Date   

Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Bill Long
 

Thanks for the clarification. I would be interested in seeing the results with the model active. :) 


From: ap-gto@... on behalf of chris1011@... [ap-gto]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 4:48 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions
 
 

I did not use a tracking model. I was simply guiding.

Roland



-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Long bill@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto@...
Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2019 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



Was this test done using an APMM tracking model? 


From: ap-gto@... on behalf of chris1011@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:55 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions
 
 
I'll answer this in 2 parts.

At 19" distance and 67 lb you would be just outside of our conservative rated capacity. That does not mean that the mount would suddenly stop working. It just means that a larger mount would be more appropriate and would give you more room for error. If this is a portable setup, you might be tempted to go with the lightest mount that would still work. For a permanent setup you might want to think about a beefier mount that has potential for more weight in the future.

As far as tracking/guiding to 0.3 arc sec RMS, that is going to depend on your local seeing. To give you a feel for how well the Mach2 can guide, on Saturday night I loaded our prototype Mach2 (the one we had at NEAF) with about 75lb of scopes and cameras and did extensive tracking/guiding tests over a period of about 6 hours. The seeing according to Clear Sky Clock was a 4 out of 5, not perfect but good. I did a short run of polar drift alignment that resulted in RA and Dec drift of about 1 arc sec per 15 minutes. In the guided tests using MaximDL, the guide results averaged just over 0.1 arc sec RMS for the entire test period, never exceeding 0.15 Arc sec RMS the entire time. I used guide exposures of 1 sec, 2 sec and 5 sec. All three produced similar results.

What was really interesting was that unguided RMS were always on the order of 0.2 to 0.3 arc sec - this being the fundamental seeing which produced this level of random star motions over a period of several seconds. Once the guider was turned on, the guide loop actually "chased the seeing" in a rapid enough way to reduce the star motion down to 0.1 RMS level. The reason this works is because the dual encoders on the Mach2 respond in a very rapid fashion to guider commands, almost like a simple adaptive optics system. I was limited to 1 sec guide exposures in MaximDL due to the nature of the program, but plan to try this with another guide program that can do much faster guide corrections. The encoders in the Mach2 can respond to any guide input in less than 20 milliseconds.

I uploaded some of the results here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/

Note the one guide graph (guided versus non-guided) that shows dramatically how well the dual encoders can tamp down the random seeing motions down to the 0.1 arc sec level. Guiding stops at the 480 second point and starts again at the 840 second point.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: kanel.nick@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto
Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2019 12:21 am
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



I already kinda asked George this question, but I don't know if I was specific enough. I just want to make sure what he said is still valid.

I'm interested in mounting a PlaneWave 14" CDK on a Mach2 (more detailed "proposed setup" info here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/657619-seeking-recommendations-advice-and-answers-regarding-future-permanent-setup/). My biggest concern is the capacity of the Mach2. It says 75lbs, however the 14" CDK is a pretty tall scope and would increase the setup's moment of inertia pretty substantially (at its highest point, it stands 19" tall off the mount saddle (see here: http://planewave.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/10/140101A-OVERALL-DIMENSIONS.pdf) and is almost ~4 feet long when you factor in the camera and backfocus. The total weight would probably be somewhere around 67lbs (plus or minus 2).

With my proposed camera, I'd need to guide at 0.3" RMS or better to get sub-pixel tracking/guiding. I'm having trouble figuring out if I can even guide since I'd have to somehow deal with flexure. If anyone has thoughts on that I'd be happy to hear them. But the main question is with this setup, can I reasonably expect to track at sub-0.3" RMS without guiding (as long as my PA is perfect) or guide at sub-0.3" RMS with guiding (if that's even possible)?

Thanks
Nick





Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Roland Christen
 

I did not use a tracking model. I was simply guiding.

Roland



-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Long bill@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto@...
Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2019 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



Was this test done using an APMM tracking model? 


From: ap-gto@... on behalf of chris1011@... [ap-gto]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:55 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions
 
 
I'll answer this in 2 parts.

At 19" distance and 67 lb you would be just outside of our conservative rated capacity. That does not mean that the mount would suddenly stop working. It just means that a larger mount would be more appropriate and would give you more room for error. If this is a portable setup, you might be tempted to go with the lightest mount that would still work. For a permanent setup you might want to think about a beefier mount that has potential for more weight in the future.

As far as tracking/guiding to 0.3 arc sec RMS, that is going to depend on your local seeing. To give you a feel for how well the Mach2 can guide, on Saturday night I loaded our prototype Mach2 (the one we had at NEAF) with about 75lb of scopes and cameras and did extensive tracking/guiding tests over a period of about 6 hours. The seeing according to Clear Sky Clock was a 4 out of 5, not perfect but good. I did a short run of polar drift alignment that resulted in RA and Dec drift of about 1 arc sec per 15 minutes. In the guided tests using MaximDL, the guide results averaged just over 0.1 arc sec RMS for the entire test period, never exceeding 0.15 Arc sec RMS the entire time. I used guide exposures of 1 sec, 2 sec and 5 sec. All three produced similar results.

What was really interesting was that unguided RMS were always on the order of 0.2 to 0.3 arc sec - this being the fundamental seeing which produced this level of random star motions over a period of several seconds. Once the guider was turned on, the guide loop actually "chased the seeing" in a rapid enough way to reduce the star motion down to 0.1 RMS level. The reason this works is because the dual encoders on the Mach2 respond in a very rapid fashion to guider commands, almost like a simple adaptive optics system. I was limited to 1 sec guide exposures in MaximDL due to the nature of the program, but plan to try this with another guide program that can do much faster guide corrections. The encoders in the Mach2 can respond to any guide input in less than 20 milliseconds.

I uploaded some of the results here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/

Note the one guide graph (guided versus non-guided) that shows dramatically how well the dual encoders can tamp down the random seeing motions down to the 0.1 arc sec level. Guiding stops at the 480 second point and starts again at the 840 second point.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: kanel.nick@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto
Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2019 12:21 am
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



I already kinda asked George this question, but I don't know if I was specific enough. I just want to make sure what he said is still valid.

I'm interested in mounting a PlaneWave 14" CDK on a Mach2 (more detailed "proposed setup" info here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/657619-seeking-recommendations-advice-and-answers-regarding-future-permanent-setup/). My biggest concern is the capacity of the Mach2. It says 75lbs, however the 14" CDK is a pretty tall scope and would increase the setup's moment of inertia pretty substantially (at its highest point, it stands 19" tall off the mount saddle (see here: http://planewave.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/10/140101A-OVERALL-DIMENSIONS.pdf) and is almost ~4 feet long when you factor in the camera and backfocus. The total weight would probably be somewhere around 67lbs (plus or minus 2).

With my proposed camera, I'd need to guide at 0.3" RMS or better to get sub-pixel tracking/guiding. I'm having trouble figuring out if I can even guide since I'd have to somehow deal with flexure. If anyone has thoughts on that I'd be happy to hear them. But the main question is with this setup, can I reasonably expect to track at sub-0.3" RMS without guiding (as long as my PA is perfect) or guide at sub-0.3" RMS with guiding (if that's even possible)?

Thanks
Nick





Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Bill Long
 

Was this test done using an APMM tracking model? 


From: ap-gto@... on behalf of chris1011@... [ap-gto]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:55 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions
 
 

I'll answer this in 2 parts.

At 19" distance and 67 lb you would be just outside of our conservative rated capacity. That does not mean that the mount would suddenly stop working. It just means that a larger mount would be more appropriate and would give you more room for error. If this is a portable setup, you might be tempted to go with the lightest mount that would still work. For a permanent setup you might want to think about a beefier mount that has potential for more weight in the future.

As far as tracking/guiding to 0.3 arc sec RMS, that is going to depend on your local seeing. To give you a feel for how well the Mach2 can guide, on Saturday night I loaded our prototype Mach2 (the one we had at NEAF) with about 75lb of scopes and cameras and did extensive tracking/guiding tests over a period of about 6 hours. The seeing according to Clear Sky Clock was a 4 out of 5, not perfect but good. I did a short run of polar drift alignment that resulted in RA and Dec drift of about 1 arc sec per 15 minutes. In the guided tests using MaximDL, the guide results averaged just over 0.1 arc sec RMS for the entire test period, never exceeding 0.15 Arc sec RMS the entire time. I used guide exposures of 1 sec, 2 sec and 5 sec. All three produced similar results.

What was really interesting was that unguided RMS were always on the order of 0.2 to 0.3 arc sec - this being the fundamental seeing which produced this level of random star motions over a period of several seconds. Once the guider was turned on, the guide loop actually "chased the seeing" in a rapid enough way to reduce the star motion down to 0.1 RMS level. The reason this works is because the dual encoders on the Mach2 respond in a very rapid fashion to guider commands, almost like a simple adaptive optics system. I was limited to 1 sec guide exposures in MaximDL due to the nature of the program, but plan to try this with another guide program that can do much faster guide corrections. The encoders in the Mach2 can respond to any guide input in less than 20 milliseconds.

I uploaded some of the results here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/

Note the one guide graph (guided versus non-guided) that shows dramatically how well the dual encoders can tamp down the random seeing motions down to the 0.1 arc sec level. Guiding stops at the 480 second point and starts again at the 840 second point.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: kanel.nick@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto
Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2019 12:21 am
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



I already kinda asked George this question, but I don't know if I was specific enough. I just want to make sure what he said is still valid.

I'm interested in mounting a PlaneWave 14" CDK on a Mach2 (more detailed "proposed setup" info here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/657619-seeking-recommendations-advice-and-answers-regarding-future-permanent-setup/). My biggest concern is the capacity of the Mach2. It says 75lbs, however the 14" CDK is a pretty tall scope and would increase the setup's moment of inertia pretty substantially (at its highest point, it stands 19" tall off the mount saddle (see here: http://planewave.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/10/140101A-OVERALL-DIMENSIONS.pdf) and is almost ~4 feet long when you factor in the camera and backfocus. The total weight would probably be somewhere around 67lbs (plus or minus 2).

With my proposed camera, I'd need to guide at 0.3" RMS or better to get sub-pixel tracking/guiding. I'm having trouble figuring out if I can even guide since I'd have to somehow deal with flexure. If anyone has thoughts on that I'd be happy to hear them. But the main question is with this setup, can I reasonably expect to track at sub-0.3" RMS without guiding (as long as my PA is perfect) or guide at sub-0.3" RMS with guiding (if that's even possible)?

Thanks
Nick



Re: ... and daytime polar alignment

Tyrel Smith
 

Thanks Roland. I did not consider some the different setup scenarios you mentioned. I guess it has worked for me well since I marked a spot on my patio to set up on every time.

Ty Smith

On Apr 22, 2019, at 11:59, chris1011@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:

 

I think your approach is fine for Park2 and Park3. Park1 and 4 is dependent on your latitude where you are setting up your mount, so that requires some sort of leveling device.
Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Tyrel Smith tysmith747@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
To: ap-gto <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2019 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: ... and daytime polar alignment

#yiv3430137124 #yiv3430137124 -- #yiv3430137124 .yiv3430137124ygrp-photo-title{ clear:both;font-size:smaller;min-height:15px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;width:75px;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124ygrp-photo{ background-position:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:white;border:1px solid black;min-height:62px;width:62px;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124photo-title a, #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124photo-title a:active, #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124photo-title a:hover, #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124photo-title a:visited { text-decoration:none; } #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124attach-table div.yiv3430137124attach-row { clear:both;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124attach-table div.yiv3430137124attach-row div { float:left;} #yiv3430137124 p { clear:both;padding:15px 0 3px 0;overflow:hidden;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124ygrp-file { width:30px;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124attach-table div.yiv3430137124attach-row div div a { text-decoration:none;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124attach-table div.yiv3430137124attach-row div div span { font-weight:normal;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124ygrp-file-title { font-weight:bold;} #yiv3430137124 #yiv3430137124

I guess I just don’t understand the need for a level, and especially the need for a level each time you tear down/set up, when some very simple indices on the mount make life so simple. Placing a flat-bottomed level on a round counterweight shaft is not that accurate. One with a v-bottom or groove of some sort, mabye more so. I’m more intrigued by this need for an extreme level of accuracy setting up your park position with a level, when all that effort is seemingly nullified when you do your first goto and recal (of if you are imaging, your first plate solve/sync). If you do a goto and recal, then send the mount to your preferred park position, it should then be in the most accurate representation of that park position, regardless of how well you leveled the counterweight shaft when you set up your preferred park position. My understanding is that the only thing accomplished by a precise predetermination of your park position is the accuracy of the very first goto command. Do I have a misunderstanding of how the mount behaves. I’d like to be corrected if that is the case. I could have some previous mount logic creeping in.
Having some indices on your axis has the benefit of being able to unlock the clutches and then being able to relatively accurately (the width of a pencil mark) put the mount back in the park position without a trip to the toolbox.
Seriously, I have never once put a level on my Mach1 counterweight shaft. I did one platesolve/sync, sent the mount to park 3, put a piece of tape across the two axis with a pen mark, cut the tape with a razor, and moved on. At the end of my imaging sessions when I send the mount back to park 3 it lines the pen lines up every time. I either unpark from last position, or line up the marks and unpark from park 3. If I am missing something, someone please let me know. I’m always looking for ways to improve my setup.. If using the level is zen/ritualistic thing for some folks, thats ok by me. There is no judgement in this dojo! 

On Apr 21, 2019, at 13:16, 'Joseph Zeglinski' J.Zeglinski@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:

Mike,     Have a look at my DYI Bubble Level in this group’s FILES section – Because the bubble’s travel is a “foot long”, it is far more precise than my STARRETT.  The “pipette” is already marked out with fine millimetre divisions by design, since it is already precisely marked for measuring “millilitres” in the lab. That’s “lab accuracy” as good as for a machinist’s use.     It also cost me about $2 (for a used pipette – they are disposable, easier to find), compared to a Starrett costing over a hundred (?) dollars, and is far easier to read a large bubble on a long path. Because it has so much more fluid, the bubble starts to travel at just a hare’s breath of a tilt, compared to the smaller tube in a machinist’s level. Besides, the pipette is Plexiglas, or tempered glass, (lab use safety concern), so it won’t break when dropped or banged in travel,  as my old STARRETT glass tube did.     you can fill the pipette bubble level with turpentine, radiator cold weather antifreeze, or with (coloured) winter windshield wiper fluid, for outdoor cold temperature use. You can even add an LED lighting to the tube top or ends for easier night use.     See PDF article  and photos:   DIY BUBBLE LEVEL TOOL.pdf  ( ASTROJAZ - Jan 31, 2016) Joe Z.

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


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Cheng-Yang Tan
 

Hi Roland,
   I guess I'll try it out the next time when it is clear with my AP1100AE. It'll be interesting to see what happens because I usually set my corrections to 2 to 2.5 s.

cytan

On Monday, April 22, 2019, 2:24:29 PM CDT, chris1011@... [ap-gto] wrote:


 

All of our encoder mounts use the same fast forward loop control with the Renishaw Absolute encoders.

Roland Christen
Astro-Physics Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: bryancashion@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto
Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2019 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



Roland

Thanks for sharing your recent experience!

Is the rapid response of the Mach 2 encoders specific to those or would the AE on an 1100 produce similar rapid response?  I am considering adding AE to my 1100.

Thanks.

Bryan


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

--snip--

What was really interesting was that unguided RMS were always on the order of 0.2 to 0.3 arc sec - this being the fundamental seeing which produced this level of random star motions over a period of several seconds. Once the guider was turned on, the guide loop actually "chased the seeing" in a rapid enough way to reduce the star motion down to 0.1 RMS level. The reason this works is because the dual encoders on the Mach2 respond in a very rapid fashion to guider commands, almost like a simple adaptive optics system. I was limited to 1 sec guide exposures in MaximDL due to the nature of the program, but plan to try this with another guide program that can do much faster guide corrections. The encoders in the Mach2 can respond to any guide input in less than 20 milliseconds.

I uploaded some of the results here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/

Note the one guide graph (guided versus non-guided) that shows dramatically how well the dual encoders can tamp down the random seeing motions down to the 0.1 arc sec level. Guiding stops at the 480 second point and starts again at the 840 second point.

Rolando





Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Roland Christen
 

All of our encoder mounts use the same fast forward loop control with the Renishaw Absolute encoders.

Roland Christen
Astro-Physics Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: bryancashion@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto
Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2019 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



Roland

Thanks for sharing your recent experience!

Is the rapid response of the Mach 2 encoders specific to those or would the AE on an 1100 produce similar rapid response?  I am considering adding AE to my 1100.

Thanks.

Bryan


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

--snip--

What was really interesting was that unguided RMS were always on the order of 0.2 to 0.3 arc sec - this being the fundamental seeing which produced this level of random star motions over a period of several seconds. Once the guider was turned on, the guide loop actually "chased the seeing" in a rapid enough way to reduce the star motion down to 0.1 RMS level. The reason this works is because the dual encoders on the Mach2 respond in a very rapid fashion to guider commands, almost like a simple adaptive optics system. I was limited to 1 sec guide exposures in MaximDL due to the nature of the program, but plan to try this with another guide program that can do much faster guide corrections. The encoders in the Mach2 can respond to any guide input in less than 20 milliseconds.

I uploaded some of the results here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/

Note the one guide graph (guided versus non-guided) that shows dramatically how well the dual encoders can tamp down the random seeing motions down to the 0.1 arc sec level. Guiding stops at the 480 second point and starts again at the 840 second point.

Rolando





Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Worsel
 

Roland

Thanks for sharing your recent experience!

Is the rapid response of the Mach 2 encoders specific to those or would the AE on an 1100 produce similar rapid response?  I am considering adding AE to my 1100.

Thanks.

Bryan


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

--snip--

What was really interesting was that unguided RMS were always on the order of 0.2 to 0.3 arc sec - this being the fundamental seeing which produced this level of random star motions over a period of several seconds. Once the guider was turned on, the guide loop actually "chased the seeing" in a rapid enough way to reduce the star motion down to 0.1 RMS level. The reason this works is because the dual encoders on the Mach2 respond in a very rapid fashion to guider commands, almost like a simple adaptive optics system. I was limited to 1 sec guide exposures in MaximDL due to the nature of the program, but plan to try this with another guide program that can do much faster guide corrections. The encoders in the Mach2 can respond to any guide input in less than 20 milliseconds.

I uploaded some of the results here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/

Note the one guide graph (guided versus non-guided) that shows dramatically how well the dual encoders can tamp down the random seeing motions down to the 0.1 arc sec level. Guiding stops at the 480 second point and starts again at the 840 second point.

Rolando



Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Roland Christen
 

I'll answer this in 2 parts.

At 19" distance and 67 lb you would be just outside of our conservative rated capacity. That does not mean that the mount would suddenly stop working. It just means that a larger mount would be more appropriate and would give you more room for error. If this is a portable setup, you might be tempted to go with the lightest mount that would still work. For a permanent setup you might want to think about a beefier mount that has potential for more weight in the future.

As far as tracking/guiding to 0.3 arc sec RMS, that is going to depend on your local seeing. To give you a feel for how well the Mach2 can guide, on Saturday night I loaded our prototype Mach2 (the one we had at NEAF) with about 75lb of scopes and cameras and did extensive tracking/guiding tests over a period of about 6 hours. The seeing according to Clear Sky Clock was a 4 out of 5, not perfect but good. I did a short run of polar drift alignment that resulted in RA and Dec drift of about 1 arc sec per 15 minutes. In the guided tests using MaximDL, the guide results averaged just over 0.1 arc sec RMS for the entire test period, never exceeding 0.15 Arc sec RMS the entire time. I used guide exposures of 1 sec, 2 sec and 5 sec. All three produced similar results.

What was really interesting was that unguided RMS were always on the order of 0.2 to 0.3 arc sec - this being the fundamental seeing which produced this level of random star motions over a period of several seconds. Once the guider was turned on, the guide loop actually "chased the seeing" in a rapid enough way to reduce the star motion down to 0.1 RMS level. The reason this works is because the dual encoders on the Mach2 respond in a very rapid fashion to guider commands, almost like a simple adaptive optics system. I was limited to 1 sec guide exposures in MaximDL due to the nature of the program, but plan to try this with another guide program that can do much faster guide corrections. The encoders in the Mach2 can respond to any guide input in less than 20 milliseconds.

I uploaded some of the results here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/

Note the one guide graph (guided versus non-guided) that shows dramatically how well the dual encoders can tamp down the random seeing motions down to the 0.1 arc sec level. Guiding stops at the 480 second point and starts again at the 840 second point.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: kanel.nick@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto
Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2019 12:21 am
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



I already kinda asked George this question, but I don't know if I was specific enough. I just want to make sure what he said is still valid.

I'm interested in mounting a PlaneWave 14" CDK on a Mach2 (more detailed "proposed setup" info here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/657619-seeking-recommendations-advice-and-answers-regarding-future-permanent-setup/). My biggest concern is the capacity of the Mach2. It says 75lbs, however the 14" CDK is a pretty tall scope and would increase the setup's moment of inertia pretty substantially (at its highest point, it stands 19" tall off the mount saddle (see here: http://planewave.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/10/140101A-OVERALL-DIMENSIONS.pdf) and is almost ~4 feet long when you factor in the camera and backfocus. The total weight would probably be somewhere around 67lbs (plus or minus 2).

With my proposed camera, I'd need to guide at 0.3" RMS or better to get sub-pixel tracking/guiding. I'm having trouble figuring out if I can even guide since I'd have to somehow deal with flexure. If anyone has thoughts on that I'd be happy to hear them. But the main question is with this setup, can I reasonably expect to track at sub-0.3" RMS without guiding (as long as my PA is perfect) or guide at sub-0.3" RMS with guiding (if that's even possible)?

Thanks
Nick



New file uploaded to ap-gto

ap-gto@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ap-gto
group.

File : /Mach2 Guide results/2019-04-20_1742.jpg
Uploaded by : uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com>
Description : Guided versus unguided. Guiding stops at 480 sec mark and resumes at 840 sec mark. Shows how rapid guiding tames the seeing.

You can access this file at the URL:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/2019-04-20_1742.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_GRPS&locale=en_US&id=SLN15398

Regards,

uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com>


Re: ANYONE using GTO4 and INDI?

Michael Fulbright <mike.fulbright@...>
 

I've been imaging with my Mach1 and and INDI for a couple of years now - probably best to address on the INDI forums however or send me a private email.

Michael Fulbright

On 4/21/19 7:24 PM, ronkramer1957@... [ap-gto] wrote:
 

I've converted over to INDI and loving it except I'm having a strange situation when I try to calibrate the guider. It starts fine with tiny movements in the star... then after 8- clicks or so it will lose the star and the mount starts doing calibration jumps across the sky!  Another Mach1 user has the same thing. I'm wondering if any AP mount user has been using INDI and successfully guiding?  (which driver?) I'm using  AstroPhysics Experimental driver currently. 


When I try PHD2 on Linux it does the same thing.  If I use PHD2 on Windows it's fine. 




New file uploaded to ap-gto

ap-gto@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ap-gto
group.

File : /Mach2 Guide results/2019-04-20_1537_TrackingTestRun_Mach2.jpg
Uploaded by : uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com>
Description : Guide results at 3 second guide exposure

You can access this file at the URL:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/2019-04-20_1537_TrackingTestRun_Mach2.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_GRPS&locale=en_US&id=SLN15398

Regards,

uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com>


New file uploaded to ap-gto

ap-gto@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ap-gto
group.

File : /Mach2 Guide results/2019-04-20_1734.jpg
Uploaded by : uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com>
Description : RMS guide results at 1 sec guide exposure

You can access this file at the URL:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ap-gto/files/Mach2%20Guide%20results/2019-04-20_1734.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_GRPS&locale=en_US&id=SLN15398

Regards,

uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com>


Re: ... and daytime polar alignment

Roland Christen
 

I think your approach is fine for Park2 and Park3. Park1 and 4 is dependent on your latitude where you are setting up your mount, so that requires some sort of leveling device.
Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyrel Smith tysmith747@gmail.com [ap-gto] <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
To: ap-gto <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2019 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: ... and daytime polar alignment

#yiv3430137124 #yiv3430137124 -- #yiv3430137124 .yiv3430137124ygrp-photo-title{ clear:both;font-size:smaller;min-height:15px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;width:75px;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124ygrp-photo{ background-position:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:white;border:1px solid black;min-height:62px;width:62px;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124photo-title a, #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124photo-title a:active, #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124photo-title a:hover, #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124photo-title a:visited { text-decoration:none; } #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124attach-table div.yiv3430137124attach-row { clear:both;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124attach-table div.yiv3430137124attach-row div { float:left;} #yiv3430137124 p { clear:both;padding:15px 0 3px 0;overflow:hidden;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124ygrp-file { width:30px;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124attach-table div.yiv3430137124attach-row div div a { text-decoration:none;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124attach-table div.yiv3430137124attach-row div div span { font-weight:normal;} #yiv3430137124 div.yiv3430137124ygrp-file-title { font-weight:bold;} #yiv3430137124 #yiv3430137124

I guess I just don’t understand the need for a level, and especially the need for a level each time you tear down/set up, when some very simple indices on the mount make life so simple. Placing a flat-bottomed level on a round counterweight shaft is not that accurate. One with a v-bottom or groove of some sort, mabye more so. I’m more intrigued by this need for an extreme level of accuracy setting up your park position with a level, when all that effort is seemingly nullified when you do your first goto and recal (of if you are imaging, your first plate solve/sync). If you do a goto and recal, then send the mount to your preferred park position, it should then be in the most accurate representation of that park position, regardless of how well you leveled the counterweight shaft when you set up your preferred park position. My understanding is that the only thing accomplished by a precise predetermination of your park position is the accuracy of the very first goto command. Do I have a misunderstanding of how the mount behaves. I’d like to be corrected if that is the case. I could have some previous mount logic creeping in.
Having some indices on your axis has the benefit of being able to unlock the clutches and then being able to relatively accurately (the width of a pencil mark) put the mount back in the park position without a trip to the toolbox.
Seriously, I have never once put a level on my Mach1 counterweight shaft. I did one platesolve/sync, sent the mount to park 3, put a piece of tape across the two axis with a pen mark, cut the tape with a razor, and moved on. At the end of my imaging sessions when I send the mount back to park 3 it lines the pen lines up every time. I either unpark from last position, or line up the marks and unpark from park 3. If I am missing something, someone please let me know. I’m always looking for ways to improve my setup. If using the level is zen/ritualistic thing for some folks, thats ok by me. There is no judgement in this dojo! 



On Apr 21, 2019, at 13:16, 'Joseph Zeglinski' J.Zeglinski@rogers.com [ap-gto] <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Mike,     Have a look at my DYI Bubble Level in this group’s FILES section – Because the bubble’s travel is a “foot long”, it is far more precise than my STARRETT.  The “pipette” is already marked out with fine millimetre divisions by design, since it is already precisely marked for measuring “millilitres” in the lab. That’s “lab accuracy” as good as for a machinist’s use.     It also cost me about $2 (for a used pipette – they are disposable, easier to find), compared to a Starrett costing over a hundred (?) dollars, and is far easier to read a large bubble on a long path. Because it has so much more fluid, the bubble starts to travel at just a hare’s breath of a tilt, compared to the smaller tube in a machinist’s level. Besides, the pipette is Plexiglas, or tempered glass, (lab use safety concern), so it won’t break when dropped or banged in travel,  as my old STARRETT glass tube did.     you can fill the pipette bubble level with turpentine, radiator cold weather antifreeze, or with (coloured) winter windshield wiper fluid, for outdoor cold temperature use. You can even add an LED lighting to the tube top or ends for easier night use.     See PDF article  and photos:   DIY BUBBLE LEVEL TOOL.pdf  ( ASTROJAZ - Jan 31, 2016) Joe Z.






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


Re: ... and daytime polar alignment

Roland Christen
 


Instead of the level, why not just put marks on the RA and dec axis so you always know where an accurate park position is? Seems much more repeatable then eyeballing a level each time.
That works if you have a permanent setup.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: Tyrel Smith tysmith747@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto
Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2019 9:13 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: ... and daytime polar alignment



Just a thought. Instead of the level, why not just put marks on the RA and dec axis so you always know where an accurate park position is? Seems much more repeatable then eyeballing a level each time.

I did this once after a night of platesolving. Once you are well calibrated (platesolve and sync to remove zero position error) send the mount to your preferred park position.  Then just put some tape or some kind of mark across the axis that you can line up whenever you need to manually put the mount in park position. 

Maybe this doesn’t work for all mount, but I did this with my Mach1 just once. I’ve never needed to use a level. I’d like to know if I’m off-base with this, though. 

Ty Smith

On Apr 21, 2019, at 09:56, Mike Dodd mike@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:

 
On 4/21/2019 8:38 AM, y.groups@... [ap-gto] wrote:
> 5) Using a carpenter's level, use pier adjustments to level the
> counterweight shaft.
> 6) Using a carpenter's level, use the mount's altitude adjustment to
> level the OTA.

I'd like to propose an alternative to a carpenter's level.

My AP1200 is pier-mounted and drift-aligned, so I don't have the same
situation you do. But I loosen the clutches to re-balance the mount
after changing imaging equipment. I use a level on the CW shaft and the
OTA to return to the Park 1 position after balance is achieved. (Yes,
I'm still using Park 1, not 4, and yes, I know the issues with Park 1.)

Instead of a carpenter's level, I use a Starrett #98-6 precision
machinist's level
<https://www.amazon.com/Precision-Machinists-NIST-Traceable-Calibration-Certificate/dp/B07579PWPL>.

This level is super-accurate! One division on the glass vial is 86
arc-seconds. It's easy to read to within 1/4 of a division, or 21.5
arc-seconds. That's MUCH better than I can get on my carpenter's bubble
level, or even on my electronic level that displays only to 1/10 degree.

Here's what I do:

1. Use the keypad to park the mount in Park 1.

2. Set the machinist's level on the CW shaft and take a photo of the
bubble position.

3. Set the level on the OTA and take a photo of the bubble position.

NOTE: Steps 2 and 3 record the MOUNT'S Park 1 position. So, if my
original Park 1 position was a bit off, I can return to the MOUNT'S
position.

NOTE: The level has a V-groove on the bottom that makes it easy to
position it accurately on the CW shaft and the OTA.

4. Remove the level, loosen the clutches, and do whatever I need to do.

5. Move the mount back close to the Park 1 position.

6. Set the machinist's level on the CW shaft and adjust the RA until the
bubble is in exactly the same spot as in the step-2 photo, then tighten
the RA clutches.

7. Set the machinist's level on the OTA and adjust the Dec until the
bubble is in exactly the same spot as in the step-3 photo, then tighten
the Dec clutches.

8. Power-up the mount, and select "Resume Ref-Park 1" on the keypad.

As a testament to the level's accuracy, when I complete this procedure,
I can GOTO a target star, and it will be within the central 15% of my
camera's sensor.

The Starrett #98-6 isn't cheap. I bought mine specifically for leveling
the telescope, and have never regretted spending the money.

I also use it to level the AP1200's mounting plate on my concrete pier:
<http://astronomy.mdodd.com/observatory.html#PierBolts>

Just a suggestion for an alternative to a carpenter's level....

--
Mike

Mike Dodd
http://astronomy.mdodd.com
Louisa County, Virginia USA



Re: ... and daytime polar alignment

jimmyjujames
 


Made some calculations on how accurate is a line on cut tape on Dec head/RA axis?

If a 7 inch diameter Dec head then 1 arc-min is abut 0.001 inches.

My pen draws about 11 lines per 1/4 inch.  44 lines per inch.

0.022 inches per line width.

0.022/0.001 = 22 arc-min line width.

I suspect I can align the 2 lines closer than 1 line apart. 
Probable closer than 1/2 a line which would be less than 11 arc-min.

I think I will switch from my cheap bubble level to a line on cut tape for Park 3 setup.

These lines may not be as accurate on portable setups if the pier is not leveled the same.

I guess I should keep my bubble level.

As always I may be wrong again.
Jimmy


Re: APCC Modeling a pointing model

Konstantin von Poschinger
 

Hi Ray,

is groups3@... the right address. The one from Howard I have.

Konstantin


Konstantin v. Poschinger

Hammerichstr. 5
22605 Hamburg
040/8805747
0171 1983476

Am 21.04.2019 um 19:48 schrieb 'Ray Gralak (Groups)' groups3@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>:

Konstantin,

Okay, I'll be able to see the version in the logs I will need from you. Please use APCC's log zipper utility and include the APCC, APPM, and ASCOM driver logs.

This might be something specific to the 3600 mount so please email the logs to me and Howard. If they are too big (>6MB) you may need to email us a dropbox link.

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc 
Author of PEMPro V3:  https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 10:34 AM
> To: Dale Ghent daleg@... [ap-gto]
> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC Modeling a pointing model
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Ray,
> 
> I can not find a way to prove it cause the mount is not here in Hamburg. I can remember that I have changed it
> with my computer with a connection over ethernet. Marj send a mail with the announcement of the update and I
> can’t remember of another one.
> 
> Was it this zip file that was downloadable? VCP4-P01-11_WiFi_A402_secure
> 
> Konstantin
> 
> 
> Konstantin v. Poschinger
> 
> Hammerichstr. 5
> 22605 Hamburg
> 040/8805747
> 0171 1983476
> 
> 
> Am 21.04.2019 um 19:11 schrieb 'Ray Gralak (Groups)' groups3@... [ap-gto] > gto@...>:
> 
> 
> > GTOCP4 with the newest firmware.
> 
> Which version exactly? "Newest version" can mean different things to different people!
> 
> -Ray Gralak
> Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-
> physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc
> Author of PEMPro V3:  https://www.ccdware.com <https://www.ccdware..com/>
> Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 8:10 AM
> > To: ap-gto@...
> > Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC Modeling a pointing model
> >
> >
> >
> > GTOCP4 with the newest firmware.
> >
> >
> > Grüsse
> >
> > Konstantin v. Poschinger
> >
> >
> > Hammerichstr. 5
> > 22605 Hamburg
> > 040/8805747
> > 0171/1983476
> >
> > Am 21.04.2019 um 14:41 schrieb 'Ray Gralak (Groups)' groups3@... [ap-gto] > > gto@...>:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Konstantin,
> >
> > Which controller and version of firmware are you using?
> >
> > -Ray Gralak
> > Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-
> > physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc
> <http://physics..com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc>
> > Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com
> > Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2019 3:26 AM
> > > To: ap-gto@...
> > > Subject: [ap-gto] APCC Modeling a pointing model
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Ray,
> > >
> > > when I buid a pointing model, the mount do after a slew again a short slew. This, when I have points in
> > the
> > > counterwight up position, ended in a big reslew to the meridian and back to the point that should be
> > mesured.
> > > Sometimes the reslew happened more than one time.
> > > How can I prevent the big reslews?
> > > I use the latest APCC Pro 1.7.1.1 and AP-V2 5.20.09
> > >
> > > Grüsse
> > >
> > > Konstantin v. Poschinger
> > >
> > > Hammerichstr. 5
> > > 22605 Hamburg
> > > 040/8805747
> > > 0171/1983476
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Nick Kanel
 

I already kinda asked George this question, but I don't know if I was specific enough. I just want to make sure what he said is still valid.

I'm interested in mounting a PlaneWave 14" CDK on a Mach2 (more detailed "proposed setup" info here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/657619-seeking-recommendations-advice-and-answers-regarding-future-permanent-setup/). My biggest concern is the capacity of the Mach2. It says 75lbs, however the 14" CDK is a pretty tall scope and would increase the setup's moment of inertia pretty substantially (at its highest point, it stands 19" tall off the mount saddle (see here: http://planewave.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/10/140101A-OVERALL-DIMENSIONS.pdf) and is almost ~4 feet long when you factor in the camera and backfocus. The total weight would probably be somewhere around 67lbs (plus or minus 2).

With my proposed camera, I'd need to guide at 0.3" RMS or better to get sub-pixel tracking/guiding. I'm having trouble figuring out if I can even guide since I'd have to somehow deal with flexure. If anyone has thoughts on that I'd be happy to hear them. But the main question is with this setup, can I reasonably expect to track at sub-0.3" RMS without guiding (as long as my PA is perfect) or guide at sub-0.3" RMS with guiding (if that's even possible)?

Thanks
Nick


Re: ... and daytime polar alignment

W Hilmo
 

Since I started the thread, I wanted to jump in…



I am specifically polar aligning the mount during the day – without Polaris. My only celestial reference is the sun. That works fine as long as the mount itself is level. As far as any marks on the mount itself to find the parking positions, I don’t need that since I have the absolute encoders, which will position both axes correctly.



If you are curious how this works, check out the daytime polar alignment routine in the keypad manual. My original question is basically a reality check that I can abbreviate it a bit. I am pretty sure that it’s going to work fine, but I’m always interested in other ideas. My general goal is that I can have my automation set up before dusk on the first night of a star party and have the system imaging without my involvement after dark. I have already been doing this successfully for some time.



Oh, and as far as the accuracy of the level, I have a small carpenter’s level that appears to be well calibrated (it reads exactly the same in either direction). I also have a much more expensive digital level, but it gets no better results that my carpenter’s level.



Thanks,

-Wade



From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 3:20 PM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: ... and daytime polar alignment





Copy all, Mike. Thanks for the explanation.

Ty Smith


On Apr 21, 2019, at 17:29, Mike Dodd mike@mdodd.com <mailto:mike@mdodd.com> [ap-gto] <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:



On 4/21/2019 2:53 PM, Tyrel Smith tysmith747@gmail.com <mailto:tysmith747@gmail.com> [ap-gto] wrote:

I guess I just don’t understand the need for a level....
I use a level only to re-establish the Park 1 position after loosening
the clutches to balance the mount. Oh, and also for the initial setup on
a concrete pier in a new observatory.

Regarding the "need" for a high-precision level, for me, it was a matter
of personal preference. I like to be sure I start from a position that's
fairly accurate, and I didn't mind spending the money for a level that
helps me achieve this.

I certainly acknowledge that other methods and instruments can and do
work well, and I applaud those who get good results without
high-precision tools.

--- Mike





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


Re: RASA 11 on AP Mach 1 GTO

Woody Schlom <woody@...>
 

Ron,



If I were you I’d put that top dovetail rail back on the scope. It’s needed for rigidity. Celestron doesn’t put top dovetail rails on any of their scopes except for the RASA 11” and RASA 14”. And the reason they go to the added expense and weight on the two larger RASA scopes is to hold them in optical alignment.



I got this from a Celestron engineer the last time I was at Celestron World Headquarters in Torrance, CA. I was looking at a row of RASA 11” scopes awaiting final alignment and asked about the top dovetail rail. And he told me they needed it.



Woody



From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 4:36 PM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: RASA 11 on AP Mach 1 GTO





I'm using the RASA 11 on the Mach1. I removed the top dovetail from the scope as it adds a bit over 6 lbs. I still have a large dual ADM saddle bar with a 80mm guidescope on it with the RASA. I felt it may be maxing out the mount but works fine. I can't remember exactly, but I have two 21lb losmandy weights on the bar and a AP weight (I forget maybe it's a 9lb? and another losmandy about 7 lb. 58 lbs of weight? ish.
Here's a photo

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58419143_2636940136317752_7274808154196541440_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109 <https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58419143_2636940136317752_7274808154196541440_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_eui2=AeGAa5I08bKCHkmEi0WpuKNIHYvtlZpftJC6rXqq9iXk8HfEfXaJiJ-5-865iV7dQWJdozfYj2IH62-f-xaGfjsSiH6sLyg7ZLVI6OQ21Z8bFQ&_nc_oc=AQl3n2JxFOyqGlRyPwIJc71Q4IojNeFQBZIZY5W7bzHfh9mxv-Hg3flyi_L1xV3-cyQ&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=e27ba638b87f1f924b4f4f4c4048a6dc&oe=5D4228C2> &_nc_eui2=AeGAa5I08bKCHkmEi0WpuKNIHYvtlZpftJC6rXqq9iXk8HfEfXaJiJ-5-865iV7dQWJdozfYj2IH62-f-xaGfjsSiH6sLyg7ZLVI6OQ21Z8bFQ&_nc_oc=AQl3n2JxFOyqGlRyPwIJc71Q4IojNeFQBZIZY5W7bzHfh9mxv-Hg3flyi_L1xV3-cyQ&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=e27ba638b87f1f924b4f4f4c4048a6dc&oe=5D4228C2



On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:24 PM diego_gomezp@yahoo.com <mailto:diego_gomezp@yahoo.com> [ap-gto] <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:



Hi Rolando/Tom,



Thanks for your comments! At the end it seems that it wouldn't be a good idea to pair the RASA11 with the AP Mach1.



I will continue exploring options!



Regards,

Diego


Re: RASA 11 on AP Mach 1 GTO

Ron Kramer
 

I'm using the RASA 11 on the Mach1.  I removed the top dovetail from the scope as it adds a bit over 6 lbs.  I still have a large dual ADM saddle bar with a 80mm guidescope on it with the RASA. I felt it may be maxing out the mount but works fine.  I can't remember exactly, but I have two 21lb losmandy weights on the bar and a AP weight (I forget maybe it's a 9lb? and another losmandy about 7 lb.   58 lbs of weight? ish.
Here's a photo

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58419143_2636940136317752_7274808154196541440_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_eui2=AeGAa5I08bKCHkmEi0WpuKNIHYvtlZpftJC6rXqq9iXk8HfEfXaJiJ-5-865iV7dQWJdozfYj2IH62-f-xaGfjsSiH6sLyg7ZLVI6OQ21Z8bFQ&_nc_oc=AQl3n2JxFOyqGlRyPwIJc71Q4IojNeFQBZIZY5W7bzHfh9mxv-Hg3flyi_L1xV3-cyQ&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=e27ba638b87f1f924b4f4f4c4048a6dc&oe=5D4228C2

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:24 PM diego_gomezp@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:
 

Hi Rolando/Tom,


Thanks for your comments! At the end it seems that it wouldn't be a good idea to pair the RASA11 with the AP Mach1.

I will continue exploring options!

Regards,
Diego

17301 - 17320 of 82253