, with his AP1200. I noticed that on his, the "heavier" counterweight
is almost at the end of the bar, while a "smaller" weight is ABOVE it. I
wondered, and asked him, whether that was a photo op error, or if there was a
good reason for that configuration - all scopes that I have ever seen have the
usual smaller, "adjusting weight", at the bottom. Terry said there was no
particular reason, just two different weights.

If you think about it, however, lets say I have an AP900, for which there
is only the standard AP's 18 lb and 10 lb. weights. Placing the small weight
at the bottom, there would be little room to slide it up or down, to
compensate as you add more equipment to the scope, or rebalance the RA every
time there is a meridian flip. But, if you place it above the larger weight,
with the latter near the bottom, then the smaller weight is not only easier
for your to lift, up and down the shaft, but you have a greater range of
travel with it, if needed for a variety of different OTA equipment changes.
This could also apply to your AP1200 situation, just like Terry's mount.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it sure seems like a nice new
way of stacking the weights. What do you think?

Joe

I was wondering if it make a difference where you balance your setup in
RA? I mean is it better to use a lot of weight and choke up? Or less
farther out?

Keith Estes

Roland,

Just the info I needed!

Thanks,
Bruce

Following the thread - thanks to all for the reference - ordered
grease for my 3+ year old AP900.

Now, how and where to lubicate, Roland?

Remove the gearbox cover to expose the gearbos sur gears. Remove

the 2 gears

that have the screwdriver slots on the hubs. Put some grease on

the posts and

on all the gear teeth and re-assemble the two gears back into

place. Please

don't tighten the posts to the breaking point where the threads

will strip out.

Rolando


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Following the thread - thanks to all for the reference - ordered
grease for my 3+ year old AP900.

Now, how and where to lubicate, Roland? Is there a blow up 3D digram
as to where and how to safely accomplish this without distubing mount
integrity and performance. Sort of like the maintenance manuals I
purchase with a new car that I intent to keep for 20 years (I've got a
few)!

Thanks,

Bruce in VA.


--- In ap-gto@..., "lupodima" <lupo.di.mare@...> wrote:

Dear Rolando
in order of maintenance of my AP 900 gto cp3 how i can lubricate also
the worm gear and the cogwheel of the AR -DEC axles whitout

disasemble

totally the mount ?
is that possible or i need to send it to Astrophysics?
thanks for your precious advices !!
My best and have all the staff a good easter holydays

Giorgio

In a message dated 4/9/2007 8:01:31 AM Central Daylight Time,
bbodner@... writes:

Following the thread - thanks to all for the reference - ordered
grease for my 3+ year old AP900.

Now, how and where to lubicate, Roland?

Remove the gearbox cover to expose the gearbos sur gears. Remove the 2 gears
that have the screwdriver slots on the hubs. Put some grease on the posts and
on all the gear teeth and re-assemble the two gears back into place. Please
don't tighten the posts to the breaking point where the threads will strip out.

Rolando


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.

In a message dated 4/8/2007 12:37:13 PM Central Daylight Time,
lupo.di.mare@... writes:

in order of maintenance of my AP 900 gto cp3 how i can lubricate also
the worm gear and the cogwheel of the AR -DEC axles whitout disasemble
totally the mount ?

Just remove the motor gearbox and you will see the worm teeth exposed.

Rolando


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.