Date   

Mach1GTO with Losmandy G11 tripod

ayiomamitis
 

Rolando,

I have seen a number of comments about using the Losmandy G11 tripod
with the Mach1GTO and this is something which I would also like to pursue.

Are there any plans for AP to make the necessary pier adapter plate
which would allow the mating of these two pieces of equipment?

Having used a Losmandy G11 for many years, I really (!) like the very
solid and steady tripod available from Losmandy.

Thanks.


Re: Mach1GTO with Losmandy G11 tripod

Roland Christen
 

In a message dated 6/12/2007 6:10:59 PM Central Daylight Time,
ayiomami@otenet.gr writes:


Are there any plans for AP to make the necessary pier adapter plate
which would allow the mating of these two pieces of equipment?

Yes, we are making this item.

Roland


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


Asteroid tracking

davidjmcdonald
 

Are there any plans to provide the ability for the AP1200 ASCOM driver to
support non-sidereal rates (e.g for tracking asteroids)?

I know it can be done in the current PulseGuide software, but apparently not
via the current ASCOM driver. Unless I missed something...

Cheers
Dave


Re: [SPAM] Re: Balancing the Mach 1

George Whitney <gwhitney@...>
 

Roland,

Thank you for the follow up. That it is different than my other AP mounts
confused me.

Thank you for such wonderful products.

George











_____

From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
chris1011@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:04 AM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [ap-gto] Balancing the Mach 1



In a message dated 6/8/2007 3:19:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
gwhitney@maine. <mailto:gwhitney%40maine.rr.com> rr.com writes:

Were the mount not right out of
the box, I would assume that the "nylon clutch balls" were squished.
There are no nylon clutch balls in the Mach1.

It is not necessary to precisely balance any of our mounts. The axes and
motors are plenty strong to take quite a lot of unbalance. To balance the RA
axis,
just grab the end of the counterweight shaft, turn it horizontal and feel
the
difference in the amount of weight. If it feels about equal, you are close
enough to balance. For the Dec, grab the end of the tube assembly and do the

same.

Do not obsess about getting the balace exact, or even bother to load it
"slightly heavy" to the east. It will make zero difference for tracking on
this
mount. We have made the worm mesh such that no matter how you load it,
balanced
or not, the mount will track the same.

Roland Christen

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


Re: Balancing the Mach 1

Dan R. Richey <drichey@...>
 

That's why I love your equipment. One less thing to obsess about and
get in the way of enjoying the view!!
On Jun 11, 2007, at 9:04 AM, chris1011@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/8/2007 3:19:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
gwhitney@maine.rr.com writes:

Were the mount not right out of
the box, I would assume that the "nylon clutch balls" were squished.
There are no nylon clutch balls in the Mach1.

It is not necessary to precisely balance any of our mounts. The
axes and
motors are plenty strong to take quite a lot of unbalance. To
balance the RA axis,
just grab the end of the counterweight shaft, turn it horizontal
and feel the
difference in the amount of weight. If it feels about equal, you
are close
enough to balance. For the Dec, grab the end of the tube assembly
and do the
same.

Do not obsess about getting the balace exact, or even bother to
load it
"slightly heavy" to the east. It will make zero difference for
tracking on this
mount. We have made the worm mesh such that no matter how you load
it, balanced
or not, the mount will track the same.

Roland Christen

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




Dan


Re: Balancing the Mach 1

Roland Christen
 

In a message dated 6/8/2007 3:19:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
gwhitney@maine.rr.com writes:


Were the mount not right out of
the box, I would assume that the "nylon clutch balls" were squished.
There are no nylon clutch balls in the Mach1.

It is not necessary to precisely balance any of our mounts. The axes and
motors are plenty strong to take quite a lot of unbalance. To balance the RA axis,
just grab the end of the counterweight shaft, turn it horizontal and feel the
difference in the amount of weight. If it feels about equal, you are close
enough to balance. For the Dec, grab the end of the tube assembly and do the
same.

Do not obsess about getting the balace exact, or even bother to load it
"slightly heavy" to the east. It will make zero difference for tracking on this
mount. We have made the worm mesh such that no matter how you load it, balanced
or not, the mount will track the same.

Roland Christen


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


Re: Is an adapted Losmandy G11 tripod good for an AP900?

Joe Zeglinski
 

Thanks Stuart,

That is indeed reassuring.
I had a fear that the several "levels" of screws or bolts could still leave
the assembly shaky - i.e. too many couplings in the stack. In my setup I was
going to use the 3 screws to bolt a machined G11 "transition collar" to a
standard AP, FSA (flat surface adapter), which is then bolted with 6 screws
to the AP900. I may have the 6 holes in the FSA sides milled out with slots,
so that I only need one AP rotating adapter plate, and make it easy to just
"drop and twist" the AP900 onto the stack, the way that Losmandy designed his
G11. I really hate fussing with a pocket full of screws, in the dark, and
cold - even worse if they have washers as well (really dumb approach).

I did have a concern that these two layers, or levels, of screws could
result in a bit of play. However, by your 12 inch solid extension example,
there should be no such problem.

Regards,
Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Heggie" <stuart.j.heggie@sympatico.ca>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Is an adapted Losmandy G11 tripod good for an AP900?


Joe, I have exactly what you've described and it works great. I have the
Losmandy G-11 Tripod with 12" extension and my AP900GTO on top and it
doesn't budge. I loosened the tripd knobs that allow the leg extensions to
slip right into the main body of the tripd so it sits as low as it will go
but there is no vibration and no risk of one leg slipping over time (mine is
a permanent set-up).

Stuart
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Zeglinski
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: [ap-gto] Is an adapted Losmandy G11 tripod good for an AP900?


Re: Is an adapted Losmandy G11 tripod good for an AP900?

Stuart Heggie <stuart.j.heggie@...>
 

Joe, I have exactly what you've described and it works great. I have the Losmandy G-11 Tripod with 12" extension and my AP900GTO on top and it doesn't budge. I loosened the tripd knobs that allow the leg extensions to slip right into the main body of the tripd so it sits as low as it will go but there is no vibration and no risk of one leg slipping over time (mine is a permanent set-up).

Stuart

----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Zeglinski
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: [ap-gto] Is an adapted Losmandy G11 tripod good for an AP900?


Hi,

Recently, I discovered that my convenient QUICKSET "heavy duty" TV camera
tripod, adapted for the AP900 base, turned out to be very shaky - with all
huge weight of the AP900, counterweights, and 7 inch MAK - in spite of the
tripod's obvious mass. On the other hand, the G11 tripod, which is a "welded
aluminum" superstructure, with large diameter leg pipes, seems to be extremely
solid and stable, in comparison. I think the fact that it is welded, instead
of having articulated bolted on, folding legs (even with a stiffener), makes
the Losmandy tripod uniquely rock solid.

I am reluctant to go for one of the typical telescope tripods now, with
concern for wobble at the leg attachments, etc. I also don't like "tie-rods,
turn buckles" and other ship's rigging on a telescope field pedestal. In fact,
the original plan was to immediately replace my new Losmandy G11 tripod with
my old TV camera tripod - assuming that it easily carried the weight of those
huge olden day cameras. I soon gained new respect for Scott's design.

Before I have a special AP900 to Losmandy tripod adapter machined for me,
I would like to hear any opinions on this approach, hopefully from your
experience with this tripod and an AP900. Actually, I wish AP would have this
"tripod adapter" as part of their Losmandy made OTA adapter product line
(hint).

Thanks for any advice.
Joe


Is an adapted Losmandy G11 tripod good for an AP900?

Joe Zeglinski
 

Hi,

Recently, I discovered that my convenient QUICKSET "heavy duty" TV camera
tripod, adapted for the AP900 base, turned out to be very shaky - with all
huge weight of the AP900, counterweights, and 7 inch MAK - in spite of the
tripod's obvious mass. On the other hand, the G11 tripod, which is a "welded
aluminum" superstructure, with large diameter leg pipes, seems to be extremely
solid and stable, in comparison. I think the fact that it is welded, instead
of having articulated bolted on, folding legs (even with a stiffener), makes
the Losmandy tripod uniquely rock solid.

I am reluctant to go for one of the typical telescope tripods now, with
concern for wobble at the leg attachments, etc. I also don't like "tie-rods,
turn buckles" and other ship's rigging on a telescope field pedestal. In fact,
the original plan was to immediately replace my new Losmandy G11 tripod with
my old TV camera tripod - assuming that it easily carried the weight of those
huge olden day cameras. I soon gained new respect for Scott's design.

Before I have a special AP900 to Losmandy tripod adapter machined for me,
I would like to hear any opinions on this approach, hopefully from your
experience with this tripod and an AP900. Actually, I wish AP would have this
"tripod adapter" as part of their Losmandy made OTA adapter product line
(hint).

Thanks for any advice.
Joe


Re: Balancing the declination axis

Gavin Bray
 

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I think I might have something fabricated, possibly in stainless
steel, so as not to distract from the mount's good looks. :-)

Regards
Gavin


Re: optec tcf s compatibility with edgeport serial to usb converters

Yves Laroche
 

Hi Jerald,

On my side, I've experimented serial timeout issue with my 1200GTO mount when using my edgeport/8 with my TCF-S in Automode A or B. The problem seemed to happend when I was using MaxImDL with the focuser's auto tracking function enabled. By default, each time the TCF-S automode function is enabled, the controller box sent data back to the serial port, every one second, to let know the software about temperature and focuser position. These informations produce a lot of traffic jam and block other data to be sent back to other serial port like telescope mount. This traffic jam produce a bad serial link on other serial link and it produced disconnected link. Also, I've set ACP4 polling option to slow but without success.

To solve my problem, I've ordered the last chip upgrade from Optec. The new firmware permit a user to cancel any data from being sent to the serial port when using the automode focuser command. This new command "FQUIT1" solved my serial traffic jam problem.

Yves

----- Original Message -----
From: mizzou156
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: [ap-gto] optec tcf s compatibility with edgeport serial to usb converters


Hello,
Can anyone tell me if there has been compatibility problems with the
optec tcf s focuser and the edgeport/2 rs232 to usb converter? Optec
seems to hint at problems with certain chip sets of various
manufacturer's that produce these serial to usb converters
Thank You again for your previous help. I am now preparing to enter
the arena of astrophotography........scary!.......Mizzou


Re: Wireless control of AP900?

Dick Locke
 

I'm using the blueconsole with success on my AP900:

...I was able to get a bluetooth
connection going between my laptop and the mount. See
http://www.dl-digital.com/astrophoto/P2-Astro/AP-900-GTO.htm

And you should definitely get built-in bluetooth on any new laptop; I
have to use an adapter which is a minor pain mostly because it takes
up a USB port.

-Dick Locke

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Kinsey" <richard.kinsey@...>
wrote:

Hi Gedas, thanks for the link to the Bluestar adapter. I hadn't seen
that before. In doing a search through past messages, I came across
this, which might also be worth considering.

http://www.blueconsole.com/

Best wishes, Richard


Re: optec tcf s compatibility with edgeport serial to usb converters

mizzou156 <mizzou156@...>
 

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mortfield <paul@...> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the input. I will be ordering the optec now, since
there don't seem to be any compatibility problems. I went with the
edgeport/2 and now wish I had the larger unit as you do.
Again, Thank You. This is a great group of people to learn
from, since I am a novice to astronomy and the AP 900
mount....Jerald
Hi Mizzou,
I've been using the TCF-s and the Edgeport/4 for 4 years without a
problem at all. As a matter of fact, the focuser and edgeport seem
to
be the most reliable and the TCF-s can hold any camera. The 4port
version is great since it has room for both of the AP mount's
rs232
connections (run TheSky and PulseGuide), and still room for the
focuser and one more serial device.

One thing to note I found if you're using TheSky (rs232 connection)
thru one of these devices is to change the "cross hairs update
frequency" to 2000 ms instead of the 500ms time, so its not
updating
as often and hogging the pipe. There's probably a better sweet
spot,
but this has been working for me for years.

cheers,
...paul.

At 2007-06-09 11:44 Saturday, you wrote:

Hello,
Can anyone tell me if there has been compatibility problems with
the
optec tcf s focuser and the edgeport/2 rs232 to usb converter?
Optec
seems to hint at problems with certain chip sets of various
manufacturer's that produce these serial to usb converters
Thank You again for your previous help. I am now preparing to enter
the arena of astrophotography........scary!.......Mizzou


Re: optec tcf s compatibility with edgeport serial to usb converters

Paul M
 

Hi Mizzou,
I've been using the TCF-s and the Edgeport/4 for 4 years without a problem at all. As a matter of fact, the focuser and edgeport seem to be the most reliable and the TCF-s can hold any camera. The 4port version is great since it has room for both of the AP mount's rs232 connections (run TheSky and PulseGuide), and still room for the focuser and one more serial device.

One thing to note I found if you're using TheSky (rs232 connection) thru one of these devices is to change the "cross hairs update frequency" to 2000 ms instead of the 500ms time, so its not updating as often and hogging the pipe. There's probably a better sweet spot, but this has been working for me for years.

cheers,
...paul.

At 2007-06-09 11:44 Saturday, you wrote:

Hello,
Can anyone tell me if there has been compatibility problems with the
optec tcf s focuser and the edgeport/2 rs232 to usb converter? Optec
seems to hint at problems with certain chip sets of various
manufacturer's that produce these serial to usb converters
Thank You again for your previous help. I am now preparing to enter
the arena of astrophotography........scary!.......Mizzou


optec tcf s compatibility with edgeport serial to usb converters

mizzou156 <mizzou156@...>
 

Hello,
Can anyone tell me if there has been compatibility problems with the
optec tcf s focuser and the edgeport/2 rs232 to usb converter? Optec
seems to hint at problems with certain chip sets of various
manufacturer's that produce these serial to usb converters
Thank You again for your previous help. I am now preparing to enter
the arena of astrophotography........scary!.......Mizzou


Re: Balancing the declination axis

Jeff <jlc@...>
 

Lots of good ideas so far.

I have the same problem w/ a 12" LX200 OTA on an AP1200. I use the cassady
saddle, but I cant push the OTA far enough forward to balance.

I have run it in "out of balance" mode for a little while now, but the dec
motor seems to labor occasionally which was a cause for concern.
(And, btw, it does not seem to be that much out of balance. I suspect the
motor was laboring either due to cold, low battery power, or a dirty battery
plug connection.)

Recently I put a Losmandy three-axis camera dovetail mount on the bottom OTA
dovetail plate near the front of the OTA, and put my Pentax 67 on the camera
mount.
That balanced it very well.

So I'm going to get a couple Losmandy DA (dovetail adapter blocks) and mount
some lead weights on them.
I did this with my dob a long time ago -- I used a plastic electronics box
from radio shack to hold the weights - it looks rather stylish. B^)
(Losmandy sells a counterweight system, but it is $80 for 5 lbs.)



_____

From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Gavin Bray
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:31 AM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ap-gto] Balancing the declination axis



Hello

I have a 14" LX200R mounted on a AP1200 with the 1200RP mounting plate
and Parallax Instruments rings.

There's not enough adjustment of the OTA in the rings to balance it in
the declination axis.

Does this mean I need to purchase a tube counterweight?

If so, any recommendations?

Is there some alternative??

Thanks
Gavin


Re: [SPAM] Re: Balancing the Mach 1

George Whitney <gwhitney@...>
 

Kurt,

Thank you. I guess that I'm used to the AP 900 and AP 1200 which are very
easy to achieve critical balance; whereas the Mach 1 is major guess work by
comparison. I love the mount!

George











_____

From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Kurt Mihalco
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:56 PM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SPAM] [ap-gto] Re: Balancing the Mach 1



Hi George,

My Mach1 behaves exactly the same. I believe this is normal, as I
remember reading somewhere (this list?) that the bearings have a
significant pre-load. I found that compared to my 600, the Mach1
needs more weight to balance. I wound up ordering the 14" CW shaft
used on the 900, and find it works great.

Regards,
Kurt M

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups. <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com> com, "George
Whitney" <gwhitney@...> wrote:

Question for others with Mach 1:



I have noticed that it is difficult to balance the Mach 1 when
loaded with
an AP 155 and several weights. Unlike the AP 900 and AP 1200 mounts
which
seem to turn easily when heavily weighted and one can balance by a
simply
finger push and watch the coasting of the axis, the Mach 1 requires
a hefty
hand push and there is no coasting at all. Were the mount not right
out of
the box, I would assume that the "nylon clutch balls" were squished.
However, when there is no weight on the mount, it seems to turn
much more
easily. Is this just a factor of a smaller mount or is there a
bearing
issue?



I'd appreciate any other experiences with Mach 1 balancing.



Thank you,

George


Re: [SPAM] RE: Balancing the Mach 1

George Whitney <gwhitney@...>
 

Jeff,

Thank you; though 100 pounds on the AP1200 swings a lot easier than 25
pounds on the Mach 1.

George











_____

From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jeff Young
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:30 PM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SPAM] RE: [ap-gto] Balancing the Mach 1



George --

I'd guess it's a function of the weight to bearing surface ratio. The
1200 doesn't coast much with 250 lbs on it.

I keep meaning to get a fish scale, but the mount doesn't seem terribly
bothered by the fact that I can't balance it very closely.

-- Jeff.

________________________________

From: ap-gto@yahoogroups. <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups. <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com> com] On
Behalf Of George Whitney
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:17 PM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups. <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [ap-gto] Balancing the Mach 1



Question for others with Mach 1:

I have noticed that it is difficult to balance the Mach 1 when
loaded with
an AP 155 and several weights. Unlike the AP 900 and AP 1200
mounts which
seem to turn easily when heavily weighted and one can balance by
a simply
finger push and watch the coasting of the axis, the Mach 1
requires a hefty
hand push and there is no coasting at all. Were the mount not
right out of
the box, I would assume that the "nylon clutch balls" were
squished.
However, when there is no weight on the mount, it seems to turn
much more
easily. Is this just a factor of a smaller mount or is there a
bearing
issue?

I'd appreciate any other experiences with Mach 1 balancing.

Thank you,

George


Re: Balancing the Mach 1

Kurt Mihalco <mihalco@...>
 

Hi George,

My Mach1 behaves exactly the same. I believe this is normal, as I
remember reading somewhere (this list?) that the bearings have a
significant pre-load. I found that compared to my 600, the Mach1
needs more weight to balance. I wound up ordering the 14" CW shaft
used on the 900, and find it works great.

Regards,
Kurt M

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, "George Whitney" <gwhitney@...> wrote:

Question for others with Mach 1:



I have noticed that it is difficult to balance the Mach 1 when
loaded with
an AP 155 and several weights. Unlike the AP 900 and AP 1200 mounts
which
seem to turn easily when heavily weighted and one can balance by a
simply
finger push and watch the coasting of the axis, the Mach 1 requires
a hefty
hand push and there is no coasting at all. Were the mount not right
out of
the box, I would assume that the "nylon clutch balls" were squished.
However, when there is no weight on the mount, it seems to turn
much more
easily. Is this just a factor of a smaller mount or is there a
bearing
issue?



I'd appreciate any other experiences with Mach 1 balancing.



Thank you,

George


Re: Balancing the Mach 1

Jeff Young <jey@...>
 

George --

I'd guess it's a function of the weight to bearing surface ratio. The
1200 doesn't coast much with 250 lbs on it.

I keep meaning to get a fish scale, but the mount doesn't seem terribly
bothered by the fact that I can't balance it very closely.

-- Jeff.


________________________________

From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of George Whitney
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:17 PM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ap-gto] Balancing the Mach 1



Question for others with Mach 1:

I have noticed that it is difficult to balance the Mach 1 when
loaded with
an AP 155 and several weights. Unlike the AP 900 and AP 1200
mounts which
seem to turn easily when heavily weighted and one can balance by
a simply
finger push and watch the coasting of the axis, the Mach 1
requires a hefty
hand push and there is no coasting at all. Were the mount not
right out of
the box, I would assume that the "nylon clutch balls" were
squished.
However, when there is no weight on the mount, it seems to turn
much more
easily. Is this just a factor of a smaller mount or is there a
bearing
issue?

I'd appreciate any other experiences with Mach 1 balancing.

Thank you,

George