Date   

Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Dean S
 

It may have more to do with who spends the most in advertising, ie $$$$. AP
runs a nice small ad compared to the full page color ads of others.

But that is ok because AP doesn't need the hipe to sell their products.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Zeglinski" <J.Zeglinski@rogers.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


William,

My point was, I expect "news people" to be on top of stories in their
industry, that is what I PAY them for, or I would just subscribe to the
internet. They should have been prep'd, with a story to go out with the
issue.
What ... they just sit there in their office and wait for this group, or
what
pops up at a conference? The Mach1 review took long enough, so I suppose
S&T
will report further on the AP3600 - "in the fullness of time ... next
spring.

Sheesh indeed,
Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Joseph Zeglinski wrote:

Back to topic - I am surprised that S&T didn't scoop the astro
publishing
world with such a major announcement review (prepared in advanced) of
the
AP3600 - somebody there, in the new management, asleep at the wheel -
(they
probably aren't astro literate) ?
How could S&T make this announcement if they were not aware of it ?
Sheesh. There are plenty of things to flame them for so that we need not
resort to making things up.


Bill


--

William R. Mattil : http://www.celestial-images.com



To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links







To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Joe Zeglinski
 

William,

My point was, I expect "news people" to be on top of stories in their
industry, that is what I PAY them for, or I would just subscribe to the
internet. They should have been prep'd, with a story to go out with the issue.
What ... they just sit there in their office and wait for this group, or what
pops up at a conference? The Mach1 review took long enough, so I suppose S&T
will report further on the AP3600 - "in the fullness of time ... next spring.

Sheesh indeed,
Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Joseph Zeglinski wrote:

Back to topic - I am surprised that S&T didn't scoop the astro
publishing
world with such a major announcement review (prepared in advanced) of the
AP3600 - somebody there, in the new management, asleep at the wheel - (they
probably aren't astro literate) ?
How could S&T make this announcement if they were not aware of it ?
Sheesh. There are plenty of things to flame them for so that we need not
resort to making things up.


Bill


--

William R. Mattil : http://www.celestial-images.com



To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

William R. Mattil <wrmattil@...>
 

Joseph Zeglinski wrote:

Back to topic - I am surprised that S&T didn't scoop the astro publishing world with such a major announcement review (prepared in advanced) of the AP3600 - somebody there, in the new management, asleep at the wheel - (they probably aren't astro literate) ?
How could S&T make this announcement if they were not aware of it ? Sheesh. There are plenty of things to flame them for so that we need not resort to making things up.


Bill


--

William R. Mattil : http://www.celestial-images.com


Re: GTO Keypad Firmware

 

Hi Larry,

We are planning to finish up the 4.2 keypad code soon, then will
release it to the beta group. After beta, we will have it available
on our website for downloading.

Marj Christen
Astro-Physics



--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Phillips" <llp41astro@...>
wrote:

Can anyone tell me if version 4.12 of the GTO Keypad firmware is
still
shipping with the current Mach1GTO mount or has there been an
update
released?

I read somewhere that it is to be updated soon. If so, when will
Mach1GTO mounts have the updated firmware included when shipped?

Also, will the next update of the firmware require changes to the
manual?

Larry


Anybody have an AP 10 pound weight they will part with?

tucstargzr
 

Please respond off list.

Thanks

Tom
Sings with the Stars


Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Joe Zeglinski
 

Dean,

One final S&T criticism before I stop (my off topic rant).
I too complained to the editor that it was really dumb on the part of their
new owners, to make the magazine changes in mid year. Anyone who binds their
collections, will have a few issues this year which will not be cut to the
same size - really tacky!
They could/should have waited for the January issue to make drastic changes.
Looks like the new owners wanted to put their "boot-prints" on their latest
acquisition.

I am beginning to wonder if S&T's days/years are now numbered, with failed
business attempts at two other excellent spin off magazines, and now with new,
possibly ignorant or non-caring, corporate owners.
Too bad - S&T has always been a gem.

Back to topic - I am surprised that S&T didn't scoop the astro publishing
world with such a major announcement review (prepared in advanced) of the
AP3600 - somebody there, in the new management, asleep at the wheel - (they
probably aren't astro literate) ?
They could have sent Dennis DiCicco to Antarctica to test it, and he would
have been back ... by morning :-)

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean S" <dean@cwdi.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


I e-mail and raised all sorts of fuss when my first issue came with the
cheaper binding. Really cheapens the magazine, and like you said, not
having the spline means we can't easily reference older issues.

I recently rain into Shawn Walker and let him know my feelings too :)

Oh well, everyone is having to trim the fat, and they are no different. I
do hope AP is an exception and continues taking the "High Road."



----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Zeglinski" <J.Zeglinski@rogers.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Hi Dean,

That is one thing that has always really bugged me about S&T
magazine -
now, recently another, that they have gone back to stapling, and you can't
find an old issue since there is no longer a "spine" to see the date in a
carton.

Wish they would publish a "special interim issue", and then get the
publishing dates back to a normal sequence. I suppose they do that on
purpose,
to give us a couple of months time in reading completely through an issue,
in
preparation for some cosmological event, we wouldn't want to miss.

Does any other monthly magazine publish months in advance?
For me, it's more annoying than supposedly well intentioned.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean S" <dean@cwdi.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Magazine dates make about as much sense as buying 2008 model cars in
2007???


----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Phillips" <llp41astro@cox.net>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Your December issue is the one that should have just arrived. The
November issue has been out for a month.

Larry

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Sargent <sargentg@...> wrote:

The Nov issue of S&T has just arrived and the "next month's contents"
does not mention it. Likewise the contents list for the Dec issue of
Sky &Telescope, vol 114, No 6 on the "www.skypub.com" website
does not mention the Mach 1.
What have I got wrong please ? Gerald



To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links




To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links







To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links





To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Dean S
 

I e-mail and raised all sorts of fuss when my first issue came with the
cheaper binding. Really cheapens the magazine, and like you said, not
having the spline means we can't easily reference older issues.

I recently rain into Shawn Walker and let him know my feelings too :)

Oh well, everyone is having to trim the fat, and they are no different. I
do hope AP is an exception and continues taking the "High Road."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Zeglinski" <J.Zeglinski@rogers.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Hi Dean,

That is one thing that has always really bugged me about S&T
magazine -
now, recently another, that they have gone back to stapling, and you can't
find an old issue since there is no longer a "spine" to see the date in a
carton.

Wish they would publish a "special interim issue", and then get the
publishing dates back to a normal sequence. I suppose they do that on
purpose,
to give us a couple of months time in reading completely through an issue,
in
preparation for some cosmological event, we wouldn't want to miss.

Does any other monthly magazine publish months in advance?
For me, it's more annoying than supposedly well intentioned.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean S" <dean@cwdi.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Magazine dates make about as much sense as buying 2008 model cars in
2007???


----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Phillips" <llp41astro@cox.net>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Your December issue is the one that should have just arrived. The
November issue has been out for a month.

Larry

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Sargent <sargentg@...> wrote:

The Nov issue of S&T has just arrived and the "next month's contents"
does not mention it. Likewise the contents list for the Dec issue of
Sky &Telescope, vol 114, No 6 on the "www.skypub.com" website
does not mention the Mach 1.
What have I got wrong please ? Gerald



To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links




To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links







To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007 OT

Gregory Nottingham <gnpnotti@...>
 

Yeah, I remember in 1979 being outraged that a new Jeep 4x4 cost $10K.

Greg

On Nov 1, 2007, at 11:10, kgkirkley@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 11/1/2007 9:59:36 AM Central Daylight Time,
J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:

Does any other monthly magazine publish months in advance?
For me, it's more annoying than supposedly well intentioned.

Joe

More annoying to me is that the magazines begin sending out
resubscription
notices a few months after your subscription begins or at least
6-10 months
before it expires.
By not sending out these early notices they could save a lot of
money, not c
log landfill and, perhaps lower the subscription rate.

Remember when magazines cost 50 cents, a dollar, two dollars?
(I know that can be said just about anything)

Kent Kirkley

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





Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Joe Zeglinski
 

Hi Dean,

That is one thing that has always really bugged me about S&T magazine -
now, recently another, that they have gone back to stapling, and you can't
find an old issue since there is no longer a "spine" to see the date in a
carton.

Wish they would publish a "special interim issue", and then get the
publishing dates back to a normal sequence. I suppose they do that on purpose,
to give us a couple of months time in reading completely through an issue, in
preparation for some cosmological event, we wouldn't want to miss.

Does any other monthly magazine publish months in advance?
For me, it's more annoying than supposedly well intentioned.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean S" <dean@cwdi.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Magazine dates make about as much sense as buying 2008 model cars in 2007???


----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Phillips" <llp41astro@cox.net>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Your December issue is the one that should have just arrived. The
November issue has been out for a month.

Larry

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Sargent <sargentg@...> wrote:

The Nov issue of S&T has just arrived and the "next month's contents"
does not mention it. Likewise the contents list for the Dec issue of
Sky &Telescope, vol 114, No 6 on the "www.skypub.com" website
does not mention the Mach 1.
What have I got wrong please ? Gerald



To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links




To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Dean S
 

Magazine dates make about as much sense as buying 2008 model cars in 2007???

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Phillips" <llp41astro@cox.net>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007


Your December issue is the one that should have just arrived. The
November issue has been out for a month.

Larry

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Sargent <sargentg@...> wrote:

The Nov issue of S&T has just arrived and the "next month's contents"
does not mention it. Likewise the contents list for the Dec issue of
Sky &Telescope, vol 114, No 6 on the "www.skypub.com" website
does not mention the Mach 1.
What have I got wrong please ? Gerald



To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Larry Phillips
 

Your December issue is the one that should have just arrived. The
November issue has been out for a month.

Larry

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Sargent <sargentg@...> wrote:

The Nov issue of S&T has just arrived and the "next month's contents"
does not mention it. Likewise the contents list for the Dec issue of
Sky &Telescope, vol 114, No 6 on the "www.skypub.com" website
does not mention the Mach 1.
What have I got wrong please ? Gerald


Re: TEC 140 + 14" LX200R on an AP1200

Jeff Young <jey@...>
 

Gavin --

I have a Losmandy dovetail attached to the top of my Parallax rings
holding a Meade 16" LX200GPS OTA. On the rail rides a Tak FC-100.

The FC-100 is a doublet, and considerably smaller than 140mm, so it
probably weighs about 1/2 what the TEC does. Then agian, the 16" OTA is
about twice the weight of the 14", and leaves the Tak's weight on a
slightly longer moment arm.

Seems to work fine. The mirror flop is enough in the SCT that you can't
get both scopes to point to the same spot all over the sky, but the
refractors have a big enough field to mostly make up for that.

-- Jeff.


________________________________

From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Gavin Bray
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:28 PM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ap-gto] TEC 140 + 14" LX200R on an AP1200



Hello

I have a 14" LX200R attached to an AP1200 using a set of
Parallax
Instruments rings. The setup is housed in my observatory and I'm
very
happy with it.

I was wondering whether I could attach a dovetail plate to the
top of
the parallax rings (above the 14") and attach something like a
TEC 140
to that.

Is it feasible to mount something like a TEC 140 on top of the
14"?

Is there a better option I should be considering?

Thanks
Gavin


Re: TEC 140 + 14" LX200R on an AP1200

William R. Mattil <wrmattil@...>
 

Gavin Bray wrote:
Hello

I have a 14" LX200R attached to an AP1200 using a set of Parallax Instruments rings. The setup is housed in my observatory and I'm very happy with it.

I was wondering whether I could attach a dovetail plate to the top of the parallax rings (above the 14") and attach something like a TEC 140 to that.

Is it feasible to mount something like a TEC 140 on top of the 14"?
It is certainly feasible. Many others have done exactly that and it's doubtful that you'd be getting anywhere near the capacity of your AP1200.


Just don't be too surprised if you cannot guide the LX200R with the TEC140.

Is there a better option I should be considering?

I'm sure somebody will suggest a side by side mounting which is also feasible. But IMO it's harder to deal with.

Regards

Bill

--

William R. Mattil : http://www.celestial-images.com


Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Kent Kirkley
 

In a message dated 11/1/2007 11:44:35 AM Central Daylight Time,
J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:

Back to topic - I am surprised that S&T didn't scoop the astro publishing
world with such a major announcement review (prepared in advanced) of the
AP3600 - somebody there, in the new management, asleep at the wheel - (they
probably aren't astro literate) ?
They could have sent Dennis DiCicco to Antarctica to test it, and he would
have been back ... by morning :-)



Dennis was at AIC2006 in San Jose last weekend, taking photographs of all
the new gear, including the AP3600GTO.

Kent Kirkley



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


Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Dr. David Toth
 

At 02:52 AM 11/1/2007, Gerald Sargent wrote:
The Nov issue of S&T has just arrived and the "next month's contents"
does not mention it. Likewise the contents list for the Dec issue of
Sky &Telescope, vol 114, No 6 on the "www.skypub.com" website
does not mention the Mach 1.
What have I got wrong please ? Gerald
The Mach 1 is reviewed in New Products in the Dec. issue, page 37, entitled "Staying on Track" ...
A good read ....

Dave


TEC 140 + 14" LX200R on an AP1200

Gavin Bray
 

Hello

I have a 14" LX200R attached to an AP1200 using a set of Parallax
Instruments rings. The setup is housed in my observatory and I'm very
happy with it.

I was wondering whether I could attach a dovetail plate to the top of
the parallax rings (above the 14") and attach something like a TEC 140
to that.

Is it feasible to mount something like a TEC 140 on top of the 14"?

Is there a better option I should be considering?

Thanks
Gavin


Re: Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007 OT

Kent Kirkley
 

In a message dated 11/1/2007 9:59:36 AM Central Daylight Time,
J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:

Does any other monthly magazine publish months in advance?
For me, it's more annoying than supposedly well intentioned.

Joe



More annoying to me is that the magazines begin sending out resubscription
notices a few months after your subscription begins or at least 6-10 months
before it expires.
By not sending out these early notices they could save a lot of money, not c
log landfill and, perhaps lower the subscription rate.

Remember when magazines cost 50 cents, a dollar, two dollars?
(I know that can be said just about anything)

Kent Kirkley



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


Mach1 critique in S&T Dec 2007

Gerald Sargent <sargentg@...>
 

The Nov issue of S&T has just arrived and the "next month's contents"
does not mention it. Likewise the contents list for the Dec issue of
Sky &Telescope, vol 114, No 6 on the "www.skypub.com" website
does not mention the Mach 1.
What have I got wrong please ? Gerald


Re: portable pier height for 1200GTO

tomoharra <toharra@...>
 

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, "Dean S" <dean@...> wrote:
Hi Dean,

I have the 48" port. pier that I use when I go to my ranch. My
imaging scope is either my TOA 130 or the FSQ. Check out my web
site.

www.astrodave.com/oharra

Tom O'Harra

Hi All,

While waiting for my new mount to get finished, I am thinking
about the portable pier height. Currently mine is about 38" and the
1200 mount is 2" taller, so if I had a 36" tall AP pier it would be
what I am comfortable with. My observatory pier is this height also.

I will use this at star parties, and don't want to get too low as
passer bys inevitably get too close and seem to want to look down
the scopes, or worse yet shine a light on it while I am imaging:)
My OTA's are currently a C9.25, guide scope, and Epsilon 160, not
sure if I ever will get a big refractor.

So this is why I am a bit concerned with the 32" pier. I do think
the 42" is way too tall for my vertically challenged stature. Ap
said they would consider making me a custom pier tube during their
next run, but of course this also means changing the turn buckles
too or else I would just cut one down myself.

Anyways, I like to hear some opinions and experiences with similar
setups and your pier height considerations.

Thanks,
Dean


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


Re: Pier design and sand

dmwmpd <westergren@...>
 

Hi Joe,

I come from the school of thought in astrophotography that there is
no substitude for stiffness, like in auto racing there's no
substitute for cubic inches. A lot of ideas for astro mounts,
cameras, etc can work, but some of them take special care. We are
fortunate now that DSLR's don't need the long term precision guiding
that film required in order to get nice astro photos. I used to
guide film with a piggy back scope that I thought was a very stiff
mount, yet the change in gravity direction in 45 minutes of tracking
caused elongated stars due to the deflection of the structure. Any
imbalance of the scope/mount, or change in the direction of hanging
cables can cause elongated stars over longer exposure times.

Good luck if you decide to try the PVC pier. It's certainly cheaper
and much easier to handle and install than a steel pier. I know, my
steel pier weighed over 450 lbs and took a lot of planning and
manpower to get it into position. It's never going to move now. Let
us know what you try, and how well it works.

Regards,
Don

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Zeglinski" <J.Zeglinski@...>
wrote:

Hi Don,

My engineering background reminds me of these pitfalls as well,
and it is
a concern at the back of my mind, but I still wonder how much
stiffness in
this application, is really enough. If I were building
an "observatory pier",
fully committed to location, I would go for maximum strength of
materials, but
this pier is a test system, if I can call it that. If it works
sufficiently
well, (and I don't kick it, intentionally out of frustration, or
unintentionally), then I will consider it a viable success. Since
this is my
backyard, I don't expect blustery winds (certainly not if I have to
be
outside - in which case the seeing will be a deciding factor, not
the pier).
There are enough buildings, shrubs, fences, and low trees, etc. to
provide
some wind break. Heaving of the ground from year to year, might
eventually
require a reset, or redesign with heftier materials, but a 4 foot
depth and
packed with yard soil (not necessarily sand). I don't expect much
long term
motion, especially since there is no "footing" to push up - it's
just a
relatively thin 1/2" cylinder wall rather than a flat bottom. As
for short
term stability, I am trusting that the wall thickness will suffice
for the
load being carried. But by then I will know if this is the best
spot -
certainly can't be worse than using my 6" diameter Losmandy G11
aluminum
tripod supporting my AP900 and Questar-7. If there is any shift
caused by
seasonal heaving, I can realign the mount, but hopefully it won't
be required,
or at least not often. I like the clean lines of green PVC, no
painting
required, no pitting or rusting below ground, and it won't ring
like a bell.

As for pulling cables, or unbalance - if cables are pulled, I
have some
serious soldering repairs ahead of me. The mount should be
perfectly
balanced - after all it's one of the best, and if anything, we like
our setups
perfectly balanced.

I'm still investigating the feasibility, but appreciate any
heads up and
warnings I can get from you and others. For now, I am considering
it a
"temporary pier" - with no early plans to require dismantling it
(once
planted). I had hoped someone had already tried this approach, but
I might
have to be the first to do so.

What I really would like is to turn it into a Greek Column
during the day,
as I described - that WOULD be the topper!

Thanks,
Joe



----- Original Message -----
From: "dmwmpd" <westergren@...>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:51 PM
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Pier design and sand


Hi Joe,

I really don't think PVC pipe buried in the soil is going to be a
very good pier. The ringing that you mention is a high frequency
tone, that the PVC pipe wouldn't have compared to a metal (steel)
pipe. But the real concern for pier design is how stiff it is
against bumping (not hitting), wind, weight shift (as the mount
moves with any unbalance), pulling cables, etc. These are all
long
time effects, like many seconds to hours. The stiffness of the
pier
pipe is a function of E (modulus of elasticity of the material)
and
the Section Moment of Inertia (depends on diameter and wall
thickness. The stiffness is E*I. It then determines how much
delction of a canteleverd pier has at the top, when one or more of
the steady forces or moments I mentioneed above are applied.

The modulus for steel is 30 million. The modulus for PVC is
between
380,000 and 540,000. In other words, the PVC pipe would flex more
than 55 times as far compared to the the same size steel pipe.

The paper on pier design by Dennis Persyk mentioned a few days ago
on this forum is a very good guide to best pier design, although
it
doesn't address the dynamics that I mentioned in my posts.

Regards,
Don

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Zeglinski" <J.Zeglinski@>
wrote:

Hi,

I have been thinking about putting a temporary pier in the
ground, to see
how the back yard observing spot works out. I don't want to
commit
to heavy
steel posts and concrete bunker footing.

I was thinking of using one of those very thick walled, 10"
diameter,
street water main/sanitation pipes, and simply bury it 3 or 4
feet
deep (3
feet above ground), and fill the inside back in with earth
(perhaps only to
ground level). I am hoping that the perhaps 1/2", (or thicker),
PVC walls
won't ring as much as steel, and will be solid enough for an
AP900
system. I
think these street pipes should be temperature stable and should
not warp or
vibrate, in normal city street use, so it might have advantages
as
pier
material. Advantages include being easier to construct, (even
remove to adjust
for height), and can eventually be moved to a better spot, or
removed
entirely.

Opinions please.

Joe



To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto
Yahoo! Groups Links